Minister of Community Development, as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the Report of the Technical Committee of Inquiry into the Group Areas Act, 1966, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, 1953, and Related Legislation, as follows:

In view of the above-mentioned considerations your Committee begs to report a Bill, entitled the Group Areas Amendment Bill [B 113—84 (Select Committee)].

S F Kotzé, Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

18 June 1984.

Report and proceedings to be printed.

Group Areas Amendment Bill [B 113—84 (Select Committee)] read a First Time.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Pension Benefits, as follows:

1. (a) the manner in which satisfactory pension benefits could be provided for or assistance could be given to that section of the public which has no or insufficient pension cover
2. (b) the compulsory preservation of pension rights by means of transferability or otherwise;
3. (c) the commutation of a part of lumpsum benefits into annuities,

and matters relating thereto.

Owing to the advanced stage of the session, however, your Committee finds that it will be unable to complete its inquiry before the prorogation of Parliament.

In the circumstances it requests the House to order its discharge from further service this session and recommends that a Select Committee be appointed at an early stage next session to resume and complete this inquiry.

C H W Simkin, Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

19 June 1984.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to this clause printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Sir, I feel that legislation should only contain what is essential. Unnecessary matters should not be laid down in legislation because this then binds the various bodies involved. Subsection (2) reads as follows:

This is the Committee of University Rectors—

The committee does not have the power to interfere in any way in the specific activities of the university. Its function is to advise the Minister. I also want to mention that this provision is absent as far as the Committee of University Principals is concerned. The 1955 legislation does not contain a similar provision. The provision is not relevant, it has no function, it merely creates the impression that this committee may have the power to interfere in some way or other, whereas it does not. It therefore seems to me to be quite illogical and unnecessary to retain this provision in the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I have had the opportunity to consider the amendment and it is acceptable to me.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to this clause printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

This amendment deals with the other persons whom the Minister may appoint to the council. In terms of paragraph (c) these persons are:

When we consider the composition of the council we find that it consists of a chairman and nine members who are appointed by the Minister. It is also provided how those nine persons shall be appointed, and then follows the general provision in connection with “such other persons”. In my opinion this gives the Minister a very wide power and discretion which is unlimited with regard to both the number of persons and the kind of persons who may be appointed. It actually makes the remaining provisions in the clause meaningless. I would prefer it if we deleted this subsection in order to impose a restriction on the discretion of the Minister. The Minister is already appointing nine persons and we suggest that there should at least be some restriction as regards the number of other persons who may be appointed by the Minister.

Mr Chairman, we have exactly the same question to put to the hon the Minister. We should like to know why he finds it necessary in the relevant clause to include the additional powers to appoint such other people as he may deem fit. I just want to point out that in terms of clause 4(2)(b)(ii) six of those persons shall be persons with special knowledge. In principle we can understand that it may be necessary to go beyond a certain number of persons, depending on the particular circumstances, on an ad hoc basis. However, paragraph (c) empowers the Minister on an almost permanent basis to enlarge the size of the committee. We have a certain amount of sympathy in respect of the need on the part of the Minister to appoint other specialists to this committee on an ad hoc basis depending on the subject matter that is being discussed at the time. For instance, we are aware that on this committee there will be discussions dealing with technological developments, and that greater emphasis will be placed on finances. It may therefore be necessary to bring specialists onto the committee from time to time in order to facilitate its deliberations. I would therefore like to hear from the hon the Minister his motivation for having these powers before we take a stand on this clause.

I also want to say that we have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon member prof Olivier but that our attitude in this regard too will depend upon what the hon the Minister has to tell us.

Mr Chairman, what the motivation for this authorization amounts to basically is that we are dealing here with a diversity of population groups who have to be served. In other words, there are various interests from a population group point of view that have to be served. There are also various interests from a geographical point of view and then there are also the interests, as the hon member for Durban North rightly pointed out, of specific specialists for whom provision is being made earlier in the clause.

When considering this matter I was quite prepared to support the basic idea of a restriction. Because the advisory council falling under the hon the Minister of National Education is restricted to a maximum of 12 members, I think that we could also introduce a measure of restriction. I therefore suggest that we do not delete this subsection but that we make provision for the appointment of three additional members which will bring the number of members up to a maximum of 12. I therefore move the following amendment:

This makes the number the same as in the case of the other advisory council and it also gives a measure of flexibility which makes provision for geographical, population and other possible interests which, depending on the number of persons who may be appointed in terms of the other provisions of the clause, might not be satisfied.

Mr Chairman, in view of the amendment moved by the hon the Minister, his motivation for it and particularly the principle of bringing it into line with other bodies, I should like with leave of the Committee, to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

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

1. 1. In the Afrikaans text, on page 6, in line 37, to omit all the words after the first “en” to before “uitgawes” in line 38 and to substitute:
   • technikons ten opsigte van kapitaalen wederkerende
2. 2. On page 7, after line 57, to insert:
   • (4) The Council may also, if it is requested by the Minister concerned and if it deems it necessary or expedient, advise the Minister of National Education or every Minister of a State Department responsible for education on any matter relating to tertiary education.

The first amendment is of a purely technical nature and brings the Afrikaans version into line with the English text. There is therefore no problem with it. What my second amendment is proposing is that there will be reciprocity. Provision is being made for the Advisory Council for Universities and Technikons, which was established by the other legislation, to be able to advise the Minister of Education and Training, and it is only right for this advisory council to be able to advise the Minister of National Education where necessary.

There is also something I should like to ask the hon the Minister. I note that in the definition of the functions of the advisory council in this clause, paragraph (g) of the functions of the Advisory Council for Universities and Technikons has been omitted. Paragraph (g) of the functions of the Advisory Council for Universities and Technikons reads:

I do not want to move an amendment here, on the ground that Black affairs are actually general affairs and to a great extent the Minister of National Education is in fact the Minister who will deal with general policy affairs with regard to universities and technikons. I should, however, like to know from the hon the Minister what his reason is for omitting this paragraph in this case.

Mr Chairman, the first amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier is acceptable to me. It is merely to rectify a printing error in the text. As far as his second amendment is concerned, namely the insertion of subsection (4), I want to acknowledge that he is right with regard to the intention. If we are going to allow this advisory committee as well to give advice in this two fold way, it may, on the one hand, create administrative confusion.

This advisory council, which has a very specific objective, namely to give advice specifically on tertiary education for Black people, may in carrying out its instructions notice that an action or a planned action of the other advisory council, or the advice it gave with a view to a specific action, could have an adverse effect on its own activities. For that reason they must have the freedom to act in an anticipatory way in consequence of what they observe. For that reason I think that in view of what I have just said, we must firstly make provision for the principle of reciprocity and, in the second place, we must arrange this administratively in a way which makes sense so that channels of communication do not become entangled. With a view to this, I have formulated a substitute for subsection (4), which I shall move as an amendment to be agreed to instead of the second amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier. I therefore move as an amendment:

What this amendment therefore amounts to is that if this council wishes to have specific advice submitted to another Minister entrusted with education affairs, because it intends to try to exert a specific influence or to safeguard itself in the light of its own assigned task, it is free to do so and will then adopt the procedure of formulating its advice and submitting it to its Minister, and the Minister of Education and Training will then channel that advice to the relevant Minister for whom the council intends it. This is the idea behind the subsection I have now reformulated on this basis in consequence of the ideas of the hon member Prof Olivier.

Mr Chairman, the amendment of the hon the Minister is quite acceptable to me because it contains the essence of the idea underlying my amendment. With the leave of the Committee, I shall therefore withdraw my second amendment in favour of the amendment of the hon the Minister.

The hon the Minister has, however, not yet replied to my question with regard to the omission of paragraph (g). This is not a fun damental problem, but I would nevertheless be glad if I could have his comments on this.

Mr Chairman, I shall provide the hon member with my comments on this later.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 3 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 11:

Mr Chairman, I have a problem in connection with the terms used here, but I know this is something we cannot really do much about.

The Afrikaans expression “dosent” is a general expression and is used to include all categories of the members of the lecturing staff at a university; in other words, professors, senior lecturers, lecturers and so on. As far as the English translation of “dosent” in this clause is concerned, the word “lecturer” is used. In English we really have a problem to find the correct translation for the word “dosent”, which is a general expression. Later on in the Bill, as the hon the Minister knows, the expression “teacher” is used as the equivalent of the word “dosent”, and it again refers to universities. What this therefore amounts to is that in English we have two expressions being used to translate the Afrikaans expression “dosent”. These two expressions are “lecturer” and “teacher”, and I object to both to a certain extent. The word “lecturer”, particularly when one thinks of the Afrikaans word “lektor”, indicates a specific status in the hierarchy of university lecturers, for example a lecturer compared with a senior lecturer, a professor, etc. The word “teacher” refers more specifically to a teacher at a school, and not to lecturers at a university. I do not have a solution to the problem, but I would like to point out that this creates confusion. I am not moving an amendment in this regard and merely want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to this dual translation, as it were, of the term “dosent” in the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for his comments. We have a translation problem here, but I think that here we have one of the few cases where a young language has a term which a classical language like English does not. I have taken cognizance of this, however, and if it is possible to bring about a greater degree of uniformity as far as terminology is concerned, the department will definitely do so.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

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

1. 1. On page 11, in line 59, after “council” to insert:
   in consultation with the senate
2. 2. On page 13, in line 20, after “council” to insert:
   in consultation with the senate

What we are dealing with here are the appointments which the council of a university may make, and this applies to all four universities. I want to motivate my standpoint on the basis of this clause so that I need not waste the time of the Committee when we come to the other universities where the same provision applies. We are dealing here with the right of the council to appoint people to the senate of a university. My standpoint is that when it comes to the composition of the senate it should not be possible for the council of a university to alter or do anything to affect the composition of the senate in a fundamental way without the senate being consulted in this regard. It creates the possibility of unnecessary friction between the council of the university and the senate. We know that for any university to function successfully there ought to be proper understanding and a good relationship between the counsil and the senate of the university. The possibility of friction should be kept as small as possible.

Mr Chairman, I have always understood that the senate of a university primarilly concerns itself with policy matters rather than with details of administration. Although I understand what the hon member Prof Olivier wishes to achieve with his amendments, and with a number of subsequent amendments, by linking the decision with consultation with the senate, I wonder whether this would in fact be wise in principle. As far as I am aware, a senate is always primarily concerned with matters of principle rather than detail administration and in this particular case and in subsequent cases I believe that the functions identified in these clauses relate primarily to administration and not to policy as such. I would appreciate hearing the hon the Minister’s view on this.

Mr Chairman, on considering these amendments of the hon member Prof Olivier, I just want to say that the question of consultation between the council and the senate is of course an acceptable idea. The only problem I have is with the way in which the hon member has formulated his amendments. He used the words “in consultation” and this could be interpreted to mean that it is compulsory that absolute consensus should be achieved between the two bodies. This will be difficult to accept because it will be difficult to implement. However, the principle which he wishes to bring home is acceptable, but on condition that the words “after consultation” be used. The responsibility will then remain with the council, but pressure will in fact be placed on the council to consult with the senate on matters which could be sensitive and which could cause a measure of friction between the two bodies. I am therefore prepared to accept the amendments, provided they are altered accordingly. I therefore move the following amendments:

1. 3. On page 11, in line 59, after “council” to insert:
   after consultation with the senate
2. 4. On page 13, in line 20, after “council” to insert:
   after consultation with the senate

Mr Chairman, essentially the hon the Minister’s amendments interpret what I wanted to achieve with mine, namely that there will be liaison between the council and the senate. “After consultation with the senate” complies with the requirements which I stated, and consequently, with leave of the Committee, I withdraw my amendments.

Amendments 1 and 2, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendments 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25:

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

1. (2) The council shall once in every year and at the time and in the manner prescribed by the Minister by regulation, transmit to the Minister, in respect of the preceding year, a report of its proceedings and of the management of the university, together with a duly audited statement of revenue and expenditure and a balance sheet, and shall further furnish the Minister with any additional information required by him in regard to the administration and finances of the university.
2. (3) Such report, statement and balance sheet shall be laid by the Minister upon the Table in Parliament within 14 days after receipt if Parliament is then in ordinary session or, if Parliament is not then in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.

All we are dealing with here is the question of the auditing of its books by the university and the submission of its reports to the Minister. In view of the autonomous status of the four institutions involved here, I just want to bring that autonomous status into line with that of other universities in accordance with the Universities Act of 1955. In my amendment I have simply repeated verbatim what is stated in section 26 of the 1955 Act in connection with the auditing of the books of the universities, their submission to the Minister and then, too, the Minister’s duty to report on them to Parliament. I do not think I need elaborate on this any further. It is a good provision and I think that it would simply be a good thing, in view of the greater autonomy the universities in question are receiving, if they were in this sphere as well, placed on a par with the other universities in our country.

Mr Chairman, once again the amendments as moved by the hon member are an improvement of the Bill. Upon considering the matter, however, I saw a need to bring about a marriage between the clause as printed, with provisions as to who is to do the auditing properly, and the proposal of the hon member. In addition a minor textual change has to be effected because, owing to statutory provisions, this department cannot do such things by way of regulation. It will then rest with the Minister. What it amounts to, therefore, is that in principle I accept the hon member’s amendment, but reformulate subsection (2). The hon member’s proposed subsection (3) is acceptable. I therefore move the following amendment:

1. (2) The council shall once every year and at the time and in the manner determined by the Minister, transmit to the Minister, in respect of the preceding year, a report of its proceedings and of the management of the university, together with a statement of revenue and expenditure and a balance sheet, duly audited by a person registered as a public accountant and auditor under the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act, 1951 (Act No 51 of 1951), and appointed by the council, and shall further furnish the Minister with any additional information required by him in regard to the administration and finances of the university.
2. (3) Such report, statement and balance sheet shall be laid by the Minister upon the Table in Parliament within 14 days after receipt if Parliament is then in ordinary session or, if Parliament is not then in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.

Mr Chairman, the amendment of the hon the Minister and the reasons which he advanced for it, interpret the spirit of my own amendment and with leave of the Committee I withdraw the first part of my amendment in favour of that of the hon the Minister. The new subsection (3) of my amendment remains as it is, and that is also acceptable to the hon the Minister.

Amendment 1, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30:

Mr Chairman, I have a problem with this clause. Perhaps the hon the Minister could help me.

In this clause provision is made in respect of the University of the North for one person to be nominated by each of the governments of self-governing territories as well as by the state the territory of which formerly formed part of the Republic. This provision replaces the present provision which provides that five persons shall serve on the council of whom the Governments of Bophuthatswana, Gazankulu, Lebowa, Venda and QwaQwa may each appoint one. Bophuthatswana and Venda have in the meantime become independent and the amendment which is now being effected is in fact an improvement on the original. I also think it is a good thing that liaison will now take place between the bodies created by this legislation, particularly as regards the University of the North, and the University of Bophuthatswana, since the University of the North is also geared to the university needs of Tswana-speaking people. Consequently I have no objection in principle to provision being made for this. However, it would seem to me that it could cast a reflection on the independent States of that territory if it were provided that a Minister of the RSA had the right to appoint such a person to such a state without consultation with the government of the independent state. I would be pleased if the hon the Minister could explain this matter.

Mr Chairman, the hon member was courteous enough to warn me that he was going to refer to this matter. I obtained legal advice on this matter, and the law advisers are of the opinion that it is not necessary to make specific provision by law that there shall be consultation, and that in any case this cannot be implemented without proper consultation through the interstate channels already created for this purpose. I can therefore give the hon member the assurance that this will be dealt with on a basis which will not detract from the independence of the states concerned.

Mr Chairman, since certain words were erroneously omitted from the Bill, I move the amendment to this clause as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31:

Mr Chairman, with reference to the discussion we had a moment ago, I shall change my amendments so that the words “in consultation with the senate” read “after consultation with the senate”. I therefore move the amendments, as follows:

1. 1. On page 19, in line 48, after “council” to insert:
   after consultation with the senate
2. 2. On page 21, in line 6, after “council” to insert:
   after consultation with the senate

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40:

Mr Chairman, as I have previously indicated this clause, and two other clauses as well, deals with the auditing of the statements of the university. With leave of the Committee I should like to change my amendment so that it corresponds to the amendment to clause 25 previously moved by the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister and I are ad idem on this matter. I therefore move as an amendment:

1. (2) The council shall once every year and at the time and in the manner determined by the Minister, transmit to the Minister, in respect of the preceding year, a report of its proceedings and of the management of the university, together with a statement of revenue and expenditure and a balance sheet, duly audited by a person registered as a public accountant and auditor under the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act, 1951 (Act No 51 of 1951), and appointed by the council, and shall further furnish the Minister with any additional information required by him in regard to the administration and finances of the university.
2. (3) Such report, statement and balance sheet shall be laid by the Minister upon the Table in Parliament within 14 days after receipt if Parliament is then in ordinary session or, if Parliament is not then in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44:

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

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 45:

Mr Chairman, the subject in this case too is co-operation between the council and the senate. I changed my amendments to this clause to correspond to the amendments which the hon the Minister moved to other clauses. I therefore move as amendments:

1. 1. On page 27, in line 24, after “council” to insert:
   after consultation with the senate
2. 2. On page 27, in line 46, after “council” to insert:
   after consultation with the senate

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54:

Mr Chairman, what is involved here is actually the same matter as that in clauses 25 and 40, namely the question of auditing. Once again I have changed my amendment to this clause on the recommendation of the hon the Minister. I therefore move as an amendment:

1. (2) The council shall once every year and at the time and in the manner determined by the Minister, transmit to the Minister, in respect of the preceding year, a report of its proceedings and of the management of the university, together with a statement of revenue and expenditure and a balance sheet, duly audited by a person registered as a public accountant and auditor under the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act, 1951 (Act No 51 of 1951), and appointed by the council, and shall further furnish the Minister with any additional information required by him in regard to the administration and finances of the university.
2. (3) Such report, statement and balance sheet shall be laid by the Minister upon the Table in Parliament within 14 days after recepit if Parliament is then in ordinary session or, if Parliament is not then in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 58:

Mr Chairman, here we once again have a similar case and I consequently move my amendment, as altered on the recommendation of the hon the Minister, as follows:

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 64:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as I have altered it on the recommendation of the hon the Minister, as follows:

1. (2) The council shall once every year and at the time and in the manner determined by the Minister, transmit to the Minister, in respect of the preceding year, a report of its proceedings and of the management of the university, together with a statement of revenue and expenditure and a balance sheet, duly audited by a person registered as a public accountant and auditor under the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act, 1951 (Act No 51 of 1951), and appointed by the council, and shall further furnish the Minister with any additional information required by him in regard to the administration and finances of the university.
2. (3) Such report, statement and balance sheet shall be laid by the Minister upon the Table in Parliament within 14 days after receipt if Parliament is then in ordinary session or, if Parliament is not then in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.

The amendment is concerned with the auditing of the books, and so on, and is the same as the amendments that were agreed to in respect of clauses 25, 49 and 54.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 56:

Mr Speaker, we have now come to the end of the discussion of this Bill, and I want to say at once that, as we also said during the Second Reading, we welcome this legislation and therefore support it. There are really positive elements in this Bill, inter alia the autonomy which is being granted to the universities and the establishment of the two bodies, including the Council for University and Technikon Affairs (Education and Training). I repeat that as far as both these aspects are concerned, the Bill represents a major advance.

I should like to react to some of the statements made during the debate. In the first place I want to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister and his department for the positive reaction to the amendments which we moved. I sincerely appreciate this, because it was indeed an attempt on our part to improve the Bill.

The hon the Minister, and certain other hon members as well, took it amiss of me because I spoke about a “stigma” yesterday. I want to say at once that I was not in that way referring to the quality of the institutions or the work being done there. I used the word in connection with the existence of separate bodies. It was in that connection that I used the word because, as a result of that, a certain stigma attaches to the universities. There is probably no need for me to refer the hon the Minister to the “separate but equal” dogma which dominated the education scene in the USA for many years, or to the Supreme Court judgment in 1954 that “separate can never be equal”. Consequently, when there is forced separation, it is never considered by the people concerned to be equal or of equal value. I think we shall have to take into account that this is also the reaction of our own people in South Africa. Compulsory separation, even if we were to make or to try to make it equal as far as physical facilities are concerned, entails an element of compulsion. That is what I had in mind here.

The hon the Minister referred to Medunsa and asked what would have happened if we had thrown open the doors of Medunsa, and so on. I have already explained that I did not use the expression with reference to Medunsa, or any other institution for that matter. I do wish to point out to the hon the Minister that since we have now granted autonomy to Medunsa it will be within the power of the council to decide whom it is going to admit as students. That is no longer within the power of the Minister himself. This brings me back to the point I frequently touched upon that people in general enroll at institutions where they feel at home. If we grant a council autonomy as regards the admission of students and the appointment of teaching staff, that council will not go out of its way to harm the essential character of the institution. Therefore I am not afraid that by granting autonomy to the council of Medunsa we run the risk that the essential character of that university will be changed.

The problem which the hon the Minister put forward here is a problem which he and the hon the Minister of National Education, as well as the Government, should certainly give serious consideration to, which I assume is in fact the case. The hon the Minister told us that if the doors of Medunsa were to be thrown open there would be an influx of people other than Blacks to that institution. I think I understood him correctly in this connection. This means that on the national level a serious problem has immediately been exposed; in other words, that our medical training facilities are obviously not adequate to meet the needs of the population of our country. [Interjections.] Yes, that does appear to be the case. I therefore assume—and I hope the hon the Minister will react to this in his reply—that certain steps are being taken. I know that a medical university is going to be established in Port Elizabeth, but I should also like to know what further solutions are being contemplated for the problem which the hon the Minister himself emphasized here.

I also want to say that as regards the question of a stigma, I am pleased that by granting these universities autonomy, any question of subordination or subservience in this respect will finally be eliminated. I do not think there is anything else which could do this as effectively as granting autonomy to these institutions. However, let us be honest and say that as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the hon the Minister and also to a large extent beyond the control of the universities, the way in which the universities came into existence and the way in which they were initially administered unfortunately left behind an element of subordination or stigma. I am pleased to be able to say that with the granting of autonomy any such stigma or element of subordination will be eliminated.

Allow me to react briefly to the amendment which the hon member for Durban North moved to the motion for the Second Reading. I made it very clear in my speech that as far as we were concerned, we would prefer single umbrella bodies. I made it very clear. In that sense, therefore, as far as the principle of the matter is concerned, I have no fault to find with the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban North. However, I also made it very clear that if it was within our power to move amendments within the framework of this Bill which would make it possible to achieve that objective of ours, we would do so. This legislation, however, is not the legislation under which we would come forward with such motions. If it had been a Bill of the hon the Minister of National Education it would have been a different matter because then we would have had the opportunity of coming forward with proposals in connection with such a single umbrella body. In view of this, we therefore decided that in spite of our basic premises, we found no reason to oppose this Bill, and that is why we have definitely supported this legislation.

What I did find strange about the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban North was that when we discussed some of the clauses of the Bill in regard to which he could in fact have objected to the establishment of the Council for University Rectors and the Advisory Council for University and Technikon Training, he did not do so. He could on those occasions have consistently maintained his objection. He could also have voted against it. What I find strange, however, is that when we discussed the Bill last year in which provision was made for the Advisory Council for University and Technikons and in respect of which the hon member for Bryanston moved that we were unable to accept that Bill because it made provision for separation and did not establish a single umbrella body, who opposed us? It was the hon member for Durban North. He rejected our premises, and sometimes did so in quite an unreasonable and unflattering way. If I may refresh the hon member’s memory, I want to refer him to what he said at the time. He said inter alia.

At the time he used the word “consensus”. He used the need for consensus, the fact that there must be consensus, to oppose the motion introduced by the hon member for Bryanston. He went on to say that the PFP was allegedly being unrealistic, that it did not believe in consensus and that it did not wish to co-operate with a view to consensus. In other words he supported a segregated body last year and when we voted on the matter he voted with the Government. I am not going to waste the time of this House by quoting any further extracts from the speech made by the hon member. This is what happens, however, when one is dealing with a party which has no basic premises. He came forward with what I can only describe as a political ploy, an attempt to catch people napping, instead of adopting a consistent political standpoint.

If the hon member for Durban North tells me, however, that he has changed his standpoint in the meantime, and that if we had to have last year’s Bill before us again, he would be prepared to support us, I will still be able to understand, but I honestly cannot co-operate with a party which is so unpredictable that it adheres to a specific idea the one moment and rejects it completely the next.

In view of the great improvements contained in this Bill, we should like to support it.

Mr Speaker, this Bill now before the House is one of those situations where every dark cloud has a silver lining. As I said in my Second Reading speech—and I should like the hon member Prof Olivier to listen very carefully—our objection was not to the establishment as such of the two committees provided for in this Bill, but the absence of a formal structure in the form of an umbrella body which would have representation on it from all universities in the one case and all universities and technikons in the second case. That was our objection. I said very clearly that there were benefits to be found in this Bill. For instance we welcome the aspect of the devolution of power, the emancipation of the Black university and the fact that they will now be making decisions that were previously made by the Minister or with the concurrence of the Minister. In that respect we welcome it.

I think the hon member Prof Olivier has missed the point of our argument in terms of the Bill that we had last year. So I should like to say to the hon member that that is the reason why we oppose this Bill. The reason why we supported the Bill of last year, the other Bill to which the hon member referred, was for a specific construct within technikons which we have and which we believe facilitated liaison between universities and technikons. That is what the issue was. I think the hon member Prof Olivier should be aware of that.

What we welcome here is the fact that the official Opposition has changed its attitude to Bills in this House, and in that sense we welcome it. We welcome it that for one of the few times, possibly even the first time, they have actually supported a measure here which was against their fundamental principles. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon member himself said that their preference would have been to have had a single body. Is that not a fundamental principle? Is it a negotiable principle, a principle which they are prepared to adapt or to change? [Interjections.] I think the hon members must listen very carefully. They said in the words of the hon member prof Olivier that they would have preferred a different policy in terms of the Bill, but for technical reasons they found that they were unable to move an amendment and then they decided to accept the principle. In other words, they were prepared to substitute in principle contained in this Bill for their basic policy.

I am not fighting with them; in fact, I am welcoming that because that is what consensus politics is all about. We said on many occasions that the difference among political parties in this House is that one has fundamentalists and realists, and I detect in the ranks of the official Opposition a change from being fundamentalists to becoming realists. That facilitates consensus politics, and we welcoir: it. We are not running the official Opposition down for that. My only concern is that what we may be seeing here are in fact wolves in sheeps’ clothing. We shall see how consistent they are in promoting consensus politics.

It is quite right when you are referring to Mr J.

Well, that is something of another colour, and each case will have to be treated on its own.

As far as the Bill is concerned, despite the fact that we opposed it in the Second Reading in order to make a principle stand on the fact that we believe that there should be an umbrella body on which all universities would be represented, we recognize that there are positive aspects of the Bill, and to that extent we welcome the contents thereof. I believe that the fact that we have amended the Bill contributes to its considerable improvement. Here I refer to the amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier so that these universities will now also be required to lay upon the Table of the House reports on an annual basis indicating to us what progress they have made, what difficulties they have had and how they are administering the universities.

In the final analysis this represents an evolutionary step forward in the emancipation of these universities towards total university autonomy. The barriers which we have to total university autonomy are also present in the White universities, and we hope that as the new dispensation develops and people learn to trust one another and we re-establish mutual confidence, we shall find that even those barriers to academic freedom will eventually fall by the wayside.

The Bill contains positive aspects and we welcome it. In the sense that it does not make provision for an umbrella body, we still have reservations about it. Overall, however, I believe it will be an improvement for these universities.

Mr Speaker, I am very grateful that we have been able to effect considerable improvements to this Bill during the course of the debates. I want to thank hon members of the Opposition in general and the hon member Prof Olivier in particular for his contribution to improving the Bill.

As regards our approach to having separate universities for the separate population groups, I should like to point out to the hon member Prof Olivier that, if I understood his observations correctly, the council of Medunsa, for example will not after this amendment have absolute freedom to admit students because we have in fact not amended the requirements for admission as such by means of this Bill. The requirements for admission remain unchanged and provide that the university may serve any person who is a Black as defined in section 1 of the Population Registration Act, 1950. I do want to say, however, that other people may in fact be admitted, but, as before, with the consent of the Minister.

I should like to emphasize that when one looks at the figures pertaining to the students at Medunsa, one discerns certain important tendencies, apart from our own considerations on this side of the House pertaining to our continuing to regard tertiary education as well as a culturally orientated activity. Apart from those considerations, the mere figures that I could quote in regard to Medunsa, which is the principal example of our policy, are indicative that there is something to be said in favour of a separate university for Black people as far as a specific matter such as medical training is concerned.

It is important to bear in mind that certain White universities have over the years been accessible to Black students who wanted to undergo medical and paramedical training. It is not a question of these institutions not having been accessible to them. It is clearly apparent from the figures that the fact that we established Medunsa as a university specifically serving the Black communities has boosted the number of Black students in specific fields of study in the medical and paramedical professions. The students numbers in respect of certain fields of study during 1983 were as follows: Occupational therapy 33, dieticians 17, physiotherapy 28, medical sciences (post-graduate) 28 and medical students 553. At present we are struggling to get the academic hospital going properly as a result of a lack of funds. As I said earlier this year, however, during the discussions of my Vote, a figure in the region of R4,6 million has already been appropriated to get this project going. Once we have this hospital functioning, we shall increase the number of students per year of study from 120 to 200, which is of course the quota we are supposed to have and for which provision has already been made in the university category. We will then be able to add further momentum to the boost it has received. Other student numbers were as follows: Medical laboratory students 36; nursing, 61; radiography, 29 and optometry, 26. Then, too, there are students who are taking various diploma courses. In 1983 there were 133 students who were taking various medical diploma courses, those in dentistry, 47; dentistry diplomas, 18 and veterinary, 13. The only point I want to make is that apart from the, can I say, ideological, spiritual or whatever considerations you may want to call them, in other words the non-material considerations which we on this side of the House continue to adhere to in respect of universities which must be ethnically and culturally orientated, these figures are a clear demonstration that with that policy we have definitely given greater momentum to the training of the Black students in the fields in which such a tremendous need exists.

The hon member Prof Olivier made the point that if what I had said during the Second Reading debate had been true, namely that if we were to throw Medunsa open it would be inundated with students from other population groups because there was a serious shortage of such facilities elsewhere in South Africa and that this would have to be looked into, I do not want to deny that additional provision must be made for that need somewhere. However, I am not informed enough to give an expert opinion on this. Because I have personal experience of the matter, I do want to add that almost every student who does well, wants to become a medical practitioner. The medical profession is a very attractive profession and I do not think that one should take the number of applications as a criterion for the facilities that have to be established. It really does seem to me as though there is an over-supply of students who want to enter this particular field of study.

I thank the hon member for his explanation concerning the question of stigma. I think that the people who are going to read Hansard will find reassurance in his reference to the so-called stigma of separateness. As regards the separateness as such in that respect, we shall simply have to agree to differ with him.

In regard to his previous inquiry as to why paragraph (g) was omitted, I just want to tell him that we did not deem it necessary at this stage to give such a wide mandate. We deliberately omitted it, but this does not mean that the council may not give consideration to those aspects specified in the paragraph. Owing to the fact that it is stated in the other Act it is obligatory. However, we have also included in this legislation today that if the council in question feels that it does in fact wish to comment on a specific matter, even in general and not only in so far as that matter affects the particular task assigned to it, it is at liberty to do so. It is then able, in terms of the amendments which we have effected, to channelize this matter through its Minister. If it is necessary to broaden it and make it obligatory, one can certainly look into this matter in future. We need not adopt an unshakeable attitude in that regard on this side of the House.

As far as the hon member for Durban North is concerned, I must say that I was greatly surprised at his conduct yesterday evening. I listened with great interest to his arguments. I think he raised matters and stated viewpoints here which could certainly give rise to a very interesting debate, although I do not of course agree with his ultimate conclusions. I do think, though, that we could conduct a really fruitful debate on those matters. And then at the end, when I thought that he was in complete agreement with this entire matter, the surprise came and he resorted to a ploy, so it seemed to me…

Do not use that word. It has also been applied to others here.

I do not want to become involved in any dispute which the hon members opposite are involved in among themselves, although I did very much appreciate the chance it gave me to get hold of a few statistics quickly. So for us, too, it serves a useful purpose if a dispute arises between Opposition Parties.

Leaving frivolity aside, I want to say that it definitely appears to be worthwhile to give some further thought to the hon member’s contribution before he came forward with the statement in question. I am grateful that we had been able to place it on record during this debate, and I think that in future we can debate the matter with one another further, and to good effect.

I repeat my appreciation to hon members for their contributions. I am very grateful that we have been able to finalize this legislation in this way. I really think it is a step forward—hon members were in agreement on this point—as far as the course of development of the universities in South Africa are concerned.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

In terms of the provisions of the South African Transport Services Act, 1981 (Act 65 of 1981), the South African Railways Police Force is responsible for preserving the internal security within the area of the South African Transport Services’ jurisdiction, as well as for maintaining law and order in that area of jurisdiction.

To be able to perform this task effectively, staff numbers have up to now been supplemented by means of security guards and reservists. As a result of the new national service system which came into operation on 1 January 1983 in terms of which all White male South African citizens between the ages of 18 and 55 years are liable to compulsory military service, the source from which reservists could be recruited to the SA Railways Police Force has dried up.

After negotiations the hon the Minister of Defence granted permission for national servicemen, with their consent, to be allotted by the registration officer for service in the SA Railways Police Force. The Defence Amendment Bill recently passed by this House grants authorization for the allotment of such national servicemen.

The Bill before this House also makes provision for the determination of the maximum period for which a reservist shall render service, an aspect which up till now has not been defined.

Mr Speaker, the SA Railways Police Force was established in terms of Chapter IV of the SA Transport Services Act. Chapter IV, “Police and Powers of Arrest by Officials”, contains all the clauses dealing with this. The SA Railways Police Force was established some 50 years ago in terms of section 43 of the relevant Act and sections 44 and 45 of that Act lay down its functions and duties which show how important this particular Police Force is. It plays a very important role in South Africa. It is there for the preservation of internal security when required; the maintenance of law and order; the investigation of any offense or alleged offense and the prevention of crime, specifically within the area of jurisdiction of the SATS unless a specific Act of Parliament allows them to operate outside that area of jurisdiction.

The deeds of the SA Railway Police have been unsung in this House. Those of the SA Police have been, but those of the SA Rail way Police have strangely been unsung although their duties are very wide. They cover a wide scope: aircraft, baggage and cargo carried by the SA Railways and the SA Airways, they even have a say in catering services and control vessels in our harbours. As regards any Railway matter they may stop, search and arrest any person in connection with their duties, provided—this is the strange thing in the Act—that a female may only be searched by a female and with strict regard to decency. They may also stop and search any vehicle, in terms of an amendment passed earlier this session in another Bill, whether it be SATS or private ownership within the jurisdiction of the SATS if they suspect a crime to be committed. In other words, within the fenced areas of the South African harbours, railways and airports, they exercise full jurisdiction.

A host of stipulations in section 45 cover their uniforms, decorations and impersonating, hindering or obstructing them in any way.

Section 46 of the Act created a Railway Police Reserve, and it is now proposed to amend the conditions of establishment of this reserve, in terms of clause 1 of the Bill, by including any person who in terms of the Defence Act is allotted for training and service.

I want to refer to some of the extraordinary deeds of valour which have been performed by SA Railway policemen beyond the call of normal duty. I want to bring it to the notice of the House that even although this is a comparatively small Force—it consists of some 3 600 Whites and 3 600 members of other population groups and approximately 300 women—they have a record of which the hon the Minister can be proud.

From the other population groups there are members who have officer rank and amongst women the highest rank is that of captain.

I would like to refer to a particular deed of bravery which was performed by one SA Railway policeman some years ago. Only one medal has ever been awarded to a SA Railway policeman for duty performed for award of this medal, the King’s Medal for Bravery, which was really the Victoria Cross for the police for bravery beyond the call of normal duty. It was awarded to a man who was very badly wounded by a particularly dangerous criminal in Johannesburg. He arrested this criminal regardless of the danger to his life and limb and he almost lost his life. It is of particular significance that this policeman was a Black Railway constable. It was a very proud moment in the history of the SA Railway Police when Governor-General Jansen pinned the King’s Medal for Bravery to his breast. Nobody appears to know what has happened to this man, and I believe that something should be done to give some form of recognition for this particular deed of bravery or any other forms of bravery which may occur.

I want to refer to another situation in which the Railway Police was involved beyond the call of duty. Hon members may recall that in 1966 there was a tremendous storm off Cape Town during which two fishing boats collided out at sea. A very severe north wester was blowing and the storm was very severe indeed. Despite this, when the call came the Loerie, a police vessel—it can still be seen in Cape Town harbour—went out in that very tempestuous weather and saved 17 fishermen who were actually floating about in the turbulent sea. For this deed of outstanding valour, all they received was a letter of commendation about their deed.

Another outstanding effort of the South African Railway Police was the arrest of one Harris after the bomb explosion on the Johannesburg railway station. The late Brigadier Brits did an outstanding job of work of actually tracing this man.

I want to say to the hon the Minister that I am most surprised that when this Bill is introduced into the House I do not see one railway police officer present here. Normally every other Minister brings his particular people who deal with that particular Bill to the House. I think the hon the Minister has failed to recognize what is an important branch of his particular service. I hope that in future it will he recognized.

This Bill is really consequential upon the Defence Bill which we passed the other day and which will soon be signed by the State President. In that Bill, in addition to allowing the registering officer of the SA Defence Force to allow people to be allotted to the South Africa Police Force, they may now, with their consent, also be allotted to the South African Railway Police Force. The hon the Minister in his speech has indicated how that is done. The registering officer will ensure that people so dismissed are transferred to the railway police in the correct manner.

Furthermore, the Defence Bill, and also this Bill, lays down that should a person leave the South African Railway Police Force the Commissioner of the South African Railway Police has to inform the SA Defence Force of him having left so that he will then be called up to do his remaining tour of duty within the SA Defence Force. As a result of this, this Bill is consequential upon these amendments. It is very much welcomed.

In view of the compulsory call-up of the South African Defence Force it is perfectly true that both the South African Police and the South African Railway Police have found it extremely difficult to recruit staff. I trust that under the arrangements which have now been made they will be able to do so and ensure that the strength of the South African Railway Police Force will not suffer in future.

These men because they will all be White will go to the Esselen Park Railway College for training. I have been informed that the intensive course of some six months which they will undergo has been approved by the South African Defence Force as being equivalent to what SADF would put a man through in his original training. In addition to that such a person will also be instructed in law and other subjects which a policeman would normally study for the duties he must perform. Thereafter he will be allocated to the various stations throughout the Republic.

Clause 2 of the Bill allows reservists to be appointed in the Railway Police Force, similar to the way that one has reservists in the Police Force. Such a person will serve the same length of time, namely 12 days per annum, as would a person who is transferred from the active citizen force to the commandos.

I should like the hon the Minister to inform me as to what pay national servicemen will receive while in the service of the South African Railway Police Force. Will they get something extra for being in the service of the South African Railway Police Force?

The official Opposition supports this Bill. We will move a small number of amendments in the Committee Stage, but we are sure the hon the Minister will accept them.

Mr Speaker, one appreciates the approach of the hon member for Bezuidenhout. He says the record of the SA Railways Police Force has generally been unsung. He pointed out that we have over a number of years had outstanding deeds of bravery by the Railways policemen, and we do appreciate the hon member’s attitude in this regard. I must say that this is quite a welcome change of tune on the part of the official Opposition because in the past we often had to listen to attacks and accusations against the Police. According to the official Opposition policemen were often guilty of violence and behaviour that one would not expect from a policeman. Therefore, when an hon member of the official Opposition mentions some good points in regard to the police, one welcomes it.

*We also appreciate the fact that they support the legislation.

In his short speech the hon the Minister explained why this amendment was necessary. In essence it comes down to the fact that there are not enough men and women available to augment the Police Force of the Railways. The hon the Minister said that as a result of the changes in national service, the chances of obtaining reservists for the SA Police Force were scant. This legislation would, however, improve the position.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout pointed out that the SA Police Force did not have a very strong complement, consisting of only approximately 7 000 men of all ranks. It is undoubtedly necessary for us to augment the Railway Police Force. In 1983 this small Police Force, for example, investigated 138 000 complaints of crimes. We must also remember that there are many hoodlums who exploit the situation of defenceless people on trains, committing robbery and violence, and who are even capable of murder. Attacks that have taken place on trains in the past few months indicate that the hoodlums would even commit murder. We know that subways are one of the favourite places for their attacks. One of the foremost functions of the SA Railway Police is therefore to maintain law and order and to ensure the safety of people on Railway property.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout also pointed out that the SA Railway Police must patrol our harbours. Recently we took into service a number of new launches which are also frequently used for rescue work.

Let us just note the number of passengers annually transported by rail and by air. Annually there are more than 700 million passengers travelling on our main-line and suburban trains, whilst our Airways transports 4 million people. The total capital investment in our transport services in R13 500 million, whilst there are a total of 230 000 workers in the SA Transport Services. The protection of these large numbers of passengers, and this tremendously large capital investment, is left to 7 000 men and women, White and Coloured. We can therefore realize that they have a tremendous responsibility and that the hon the Minister could not have come with this legislation at a better time than specifically now, owing to the concern that is prevalent in this connection. Earlier this year, after representations from several quarters about the incidence of crime on our trains, the hon the Minister promised us some more policemen. Here the hon the Minister is now coming along with one of the first steps to make this possible. We welcome it. With a capital investment as large as that of the SA Transport Services, damage to property can run into quite a considerable figure. Fences and apparatus belonging to the Transport Services are frequently damaged by vandals, and it is one of the tasks of the Police to combat such incidents. Only with sufficient manpower at their disposal will the police be able to succeed in limiting the incidence of crime to a minimum. Assaults on passengers are our greatest concern. That is one of the factors that can do limitless damage to the image of the SA Transport Services as a safe transport organization.

There have been many impractical suggestions. It has been said, for example, that there should be a policeman on every train. But just think of the fact that each day there are probably between 600 and 800 trains, or even more, running. It is surely quite impossible to have a policeman available at every station and on every train. Hence the introduction of a patrol service, which is in close contact with train personnel, and that patrol unit can, within minutes, reach the scene of any crime. But the railway police say that the assistance of the public is extremely important to prevent assaults on trains. The railway police can only act if they know what has happened. We find, however, that passengers are hesitant about reporting attacks. Non-White passengers, in particular, do not want to “squeal”. There is so much intimidation, and frequently they are terrorized, so much so that they do not want to admit who the guilty parties are. The fact of the matter is, however, that if the public would co-operate to a much greater extent, the railway police would be able to act far more quickly against this type of crime. Someone who has had such an experience himself, or has seen another person subjected to such an experience, must not stand aloof and hesitate to come forward and help the police. One does not want the SA Transport Services, the trains, to be given the image of an unsafe means of transport. We know that the SA Transport Services is concerned about its image. Its present-day marketing methods are excellent. We want to obtain a bigger share in the transport market in South Africa. If crimes are committed on our stations and trains, however, one can expect this to damage the image of the transport services, and that is something one wants to avoid. So these are steps in the right direction. After all, these are not very great demands being made on reservists in regard to the service they must furnish.

If one looks at clause 2, which amends section 51, one sees that it is a very small amount of service that such a reservist is being expected to do. One period of service of 8 hours per month, or two periods of service of four hours per month or a total of 12 periods of service of 8 hours or 24 periods of service of 4 hours in any calendar year. That is all. I am sure that the hon the Minister and his department are going to be successful, because it is not too much that is being asked, whilst at the same time steps are being taken to ensure that the police force is brought up to strength by the use of more reservists. For that reason we support the legislation.

Mr Speaker, this Bill specifically places the SA Railways Police in the limelight for once. I should therefore very much like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon member for Bezuidenhout and the hon member for De Kuilen with regard to the SA Railways Police. The hon member for Bezuidenhout, however, made just one small remark with which I cannot associate myself, and that concerned the fact that there is not a single member of the SA Railways Police in the officials’ gallery. I think that that remark was a little unfair and unnecessarily captious.

The fact of the matter is that when we are dealing with the SA Railways Police we are dealing with a very important service. This Police force renders a very important service, particularly as regards the SATS and everything linked to it. I do not want to repeat everything the previous two speakers said, but I do want to emphasize the important work done by the Railways Police in preventing and dealing with crime, as well as the protective and safeguarding services, and say that this does not go unnoticed. This service is often rendered under extremely difficult circumstances and, moreover, often under very dangerous circumstances. The South African public therefore appreciates the services rendered by the SA Railways Police. I want to emphasize the fact that these people display an attitude of service and helpfulness which we really do appreciate.

Consequently, with these few words I should firstly like to place on record the CP’s appreciation for the work of the SA Railways Police. Secondly, I should like to say that we are of the opinion that it is high time this important Force should also lay claim to the services of national servicemen. The SA Police has already enjoyed this privilege for quite a while. We believe that since national servicemen are also being allotted to the SA Railways Police, it can only benefit that service. We also trust that a large number of those national servicemen will choose to serve in the SA Railways Police when they are given the choice to serve there. The arrangements that apply to national servicemen will also apply here, and I therefore believe that the SA Railways Police would be a good choice for them.

The arrangements that are being made with regard to the police reservists are very important. Hours of service and so on, as well as the maximum period of service, are spelt out in full. A matter that is being written into this legislation and to which reference has not yet been made, but which I believe is important, is that the member of the Police Reserve referred to who is compelled to serve there, need not serve, or will by no means serve, in a rank inferior to that which he occupied in the SA Defence Force or in another force. I think this is an important matter which will satisfy the police reservist as well when he reports for this service.

With these few words we associate ourselves with this Bill.

Mr Speaker, it has often been said that a policeman’s lot is an unsung one. I think that this is too often the case, and most regrettable too often our police forces are taken for granted. I think this is regrettable and I was therefore very pleased to listen to the speeches made this morning by the hon members for Bezuidenhout, De Kuilen and Koedoespoort in which the role which the SA Railway Police plays was dealt with in great detail and the importance of that role to the well-being of our country was emphasized. This should be emphasized, especially in these times when we know that it is the policy of subversive elements to break down the public’s confidence in the law enforcement agencies, and they employ very many tactics to do this. Some of them instigate demonstrations on very touchy issues. We see what is happening in Great Britain today in regard to the disarmament issue. We see what happens in regard to environmental issues, certain civil rights issues and so on issues which, might I add, often have a large measure of public support. These subversive elements use such issues as a point of confrontation with the law enforcement agencies as I say to try to break down the public’s confidence in the police forces. In fact, some of these demonstrators actually provoke confrontation with the police in order to achieve their objectives, and they want nothing more than to have a demonstration with a crowd of people spitting at the police and calling them pigs and so on. This is designed to achieve their ends of, as I have said, undermining the public’s confidence in the police forces as a precursor to chaos, anarchy and the breakdown of the government in many of the countries where we see this action being carried on.

Therefore I think it is incumbent upon members of Parliament in an opportunity such as this to sing the praise of the men who enforce the laws of this land which after all are passed in this House by the representatives of the people who have been elected to make these laws. I therefore agree with the hon member for De Kuilen and I am pleased to have seen the hon member for Bezuidenhout lending his voice to praising the SA Railways Police.

The Bill is designed to bring the SA Railways Police Force into line with the SA Police which is a paramilitary organization as is the Railway Police in regard to the Defence Act, 1957. The Bill now clearly lays down the fact that certain national servicemen will be allotted to the SA Railways Police, and as the hon member for Bezuidenhout has said, this will certainly assist the SA Railways Police in their recruiting campaign, and we believe that is a good thing.

There is one question which I should like to put to the hon the Minister. We do know that the SA Railways Police perform a very important role in protecting these tremendously vital and strategic installations in the field of transportation and communications, our railways, harbours and airports and so on. We therefore appreciate the need for an efficient and competent Police Force to protect this. We also understand the need to have their numbers up to the desired strength. However, I would like to ask the hon the Minister a question. We know that the other paramilitary force, the SA Police, have on a number of occasions been used in a defence force role on our borders and elsewhere. Is it at all possible that the SA Railways Police may be deployed in an emergency in areas outside of the jurisdiction of the SA Transport Services? I am thinking here of national key points such as tank farms, Escom substations etc.

Yes, if other Acts of this Parliament allow.

I hear someone saying that this is the case, but I would like to hear the hon the Minister’s reaction to it. In an emergency, will these men be deployed by the SA Railways Police in areas other than those under the jurisdiction of the SATS? I ask this question, because there is the matter of people taken into the SA Railways Police on the basis of the Defence Act. While I am aware that the numbers of servicemen who should be allotted to the SA Police or the SA Railways Police are determined by the SA Defence Force, I would like to know whether these men could be used to protect the key points I have mentioned.

The provisions in the Bill are very clear, are well understood by the NRP and we take pleasure in supporting the measure.

Mr Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the various Opposition parties for supporting the Bill.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout stressed the importance of the SA Railways Police and I want to thank him for doing so. He said that their services have up till now gone unsung and in this regard I want to point out that we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the SA Railways Police this year. There will be a few functions which will be attended by various dignitaries and there will therefore be opportunities to thank the SA Railways Police for their services over the years. Some of these functions will be taking place next week. From time to time I attend their functions.

Are you going to wear your uniform when you attend those functions?

I am a colonel and I shall certainly wear my uniform.

†The hon member made a study of the SA Railways Police and mentioned that a female can only be searched by a female police officer and that in the process every decency should be observed. Sometimes at airports ladies have to be searched and we only use female police officers for this purpose. I think this is a very good rule!

The hon member also said that the Force only has one medal to award for bravery, but I want to tell him that we are in the process of creating more types of medals for inter alia, acts of bravery that have taken place. I have been to Slagboom on two occasions to see how these people are trained and I personally pay much attention to the SA Railways Police. The hon member complained that we are debating this Bill in the House without a single Railways police officer being present. What is wrong with me? I am a Railways Police Officer. We only have some 7 600 policemen, of whom 3 644 are White, 3 625 are Coloured, Indian and Black and 300 are ladies. We cannot afford to have people sitting around here.

Only one, in addition to the honorary colonel.

They are too busy with other duties.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bezuidenhout asked me what pay the policemen are going to get. We are still busy negotiating, but I can tell the hon member that they will not be worse off than people joining the Defence Force. I am sure they will be happy with the conditions. We waited for the Act before we came to terms about the pay they are going to get. I want to thank the hon member for Bezuidenhout again for bringing to our attention the importance of the SA Railway Police.

*The hon member for De Kuilen mentioned the important matter of the 11 000 charges, complaints and offences. We have undertaken to make more policemen available to protect passengers on trains. The hon member is right: We have only 7 200 policemen, and they cannot protect a few thousand trains which run every day, as well as the airports, the oil depots, the harbours and all the rest. It is not possible to have such a big Force, but we shall be able to train more policemen by means of this method. I thank the hon member for De Kuilen for his contributions in this House over a period of many years.

The hon member for Koedoespoort rightly referred to the importance of the Railway Police and also pointed out that by means of national service we may find it easier to get policemen for training. He understands the problems of the SATS as far as security is concerned, and I thank him for that.

†The hon member for Amanzimtoti stressed the importance of discipline in our railway system and said that the only way in which we can get greater safety in our railway system is by being more sympathetic towards Railway policemen and by helping them, as this Bill is indeed going to do. He asked me about emergencies. The SA Railway Police operate only in areas such as harbours and railway stations and along railway lines. Any operations outside of those areas are the responsibility of the SA Police, Louis Le Grange’s people. However, we do co-operate. In an emergency such as we had in Durban, the SA Police and the SA Railways Police immediately, through radio contact, come to terms and operate together. There is, therefore, very close co-operation, especially in emergencies. With the hijacking of an aeroplane, for instance, such as we once had at Jan Smuts Airport and also in Durban, the SA Police and the SA Railways Police work in close co-operation with one another.

*I thank the hon members for supporting the Bill. Like most of the Bills which are introduced in this House, this Bill is a very positive one, so there is no reason to oppose it. I thank the hon members for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments printed in the name of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and also the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. In the English text, on page 5, in line 4, after “years” to insert “one”.
2. 2. In the English text, on page 5, in line 11, after “by” to insert “one”.
3. 3. In the English text, on page 5, in line 24, after the first “and” to insert “one”.
4. 4. On page 5, in line 28, after “days” to insert “in the aggregate”.

Amendments 1, 2 and 3 merely correct the English grammar in the clause. Amendment 4 merely serves to make absolutely certain that 720 days, and only 720, days are served by members, which brings it into line with the position in the Defence Force.

Mr Chairman, I accept the amendments.

Amendments 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 56:

Mr Speaker, the hon member for De Kuilen made certain remarks during the Second Reading debate. As chairman of the Select Committee on the South African Transport Services his reply to the remarks which I made was in a sense petty politics, and showed no courtesy to the official Opposition in supporting the Bill.

He has a complete misconception of the functions, role and duty of the official Opposition, or any Opposition for that matter. His attitude reflects on his behaviour when he was a member of the Opposition. It appears that he did not know what an Opposition really has to do. After I had praised the South African Railway Police, he said that he was pleased to hear that this side of the House praised the SA Railway Police instead of criticizing them. The hon member must understand one thing very clearly. If any Police Force, irrespective of whether it is the Railway Police or the Defence Force errs in carrying out their functions and duties as stipulated by the laws of the land, it is the duty of the official Opposition to tell the Government about it because it might be a sign that the Minister concerned is not controlling his department properly.

I want to quote an old Zulu saying to the hon member for De Kuilen, namely “Never point a finger at anybody because by doing that you are pointing three at yourself”. The hon member, as an ex-member of the official Opposition, must realize what a bad member of the Opposition he was and that that is probably the reason why he had to walk over to the Government. [Interjections.] The Opposition must at all times be the conscience of all people, irrespective of race, creed, colour or sex in South Africa. [Interjections.] We discussed the powers and privileges of Parliament in the House yesterday. Because we have the right of free speech in the House, for which our forefathers have fought for years, we are able to criticize those who err. The Opposition will continue to do so. I hope the hon member for De Kuilen will extend to the Opposition the apology that he owes them.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that all of us on this side of the House appreciate the tremendous amount of work which the SA Railways Police have done in combating crime within their own jurisdiction. It is not necessary for me to repeat what they have done. Particularly in the case of accidents it is well known that the first people on the scene always happen to be the Railways Police. I did not mention it, but it is well known that during the Second World War many South Africa Railways policemen, some of very high rank indeed, served with distinction in the South African Armed Forces.

In the UDF?

Yes. My hon colleague is reminding me about that which I have forgotten—The Union Defence Force. [Interjections.] I only hope that now that the hon the Minister is going to get these young men from the South African Defence Force he will endeavour to get a large number of them to remain as permanent members of his Force instead of them serving their minimum periods of service only. We therefore have very much pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, after the hon member for Bezuidenhout had made his speech this morning, I thought that he had done so in such a calm way—he did it well—that he must have slept well. However, I do not know what happened to him since last he spoke and during the lunch break, but something must have upset him. [Interjections.] I did not criticize him; I flattered him.

I am beyond flattery! [Interjections.]

The hon member will not incriminate me with that kind of remark. The hon member singled out the good points of the Railways Police. I said that it was to be welcomed that those people are praised when they do well. It makes such a nice change of tune from what we always had in the past, in that only the bad points and what was done wrong by the police were blazoned abroad, as though they never play an important role in maintaining law and order and protecting lives and property. [Interjections.] The hon member is dissatisfied now, however. He says that I am irresponsible. I concede that as a member of the Opposition I was irresponsible from time to time, but the problem is that the hon member is still irresponsible! [Interjections.] If the hon member remains in the House longer he will see that there are in fact certain matters in South African politics in respect of which one can adopt a responsible attitude, it is not necessary to make a political issue of every matter. That is what I welcomed about that hon member. I do not want to quarrel with the hon member any longer, since I understand that he is the oldest member in this House, and because I respect my elders, I shall not debate the matter with the hon member any further.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bezuidenhout is perfectly correct. Had I been in the Opposition, I too would have criticized positively. I do not maintain that hon members of the Opposition should not criticize the Government. In my view it is the duty of an Opposition to criticize. I do, however, feel that the Opposition are not always very successful in their criticism. Had I been in their place I would have criticized the Government most severely.

Because you know what a mess you are really in.

It is the duty of the Opposition to criticize the Government but so often they fail in pinpointing our mistakes. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for De Kuilen sat in the Opposition benches for eight years, at a time when I was Minister of Agriculture, and I always said that anyone who could criticize so intelligently and had such a sound judgement must eventually become a Nationalist. And just look at where he is sitting today! If there were not so many of us, he would long ago have been Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs.

I thank hon members for the unanimity in regard to this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The amendments being affected here make provision for the payment of members of Parliament when the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1983, comes into operation. References to the Senate and its office-bearers and other designations that will no longer be relevant, are being omitted, and the designations of office-bearers under the new dispensation are being included. Thus, for example, the designation “Chief Government Whip” is falling away, and is being replaced by “Chief Whip of the Majority Party”, because the majority party in a House will not necessarily be the Government Party. In this regard there is an amendment which also makes provision for the post of Chief Whip of Parliament. The Chief Whip of Parliament will in fact be responsible for co-ordination between the three Houses, and it will therefore be a very important post.

Under the new dispensation committees will constitute an integral part of the legislative process when all three Houses have adjourned. Failure to attend their meetings should therefore also be subjected to deductions such as those applicable in respect of failure to attend a meeting of a House or a joint sitting of the Houses. The Bill makes provision for this. The sum deducted in respect of a day’s absence is now being increased from R40 to R50 per day.

The death or serious illness of a member’s children are also being taken into account in exemption from deductions.

Mr Speaker, the official Opposition will support the Bill. [Interjections.] This is another Bill which is an example of the practical implications and the consequences of the new constitution and the new Parliament to come. Yesterday we discussed the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Amendment Bill, which was introduced by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and which covers the protection of members’ rights and privileges. I think it is fitting that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, in his capacity as the Leader of the House, should introduce a Bill which affects the salaries and allowances to be paid to members of Parliament. I think one could describe this as a domestic Bill.

There is an amendment in this Bill in regard to the Whips. In fact, there is an amendment on the Order paper by the hon the Minister in relation to a Chief Whip of Parliament.

I think it might be pertinent at this stage to refer very briefly to the Parliamentary Encyclopaedia in regard to Whips generally. The term “Whip” as described in this encyclopaedia is an abbreviation of the word “whipper-in”, which term is borrowed from the 18th century and indeed from the foxhunting vocabulary where the whipper-in kept the hounds from straying from the pack. Having borrowed this term, therefore, I think that the Whips in Parliament have a similar task as far as hon members are concerned; in other words, to round the members up, to get them to support the party in divisions and to see that their members are present on all necessary occasions.

A dog’s life! [Interjections.]

This is by no means the only function of the Whips. The efficient and smooth running of the parliamentary machinery depends largely on the Whips. Certain duties are common to Whips who are members of Parliament of all the parties such as supplying their members with information on forthcoming business, securing their attendance, arranging pairing and providing lists of members to serve on standing and select committees.

The most important duties, however, devolve upon the Government Chief Whip whose office in Great Britain is known as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. It was Disraeli who described its function as the office which required consummate knowledge of human nature, the most amiable flexibility and complete self-control. [Interjections.] His main function is to organize Government business in consultation with the office of Chief Whip.

Reference is also made here to the House of Lords. The Chief Government Whip in that House is known as the Lord-in-Waiting. If the office is held by a woman, she is known as the Baroness-in-Waiting. Apparently during the Prime Ministership of Mr Harold Wilson there was an Assistant Whip appointed to this post who was a woman.

The final matter to which I wish to refer now is one that is often referred to in this House and that is in regard to the appointment of Whips generally. In order principally to prevent any possible breach of the friendly relations that exist between them, the Chief Whips do not usually take part in debates in the House.

In regard to the Bill before us, the first clause deals with the hon the Leader of the Opposition. An amendment is necessary in this regard because where the incumbent of that post is now referred to as the Leader of the official Opposition, there will in due course be three Houses and each House will have its leaders of the respective parties in that House. Therefore, it has become necessary—as this Bill does—to define which Opposition party in the House will be the official Opposition, and that is namely the one with the greatest number of members in opposition to the party in power. It could perhaps happen in the House of Delegates—it could also happen in the House of Representatives although it is unlikely—that there will be Opposition parties consisting of even numbers of members. In such an event, Mr Speaker will have to decide which one of those even-numbered parties in opposition to the Government will become the official Opposition party in that House and who the Leader of the official Opposition will be in that House.

Too many chiefs and too few Indians. [Interjections.]

As far as members of Parliament are concerned, this term now includes not only members of this Assembly but members of the House of Delegates and of the House of Representatives as well.

As far as the office-bearers are concerned, we have Mr Speaker, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Committees, the Chief Whips and the Whips generally. The hon the Minister said in his speech that he intends moving an amendment to create the post of Chief Whip of Parliament. This is something new that is going to happen under the new constitution. There will now be Chief Whips of the governing parties and a Chief Whip of Parliament is now being created. As I see the position—and correct me if I am wrong—the Chief Whip of Parliament is going to be the Chief Whip of all the Whips of the governing parties. I am just wondering how his function is going to be defined and what access he will have to those specific other Houses to perform his function as the Chief Whip of Parliament, as a Chief Whip over all the parties.

Then we come to that part of clause 2 that deals with penalties. In so far as the penalties are concerned, whereas a member was previously entitled to 25 days leave of absence when Parliament is in session, he may now have an additional seven days when there is another session of Parliament provided it is not the session in which Parliament discusses the Budget. In addition, the fine for absence of R40 is increased to R50 per day. I do not think any of us is going to quarrel about the fine of R50. I think it is very modest. We shall not be querying the amount.

Reference is then made to standing committees in the proposed subparagraph (iii). According to this provision a member is not to exceed one day of absence during a four-day sitting of a standing committee or any such committee once Parliament has been prorogued. In his capacity as Leader of the House, I do not know whether the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is in a position to tell this House to what extent members will be committed in the standing committees when Parliament is prorogued, and whether he is at this stage in a position to tell hon members—who, of course, obviously are interested in their role in the future Parliament and the constitution of the new Parliament—what their commitments are going to be in the standing committees, since leave of absence is only one day in four. On this question of the standing committees and the fine to be imposed, standing committees should in fact be part of the structure of Parliament in so far as salaries and allowances are concerned. Attending a standing committee or a select committee, as the case may be, when Parliament has been prorogued will entail allowances that are paid at the same rate as laid down for commissions of inquiry. The thinking here may well be to direct one’s attention to making this part and parcel of the normal salary and allowance, taking into consideration such extra work that will involve members who are members of standing committees. In so far as that allowance is concerned, whether it is going to be part of the normal allowance paid to members of Parliament, that should be considered as well as any possible implications of other effects that it may possibly have on the tax structure of the member itself. Taking all that into consideration, these are the implications.

As far as leave of absence is concerned, the hon member for Yeoville will move an amendment which stands in his name on the Order paper. He will obviously motivate the reason for that.

Clause 3 is the most important clause as it empowers the secretariat to make the monthly payment of salary and allowances to members of Parliament. This will now include members of the House of Delegates and members of the House of Representatives.

Clause 4 deals with the amendment in so far as the Speaker is concerned and which is construed as a reference to the Speaker of Parliament elected under the new constitution and who will then have overall control over the three Houses of Parliament.

Taking all these matters into consideration, we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am merely rising to support the measure from this side of the House, since it is a necessary measure. We can find no fault with its provisions. We take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, it comes as no surprise to me that the PFP is supporting the Bill, and I could very easily venture to predict that the NRP will also be supporting the Bill.

We have before us legislation which makes provision for the payment of members of Parliament of the multiracial tricameral Parliament. Hon members of the PFP and the NRP will join Rev Hendrickse in saying that this is a step in the right direction.

The CP is satisfied with the legislation in respect of the payment of members of Parliament, as applicable to the White Parliament at present, but the CP will not support this legislation which makes provision for the payment of members of a multiracial tricameral Parliament.

In 1949, shortly after the NP came to power, an Act was removed from the Statute Book to end the presence of Indian representatives in this Parliament. In 1959 the NP ended representation by Black people in this Parliament.

And you voted for that.

Yes, we voted for that, and we were grateful for it. In 1969 the NP made an end to the presence of Coloured representatives in this Parliament, although they were White members. I want to tell the hon member for Kimberley South that I voted for that as well. I was grateful for that. Furthermore, I want to point out to the hon member that in 1970, when I was privileged to be elected to this House of Assembly for the first time, I had the privilege of taking my seat in the first exclusively White Parliment of the Republic of South Africa, a White Parliament which was the creation of the NP.

It was the NP that brought you here.

The NP under this policy brought me here; not the NP under the policy of a multiracial tricameral Parliament.

I have been privileged to sit in this Parliament since 1970. As I have said, it was the first exclusively White Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, a Parliament which can make decisions about every facet which affects you, Sir, and my people. [Interjections.] If I could refresh the memories of those hon members who are making such a noise now, I want to tell them that they should go and read Hansard of the early ’seventies, and they will realize how relentlessly the NP fought against the racial federation plan of the old United Party, a racial federation plan which made provision for eight Coloureds to come to the House of Assembly and six to the Senate. Therefore, 14 Coloured members would have been able to serve in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. The NP fought relentlessly against that racial federation plan.

I find it incomprehensible that the same NP is making provision in this Bill for the payment of 85 Coloured and 45 Indian members of Parliament in the new Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. This House of Assembly is being degraded to a chamber, to a House of a multiracial tricameral Parliament.

It is a progressive improvement

I agree with the hon member for Bryanston that from his point of view a great deal of progress has been made along that path. The NP has made a great deal of progress on the path of the PFP.

The Bill makes provision for an increase in the number of members of Parliament from the present 178 members to 308 members. I notice that the payment of the members of the President’s Council is not mentioned in this Bill. However, there are also he is an 60 members of the President’s Council who receive the same remuneration as members of Parliament at present. Particularly in view of the fact that if there is a difference of opinion about a Bill in the new multiracial tricameral Parliament, the members of the President’s Council will give a final ruling, I should like to know what the provisions in respect of their salaries will be. With this Bill there will be an immediate increase of 130 members of Parliament. The Bill also makes provision for the payment of office-bearers of this new multiracial tricameral Parliament. For example, provision is being made for a Speaker and for various office-bearers. I see that the hon the Leader of the House has an amendment on the Order Paper in which he moves that the office of Chief Whip of Parliament be included. I myself do not wish to make any recommendation which could let this multiracial tricameral Parhament work better, but I want to tell him that if he wants to let it work, it is a sound proposal. However, I also want to tell him that I think that the Chief Government Whip should go and sit in the Cabinet. He should go and sit in this multiracial Cabinet in which consensus has to be obtained, so that he can impose the consensus decisions on the three chambers. However, I assume that the amendment will be approved and that there will be a Chief Whip of Parliament. Furthermore, the Bill makes provision for three Chairmen of the various Houses who will now have to be paid. I assume that they will receive the same remuneration. It also makes provision for three Chairmen of Committees and for three Deputy Chairmen of Committees, and they all have to be paid. It makes provision for three Chief Whips of the majority parties in the various Houses, too, as well as for three Chief Whips of the official Opposition in every House. Then there are also the three Leaders of the official Opposition in the three Houses and Whips of the various political parties. At present there are 15 Whips in the House of Assembly altogether, and a number of new Whips will have to be appointed for the various political parties in the new Parliament. All these people will have to be paid.

Should they not be paid?

All I want to say to the hon member for Mossel Bay is that whereas Parliament now has one Chief Whip, one Speaker, one Chairman and one Deputy Chairman, all these offices are now being tripled and these people have to be paid.

May I put a question?

No. I want the hon the leader of the House to tell us today what this multiracial tricameral Parliament is going to cost the South African taxpayer.

What is your homeland going to cost?

Nowadays the hon the Prime Minister and members of the NP are speaking of what it would supposedly cost South Africa to create a Coloured homeland. The sum of R85 billion is being mentioned, a sum which was possibly calculated by a certain State department in a completely unscientific way. It is now being said without any substantiation that this is what a Coloured homeland is going to cost. However, I want to know what all these salaries are going to cost the South African taxpayer. [Interjections.] I should like to read to the hon members who are now making such a noise from this little blue booklet entitled Die KP aan die kaak gestel, by Mr C R E Rencken. He is an MP and someone who is paid by Parliament. There is a paragraph on page 20 under the headline “Die KP se hartland”. A map of South Africa on which the whole of the Cape Province is coloured in appears on that page. The question is then asked:

The impression is created here that the CP is advocating that practically the whole of the Cape Province should be turned into a Coloured homeland.

Order! The hon member was provoked by the hon member for Mossel Bay when he asked what their Coloured homeland was going to cost, and I consequently gave him the opportunity to react to that. However, he must not make an issue of it now.

Thank you very much, Sir. I just want to say that if hon members of the Government party can publicise a distortion such as the one that appears in this booklet, they can also publicise a distortion in respect of the cost of the homeland. [Interjections.] They are asking us to delimit the borders of our homeland. The NP has already been governing for 35 years, but when I ask hon members opposite where the final borders of the Black homelands are, not one of them can tell us. [Interjections.] I do not with to go into that any further.

I assume that the hon the Leader of the House has determined precisely what the cost attached to the multiracial tricameral Parliament is going to be. I think he owes it to us to give us that information today. I have a very high regard for the Leader of the House. As Whips we work together very well with him. I just want to say that I think he owes it to us to tell us what this Bill is going to cost the South African taxpayer, particularly since the Government says that it does not have the money to increase the salaries of teachers now and that it can only do so in December. I want the Leader of the House to tell us what this is going to cost.

There are going to be three Minister’s Councils, as well as Deputy Ministers. We do not yet even know how many members each Ministers’ Council is going to have, but I assume they will receive the same remuneration as the Ministers in the Cabinet. Each one will have to have an official residence. Each one will have to have an official motorcar and his own chauffeur. Each one will have to have a private secretary. They will all have to have office facilities in Parliamentary Building. Coloured and Indian members of Parliament can purchase a new motor-car immediately after the election. If things remain as they are, each of them can purchase a motor-car for approximately R20 000, whilst the hon member for Houghton could only purchase a motor-car for R13 000, although she has been here for donkey’s years. [Interjections.]

Provisions will have to be made for air tickets for the 130 additional members of Parliament, as well as for train and travelling facilities. Provision will have to be made for telephone facilities and the costs linked to that. Provision will have to be made for office facilities.

What does a war cost?

The hon member for Durban Point is asking me what a war costs. I think that is a very stupid question. I want to point out to the hon member that for 35 years South Africa was the country that had the greatest measure of peace in the world under a policy of separate development. The multiracial Parliament for whose members provision is now being made is now going to be the place where clashes and conflict are going to arise, however. This will not only be a clash between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people, between members of the United Party and the Nats, as in the past, but also between people of colour.

The CP says that there is only one policy that has proved that it can bring about peace in Africa, and that is the policy of separate development. Every people should be placed in a position to be able to decide for itself in its own fatherland about every facet of its life and to govern itself. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Leader of the House what offices, council chambers, committee rooms and dining facilities are going to cost in the new Parliament. What is the temporary use …

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

No, I do not want to reply to questions. [Interjections.]

You are afraid.

I know that some of the hon members opposite who say that I am afraid would also have liked to have done what I did on 22 february, viz to adopt a standpoint against power-sharing in a mixed government and to walk out. They did not have the courage to do that, however: Their courage failed them and they went back. They went and climbed under the blanket of power-sharing in a mixed government.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Virginia will still suffocate under this motley blanket. [Interjections.] I should like to know what the cost linked to the office facilities and council chambers which are going to be used temporarily will be, as well as those that are going to be used permanently.

What about the toilets?

I can imagine that the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Bryanston had a fight with Mr Marais Steyn in such a place. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, is it parliamentary to allege that two hon members of this House had a fight in a toilet? [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think the point should be stressed.

The Conservative Party prefers not to fight there, but to fight in a White Parliament.

It is already known that there will be three dining-rooms, one for each chamber. Meals subsidized by Parliament will be served there. Since it is a section of the hon the Minister’s department that provides meals, I want to pay tribute to Oom Essie and his staff and the chefs and the ladies who serve in the dining-room. I think that members of parliament are privileged to be able to enjoy a very good meal every day.

However, in the new Parliament there are going to be three dining-rooms for members. Will there also be three separate dining-rooms for the officials of the three Houses? [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister says “yes”, Parliament will have to have six dining-rooms. If that is not the case, will there be three separate dining-rooms for members and only one dining-room for all officials?

Then there will have to be an own affairs dining-room and a general affairs diningroom as well.

Yes, I want the hon the Minister to explain that to us, since there must be clarity about these matters when we meet later this year.

Fernwood is the property of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

Order! The hon member must come back to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am referring to members of Parliament who are paid to sit in Parliament and who enjoy certain privileges. The hon the Leader of the House must spell out these matters to us, members of Parliament in this House make use of Fernwood. Will it also be placed at the disposal of the other members of parliament, or will he purchase a Fernwood for every House? There will be one pension scheme for members, and there is legislation in that regard on the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: This Bill deals with allowances and salaries of members of parliament. It does not deal with buildings or with Fernwood. Are we going to spend the whole day listening to things which are not relevant to this Bill?

Order! I have already pointed that out to the hon member for Kuruman and I ask him to abide by my ruling now.

Sir, I want to thank you for affording me the opportunity to raise those matters.

I should like to give the hon the Leader of the House the opportunity to inform Parliament about these matters.

Order! The Leader of the House has that opportunity in any case. The aspects the hon member is raising can be discussed under another Bill, but not under a Bill which regulates the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament.

The Conservative Party has no objection to members of parliament being paid well. I believe that members of the new Parliament will have to work much harder than is the case at present. If the Chief Government Whip can succeed in getting this to work—I doubt whether he will be able to do so—members will have to work much harder. Let me explain. This year Parliament is sitting from January most probably until 13 July. At present there is only one chamber and four political parties. When the new parliament assembles next year—those members of parliament all have to be paid—there will be three Second Reading speeches in respect of general laws, in other words, laws that affect everyone in South Africa, where the Ministers will have to be present. There will also have to be Committee Stages of Bills in three Houses, where the Minister will also have to be present. He will also sometimes have to be present during the Third Reading of Bills. There are going to be standing committees, multiracial joint committees as well. There are going to be 19 or 20 of them.

Order! If the hon member does not abide by my ruling now, I will have to ask him to resume his seat. The hon member must come back to the Bill now. I am not going to warn him again.

Very well, Sir. The CP cannot support this Bill, which makes provision for the payment of members of this multiracial tricameral parliament, which is not going to work.

Mr Speaker, this afternoon we once again saw a demonstration from the CP. The hon member for Kuruman persisted in a futile exercise, which we have been experiencing for a very long time now. This Bill makes provision for salaries and certain offices and these are matters that have been foreseen for a very long time. After all, these matters were foreseen as far back as in 1977 when consideration was given to the possible establishment of three Parliaments. Surely the hon member for Kuruman was part of that then. However, now he is so surprised and concerned about costs linked to the new dispensation.

Do you know how much it amounts to?

The hon member wants to know how much it amounts to, but the CP have still not been able to give us an indication of the costs linked to the policy they advocate. The hon member for Kuruman says the estimation being given by this side of the House for the CP’s homeland policy is not correct, but he does not say what their own estimation is. They do not understand what they are advocating.

When this matter was considered at that time the implications of this further step that is being taken were realized. The hon member is surprised and concerned about what is being done now, however. It is simply a necessary consequence of what has already been decided and what was supported by the general electorate as well.

I can understand the hon member’s actions, however. If one looks at the kind of leadership he gets from his leader, it is not odd that he acts in this way. The reprehensible behaviour of the hon member for Waterberg in his reaction to the peace initiatives of the hon the Prime Minister …

Order! The hon member is not dealing with the legislation at all now.

Sir, I abide by your ruling.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member spoke about the “reprehensible behaviour” of the hon member for Waterberg. Is that permissible?

Sir, I should like to address you on that score. When a leader of a country visits other countries and does things which are to the benefit of the general population of his country and someone should criticize it in a way which prejudices the country and its people, I can certainly label that as being reprehensible behaviour. That is what happened.

The Hon member may proceed. The word “reprehensible” is permissible in this context.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whilst the remuneration of and certain facilities for members of Parliament under the new dispensation are being discussed, the hon member for Kuruman comes and says, inter alia, that this new dispensation is going to cause clashes and conflict. However, I do not know how he relates that to the salaries and allowances of those involved in the dispensation. The fact is that the hon member and his party avail themselves of every opportunity to oppose the new dispensation. What is interesting about the approach and the actions of the hon members of the CP, however, is the fact that they are prepared to participate in the new dispensation, but they say that they will be doing so in such a way that their actions will impede and thwart it. They will therefore do everything in their power to frustrate the new dispensation. [Interjections.] Is it not an absolutely negative standpoint and attitude the hon members are adopting in respect of this matter?

We support the Bill, since it is simply a logical consequence of what has already been decided. Whatever the members of the CP may say, we shall continue to implement the legislation. The necessary machinery is being created for the new dispensation and later, when those hon members see that it is being implemented successfully and that it is a great success, they will really realize how futile all their arguments and opposition were.

Mr Speaker, when the hon member for Kuruman rose to his feet this afternoon his opening remarks were that he was not at all surprised at the stance of the official Opposition. He correctly surmised that this party, like the official Opposition, will support the Bill, and he indicated that it would come as no surprise to him at all. I want to say, however, that he has surprised me this afternoon. I have never in all my life heard such raw vituperation and naked racism in connection with a Bill that has nothing to do with racial matters.

This is not however the first time that the hon member makes a speech of this nature. He makes it at practically every opportunity he gets to speak in this House. I hope that he will take his speech today and read it carefully, although I think he knows it off by heart. However, I hope when he does read it he will sit and reflect on the tremendous amount of discredit he is bringing upon his country when overseas periodicals, journals and Press get hold of that sort of speech and attribute it to White South Africans. [Interjections.] I hope he will reflect on that and that with his “I am all right, Jack, pull up the ladder” attitude enjoy the fruits of what he is seeking. I sincerely do not believe that with that sort of attitude there is a place for him in our society. I shall, however, leave him there.

I am indebted to the hon member for Hillbrow as he has rendered a great service here this afternoon. He has done something tremendous. He has explained in detail what a Whip is and that to me is a wonderful service because for the past five years I have laboured under a misapprehension. My caucus has been misleading me. They keep saying: “We have a Whip; he is a I cannot remember the word, but it is one which suggests that my mother and father never married. This is what I always thought a Whip was, and now the hon member for Hillbrow has told me that a Whip is something different. I should like to record my sincere gratitude to the hon member for this fact.

This is the second of the measures that we were discussing yesterday when we were talking about the things that have to be done before we return to this place in September in its new form. While we welcome this Bill, there is one item that has not been touched on as yet by any of the speakers, this is a point that emanated from the subcommittee on Standing Rules and Orders which I also think is a tremendously important provision. I am referring to the new provision in regard to the absence of members from Parliament. I think that hon members will be pleased to know that provision is now being made for the absence of a member with Mr Speaker’s condonation in the event of the illness or death of his wife or any of his children. I think that this is something that has long been lacking in the legislation dealing with the payment of members of Parliament. There have been occasions—I can think of a recent one affecting an hon member of this House—when the serious illness of a child and consequent misfortune that has befallen a family as a result has caused extreme difficulty as far as that member’s continued attendance at Parliament has been concerned. We are now making provision whereby you, Sir, will condone the absence of a member under those conditions.

We also welcome the increase in the amount of the fine. I notice that the hon member for Yeoville lost no time in pointing out to us that the increase was hardly in keeping with the inflation rate. I must agree with the hon member for Yeoville, Sir. This is one case where perhaps the fine could have been increased. As a matter of fact, I would not have baulked at it had the fine been increased to R100 per day for absenteeism.

Does the hon member realize that a member can be fined more for not attending meetings of a standing committee?

Yes, I realize that. However, I am talking now about being absent from this House. I do not think that this is anything that need worry us because I do not think that there are many members in this House who over the past 10 years during which I have been here have been fined for non-attendance. By and large I think that the attendance in this place is as good as it could possibly be, and I think that every member in every party needs to be commended on this score. I sincerely hope that this pattern will continue in the future.

Having said that, I just want to tell the hon the Minister that we would like to hear a little more from him during the Committee Stage if possible or in his reply to this debate—if it is agreed that we can take this Bill through all its stages this afternoon—about the post of Chief Whip of Parliament. It is difficult to discuss this point at the moment because it is not before us in view of the fact that it is contained in a proposed amendment to be moved by the hon the Minister at the Committee Stage. However, the hon the Minister did refer to this matter during his introductory speech and so in his reply we should like to hear a little more about what is envisaged with this post and exactly what it entails.

We in this party will give this Bill our support.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Umhlanga for having thanked the hon member for Hillbrow for having spelt out the importance of the Whip. I do not think that many people realize the importance of a Whip in ensuring the smooth flow of parliamentary business. I too am grateful to the hon member for Hillbrow in this regard.

The hon member said that the Whips were originally whippers-in who looked after the hounds. They also look after the stray dogs and those that forage through the fences. [Interjections.] A Whip has a very important task, Sir, and I want therefore to thank the hon member for Hillbrow for his contribution in this regard. As far as the post of Chief Whip of Parliament is concerned let me explain. In practice next year we might find that certain of these arrangements are not practical and we might, therefore, have to introduce changes from time to time. We might have to adapt according to the situation that arises. At the moment we have no experience of running three Houses. The Chief Whip of Parliament, as has been said by hon members of the Opposition, might possibly be an appointment equal to that of a Minister. It will be a very important job that this man will have to do. We must first see how it is going to work in practice.

Can he be a Coloured or an Indian?

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he has in mind that the Chief Whip of Parliament should be an impartial person in the sense that the Speaker is or that he will be a party functionary in the sense that the present Whips are?

I think he will be a party functionary like the Chief Whip of the Government and the Chief Whip of the Opposition are now. If I see how these people reach consensus when they meet on Wednesdays, I do not mind whether the incumbent of this post is connected with a political party or not. But in the past he has always had political affiliations. He should, however, also be a good referee. I think that is what we are going to need in the new dispensation.

*I want to thank the hon member for Mossel Bay for his support.

Now I come to the hon member for Kuruman. My problem is that two-thirds of the White voters of South Africa said yes to this new dispensation, and we must implement it. So how can we start getting cold feet along the way? How can we, at this juncture, take any notice of the kind of argument that this or that will not work? I think it is going to work. I am at least going to give it a decent chance to work. There will be criticism along the way, and I accept that, but to expect me to spell certain things out now, is being unreasonable. Let me just say one thing. There is no other Parliament in the world like this one when it comes to administration, control and compensation to members of the House of Assembly. After I became Leader of the House, I compared figures relating our expenditure to that of other Parliaments. Here we have a House of Assembly, with members such as these sitting here at present, which in comparison with those of other countries, with all the fringe benefits that members in other countries enjoy, such as their own typists and their own offices, has the lowest paid members of the House of Assembly in the world.

We need a trade union.

It is no use asking me what the new dispensation is going to cost. This House of Assembly, as it is constituted at present, with its 178 members, costs us R10 million plus R5 million, according to the estimates of expenditure approved each year by Parliament. This Parliament therefore costs us R15 million per year, and do hon members know what the comparison is? This country’s gross domestic product is R20 000 million. On the administration of Parhament, in the form of salaries for officials, salaries to members of the House of Assembly, meal subsidies—the lot—we spend as much as it costs us to build two km of an express way. It costs us as much as the gold price would earn us in one year if it were to increase in price by one dollar per ounce. Now hon members are asking what the new dispensation is going to cost. The new dispensation will cost us what it costs us now with 178 members of the House of Assembly, plus a further 130 members of the House of Assembly. 130 additional members of the House of Assembly will be added, together with their administrations.

That is not true.

Of course! That hon member may be a good priest or minister of religion, but about finances he knows sweet blow-all. Nobody can argue with me about this. At political meetings I have never been questioned about what my salary was. I am proud to be a member of a House of Assembly that does not waste money. Just go and look at where the Press is based in this building. Go and have a look at the offices of our officials. Go and have a look at the offices of some of our hon members. Then one should simply go and look at the West German Parliament. There are 28 standing committees with an average of 25 members serving on them, and each of them has a secundus. One must compare the salaries paid in the West German Parliament with the country’s turnover, and then look at South Africa’s parliamentary system in relation to the country’s overall turnover. Let me therefore say that people must not tell me today that the new dispensation will cost too much.

The hon member asks me where the dining-rooms will be, but that has nothing to do with the Bill. There will be a Chamber for each of the respective groups, each Chamber with its own dining-room. I have no problems today. If I were an official working in the Indian Chamber, I would have no problems. The ideal is to have Indians preparing the food for them, but if I as a White worked there, I would join the Indians for meals in their dining-room. It is not going to encroach upon my survival; it is not, for one moment, going to endanger my survival or that of my children. As far as I am concerned, the most important question is: What must I do, in this country, to achieve happy and contented consensus with groups to which one could not give a political say in any other way?

That is why I am saying that we must give this new dispensation a chance. I know the hon member is going to oppose each of the following Bills, and he has every right to do so. What I am saying, however, is that this Bill is good legislation. I am sorry the hon member is voting against it, but three-quarters of the population would like to have it, and that is why we are going ahead.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

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

I explained the amendment during the Second Reading debate.

Mr Chairman, I want to deal only with the amendment which the hon the Minister has moved. During the Second Reading debate I raised the issue as to whether or not this post should be equivalent to a non-political post such as that of Speaker or whether it should be a party political post. The reply that the hon the Minister gave indicated that in his view it should be a party political post.

I hope I misunderstood the hon the Minister because as I see it, there is nothing wrong with a Speaker who has a party political affiliation but who, when he holds that office, becomes a non-political figure in order to deal impartially with the affairs of this House. If one has to have a Whip who has to co-ordinate the activities of three Houses in which one is going to have different political parties functioning and one also finds that in each House there will be different political parties as well, one actually needs a person who is operating above the party political level. It does not mean that he cannot be a member of a political party in the same way as the Speaker can be a member of a political party, but he should be in the nature of a position where he can have not merely the respect which any person should have from another, but where he can also be in a nonpolitical situation in order to co-ordinate activities without political considerations being an issue.

As to what the status of that person will be, as to whether he will be a Deputy Minister or whether he will have another status, let me say that is another matter. I think it will have to be a relatively unique status because of the duties which he will have to perform. To make that person a political functionary in the same way as a Chief Whip of a political party in this House, I think would be doing a disservice to the process of co-ordination. At the moment we have a Chief Whip of the governing party, a Chief Whip of the official Opposition, of the CP and the NRP. This man will, however, be labelled the “Chief Whip of Parliament”. This means that he should be above the political party level and should be able to do the job without having a political connotation. He should have the kind of impartiality in regard to management which the Speaker presently has in regard to conduct. I would ask the hon the Minister to give very careful consideration to this.

Mr Chairman, I would like to associate myself with what the hon member for Yeoville has just said. It was the very thought that was expressed by him now which prompted my asking at Second Reading for a better definition. I confess that I too was somewhat disappointed with what the hon the Minister had to say. As the hon member for Yeoville has said, we are bringing somebody in to do a job for the whole of Parliament. If this post is going to be as I envisage it we must have a person who is going to be a Speaker in the sense that he will operate like a Speaker.

He has to have everybody’s confidence.

Yes. I am not suggesting as has also been argued by the hon member fo Yeoville that he cannot be a member of a political party. Of course he can be a member of a political party, but he will be an unique individual. Unless the hon the Minister has some other idea of what this gentleman will do. What is making this extraordinarily difficult is that we do not quite know what is expected of this person. To say that he will fulfil a co-ordinating function is too loose. We do not have an adequate job description, if I may call it that, of what is expected of this man. If you want somebody only to co-ordinate the work of the Whips in this and the other two Houses, I submit in all sincerity that we should be looking at an official of this House to perform that function. One could well have an official, a person employed under the secretariat, to work as a liaison officer between the Whips of the various parties and to liaise and to co-ordinate the work that is normally done by the Whips interparty-wise at the level of their own House. If that is the sort of function we are looking for, we are looking for an official. However, if we are looking for a gentleman representing a political party, I do not think it is fair and right to say to that person that all we want him to do is to co-ordinate, because we would not be doing that person a service. Such a person would be put in an extraordinarily difficult position, because he will after all be an individual with a party loyalty. He will be asked to do something that is not only going to cut across four political parties as we know it here in this House, but to do something that is going to cut across perhaps 12 political parties and three race groups. We are asking him to do something which is not defined. This is a very difficult function to define and I believe we have a problem here. We should try to solve that problem and not to create it. While we have no aversion to the position, we believe in all sincerity that we should know a lot more about it. I think that possibly the hon the Minister may do well to leave this provision at this time. The situation can always be sorted out at any stage. I think there should be a better job description before we continue with this particular provision.

Mr Chairman. I want to put a few questions to the hon the Minister. If this Chief Whip is the Chief Whip of Parliament, I take it that it must be possible to appoint him from any of the three Chambers. Is that correct? The Minister is nodding his head. It is therefore correct. According to this Bill the office-bearers are, amongst others, the Speaker, who is elected by Parliament in accordance with a certain procedure. The chairmen and deputy chairmen of the Houses are also elected in accordance with certain procedures. I now want to know how the Parliamentary Chief Whip is going to be elected. Is he going to be elected by the same electoral college that elects the State President and the Speaker, or is the Chief Whip of Parliament going to be appointed by the President? I think we should be told. If the Chief Whip were to have any ties with a political party, this would create problems if the Chief Whip of Parliament and the Chief Whip of the Governing Party were to sit in the same House. That is why I also agree with the idea that the Chief Whip of Parliament should not have ties with the House in which he also has a seat.

Could he also be a Coloured or an Indian?

In terms of the hon member’s constitution he can be a Coloured or an Indian. The Minister said so. I asked him that question, and he said it was so. That is why, let me tell the hon member for Mossel Bay, the CP has opposed the constitution, and that is why we are now still opposing the principle of the implementation of the constitution in every respect.

Mr Chairman, may I just ask the hon member to explain to us, for a moment, what he means by the Chief Whip not having any ties with this specific House?

Just as the Speaker has no ties with the caucus of a specific political party, I think that such a Chief Whip should not have any ties with the caucus of any specific political party either if he is the Chief Whip of Parliament. I want to ask the hon the Minister if that is what he has in mind.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to react to what the hon member for Umhlanga has said in reply to the suggestion made by the hon member for Yeoville. Whilst I think he is half agreeing with him, he made one suggestion with which we have difficulty, namely that the incumbent of the office concerned should be an official. We cannot go along with the suggestion that the Parliamentary Chief Whip should be an official. He must be part of Parliament. He must be elected …

Only in respect of his co-ordinating function.

No, he must be an elected member of Parliament who will then co-ordinate the work of the Whips of other parties who are also elected members of Parliament. In fact, the parliamentary encyclopaedia I referred to a little while ago concerning the whole question of Whips says, with reference to the Westminister system:

In other words, in line with what the hon member for Yeoville has said, it is almost like a Minister’s or Deputy Minister’s post. He is Parliamentary secretary to the Treasury and he must be an elected member to receive the respect due to him, if I may use the word “respect” in that sense. That is not to say that we do not have respect for the officials. Hon members must not misunderstand me in that regard. We have the greatest respect for them. I am merely saying that the Chief Whip should also fall within the category of elected members.

I just wanted to place that matter in the correct light. We in fact support the amendment moved by the hon the Minister that there should be a Parliamentary Chief Whip.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman asked the hon the Leader of the House to define the function of the Chief Whip in the new Parliament. Does the hon member not know that there is no definition anywhere of the function of the Chief Whip in the present dispensation?

It is a convention.

Yes, it is a convention. The functions of the Chief Whip gradually developed and the process is still continuing day by day. That is also what will happen under the new dispensation. It is therefore completely absurd to expect the hon the Leader of the House, at this early stage, to accurately define the function of the Chief Whip.

The hon member for Kuruman also expressed the opinion that the Chief Whip in the new dispensation should not have any party ties and should therefore not be a member of a caucus. I could not imagine how the Chief Whip would be able to carry out his co-ordinating function efficiently if he did not have a seat in his party’s caucus, because how would he be able to take a stand on behalf of his party in the co-ordinating process? He surely cannot be so neutral that he himself has no standpoint whatsoever. That is surely not how a Chief Whip must function.

The opinion was also expressed that the Chief Whip should be a member of the Cabinet. That is an idea to which I personally want to give my strong support. Two years ago I had the privilege of accompanying some of my colleagues on a parliamentary tour in Canada. There it was very strongly brought home to me that the Chief Whip should be a member of the Cabinet. Since we are now entering upon a new dispensation, with further conventions that will be developing, let me submit that the Chief Whip in the new dispensation should also be a member of the Cabinet. I think that it would not only give the Chief Whip the necessary status, but would also enable him to liaise more efficiently between the cabinet and the three Houses of Parliament. I think it would enable the Chief Whip to carry out his function even more efficiently than the present Chief Whip is already doing.

Mr Chairman, the idea the hon member for Mossel Bay raised in connection with the Chief Whip having a seat in the Cabinet is something I raised earlier on in my Second Reading speech, pointing out that it would be the ideal situation.

The hon member also referred to the conventions going hand in hand with the function of a Chief Whip. The hon member knows, however, that the present Chief Whip of the Government Party was elected in the caucus. The Cabinet nominates someone and the caucus elects him.

No, that is incorrect.

He is appointed. Earlier on I asked the hon the Minister whether a Chief Whip of Parliament would be a Cabinet appointment or whether, because he would be representing Parliament, he would have to be appointed by all three Chambers of Parliament?

Don’t be silly, Jan.

The hon member for Kimberley South does not understand these things; that is why he merely interrupts me by making such a noise. I should like to repeat this so that he can perhaps understand it too. Because the Chief Whip of Parliament could be elected or appointed from any of the three Chambers, I want to know from the hon the Minister whether he is going to be appointed by the State President or whether he is going to be elected by an electoral college in the same way as the Speaker and the State President are elected. That is all I want to know from the hon the Minister. I did not make any statements. I was merely putting a question to the hon Leader of the House.

Mr Chairman, I would just like to correct a possible misapprehension with the hon member for Hillbrow. I did not say that we were opposing this amendment. Let us get that clear. I think there could possibly be cause for reconsideration of its introduction at this stage. We are not opposing it. We will not do anything to delay the passage of this Bill.

Secondly, when I spoke of an official I said very clearly that it would apply only if the duties were purely those of co-ordination. That is all. Only if the duties are of a co-ordinatory nature do I believe it is the sort thing that could be done by an official. I just want to assure the hon member for Hillbrow that that is what I intended.

I think we are one of the few Parliaments in the world today where the Government Chief Whip is not a member of the Cabinet. I believe this is a shame. I think such a person should have Cabinet rank. This is something which certainly should be looked at. If nothing else, the discussion we have had here on this particular clause has aired a number of valuable views and opinions. The hon the Leader of the House has much that he can possibly think about when this post is established. I sincerely hope that when it is done—if it cannot be done now, then at the soonest possible moment—he will give an adequate and acceptable job description both to the intended incumbent of that post and to hon members of this House and the other two Houses.

Mr Chairman, hon members have raised a number of important points. However, I want to emphasize that the present functions of the present Chief Whip of the governing party are not laid down anywhere in legislation either. It is, as hon members correctly said, a convention that has developed over the years. These matters can be discussed in the Standing Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. All I am asking the committee today is authorization to have a Government Chief Whip of Parliament. At this stage I cannot say what all his functions will be.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is talking about a “Government Chief Whip” now. Would the designation “Government Chief Whip” not be a better designation in this instance than “Parliamentary Chief Whip”?

No. I gave the reason for this in my Second Reading speech. Chief Whip of the Majority Party is being substitute for “Government Chief Whip”. I explained this during the Second Reading.

Hon members asked me what the functions of the Chief Whip of Parliament would be. I can mention one function.

I did not ask you that.

Other hon members asked me.

†The hon member for Umhlanga asked me what his functions will be.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot set out all his functions. One of his functions will, however, be to act in a co-ordinating capacity between the various Houses.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but I can also say that when three Parliaments are sitting, surely there has to be someone who has to arrange that three own affairs would not be discussed simultaneously.

In other words, you do know what his functions will be.

This will be only one of his functions. He will have to act in a co-ordinating capacity, when there is only one Minister, between the various Houses. That is just one example.

The hon member for Hillbrow said that such a person should be an elected member of Parliament, while the hon member for Yeoville said that he should not be a member of a party represented in the House.

No, I never said that at all. I said exactly the opposite. I said he could be a member of a party but like the Speaker he should thereafter become impartial.

That is correct. He will be impartial, just as impartial as our present Chief Whip is. [Interjections.]

*When I asked the Chief Whip how we should arrange the Order Paper he told me that it was not fair to the Opposition.

That is right.

Well, he is not partial. [Interjections.] It was asked who would appoint this person, and I now say that he will be appointed by the State President. It was suggested that the person concerned should be a Minister or that he should be a Deputy Minister, but in my opinion he could be anything he wanted to be; we have to get this legislation on the Statute Book first and then we can decide in future what his functions are going to be and how he is going to operate.

Mr Chairman, we actually support this amendment but the difficulty is that one cannot ask for the creation of a new post unless one says what the person is going to do. That is the fundamental issue. The hon the Minister first says that he does not know what this person is going to do; then he says that he will be responsible for co-ordination. There is, however, a clear function that has to be performed by a Whip of Parliament. There are going to be three Houses, and somebody has to establish how these Houses are going to work. Somebody has to be responsible for the maintenance of order and, if that is so, one needs a person in this position who in fact has the kind of impartiality that the Speaker of a House should have. It does not mean that he is going to give rulings, but he will have to deal with political parties that may well be opposed to the Government. The majority party in the Coloured House may well be opposed in many respects to the majority party in the White House. A whole series of problems can therefore arise. If the hon the Minister will say that this person will be above the political arena and that he will try to make the new dispensation work from a management point of view, then he has our support. However, one cannot say that one wants this person appointed and afterwards work out what his function will be.

Mr Chairman, I have told hon members what one of the functions of this person will be. Does the hon member for Yeoville agree with the hon member for Hillbrow who said that this person must be an elected member of Parliament?

Yes.

He will therefore have political affiliations?

I have no objection to political affiliations. Mr Speaker and the Chairman have political affiliations.

Mr Speaker is, however, not a Prog. Our present Speaker is a very good Nationalist.

The hon the Minister is now being unfair to Mr Speaker because Mr Speaker has to act impartially.

He did fight an election.

Sure, but he would object to what you are saying now.

Can the hon member for Yeoville tell me what the functions will be of these people that we have now decided on—of the Chief Whip for instance?

I can’t but he can tell you.

One cannot spell out the functions of this person. However, as the new dispensation develops more and more duties will be delegated to whomever holds this post.

Mr Chairman, the argument advanced in connection with the question of our agreeing to the appointment of a Chief Whip of Parliament, applies equally in regard to the hon Minister’s request to us to approve the payment to members of Parliament and officials, without their being, as yet, any estimates whatsoever of those costs in documents before the committee. It just seems very strange to me that the hon the Minister is now doing such quick calculations here.

Order! I want to draw the hon member’s attention to the fact that we are discussing clause 1 of the Bill.

Yes, Mr Chairman. Section 1 of the principal Act deals with the payment of salaries to members of Parliament, and clause 1, which we are now discussing, amends section 1 of the principal Act.

Order! Yes, but the hon member may not discuss the principal Act now.

Sir, I am not discussing the principal Act. I am now discussing the salaries that are going to be paid to the new Parliamentarians. What I am saying is that one would normally have expected a Bill of this kind to have been introduced only after there were some indication, in some or other estimates, of the costs attaching to the new tricameral Parliament. Somewhere there ought to be some indication of the expenditure attaching to each of the three Houses. Even if provision were only to be made for R1 in the estimates, there would at least have been an item in the estimates about the matter we now have to vote on.

May I please put a question? Does the hon member not know that even during this session further legislation is going to be introduced that will cover a supplementary budget?

That is specifically the point, Sir. We must now approve legislation, although the Government does not want to tell us even what this is going to cost in this financial year. At various stages during the discussion of the Appropriation Bill all three Opposition parties told the hon the Minister of Finance that we would be entering upon the new dispensation within a few months. Today is 21 June, and the new dispensation is going to be put into effect on 3 September. We are now being asked to decide upon these people now being paid salaries, but the Government does not want to put all its cards on the table and tell us what that amount will be for the current financial year alone. We are being asked to agree to clause 1 of this Bill, but apart from the ideological considerations applicable here, we do not yet know what it is all going to cost. This committee must simply be a rubber stamp. That is an unprecedented situation, and for that reason we cannot vote for this clause.

Mr Chairman, I do not know whether the hon member was here a while ago. I told hon members that the expenditure at present was R15 million per year for 178 members.

Where is that in the Estimates?

Provision for this will be made in the Supplementary Estimates. Now we are adding a further 85 Coloured and 45 Indian members of the House of Assembly. The hon member therefore has an idea of what the new dispensation is going to cost us.

Plus the officials.

The officials are included in the R15 million I mentioned a moment ago. That hon member will do anything to throw a spanner in the works. Surely it is not necessary for me to argue this matter. It is merely a question of wanting to have the system work or not.

We are going to put this system into operation in September, and in future adjustments will be made in regard to all matters about which hon members put questions. Even if one called on the angel Gabriel he would not be able to tell one what things would be like, in regard to this matter, in two years’ time. As in the case of this Parliament since 1910, there are going to be adjustments, and such adjustments will continually have to be made. What I am therefore saying is that it is no use our wasting further time discussing the matter.

Mr Chairman, I think we shall have to give very careful consideration to the amendment in regard to the appointment of a Chief Whip of Parliament. We have no problems with that, and we support that amendment by the hon the Minister, because we believe it to be necessary. We are not speaking about the racial aspect, but the efficient administration of a tricameral Parliament is going to be a problem, and I therefore think it was wise of the hon the Minister to have this amendment. I think it was Napoleon III who decided on a parliament of six chambers, saying that since they would never be able to agree, he himself would be able to govern. If we want Parliament to function efficiently, we shall have to have decent control and administation. That is why this person must be able to command the highest possible degree of confidence and authority by virtue of his post. It must be done on the same basis as the Speaker, in terms of the old constitution, not the new constitution, unfortunately, because we could never get round to discussing the clause on the election of the Speaker. In terms of the old constitution the Speaker is, theoretically speaking, our chairman. He is elected by the House and enjoys the confidence of the House of which he is Speaker. I think it is important that the person who is responsible for the control of Parliament should at least, to a certain extent, not have political ties. We accept the fact that he will be elected by the NP, but Parliament, as an institution, is more important than any party represented here. For that reason we believe that we should try to maintain the convention that applies to the Speaker’s office and that he should not be anyone who takes part in political meetings. Nor must he be a member of a caucus. It is all very well his being a member of a party and his being elected by a party. That is the point we want to make. We have no objection of the amendment, but we should like to make the point that it is an important post. Perhaps the hon the Minister does not actually understand the point we want to make.

Mr Chairman, since I am not involved …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In the light of clause 11 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Amendment Bill, may the hon member who has just resumed his seat, speak about a matter in which he has an interest?

Order! The hon member for Tygervallei may proceed.

I specifically wanted to make the point that I do not have an interest because my post as Chief Whip of the Government is going to fall away. That is why I have been listening with great interest to hon members’ conjectures and to what they regard as valid objections.

I think it would be a great mistake if we were to endeavour to give final shape to such a post, whoever the incumbent might be. We shall have to learn from experience what the needs are when it comes to bringing about proper liaison between the three Houses.

In regard to the argument about such a person’s political ties, I want to regard his position as being slightly different to that of the Speaker in the sense that such a person must be someone who will primarily have to negotiate with the three Houses, and with all parties, in order to obtain unanimity, the coordinate of the functions of the three Houses. If he were to try to enforce his own party’s standpoint at those discussions, it would not be possible ever to obtain co-ordination. In practice things would, of necessity, have to be such that this person, involved in the process of negotiation—I do not want to say that he should not have party ties—will have to respect the views of all parties in order to obtain coordination. It would be of no use taking someone from a party caucus with such strong political convictions that in negotiating with the other parties he would want to impose his will. The only way in which this could work, the only way in which this task could efficiently be carried out, would be if such a person could bring about the highest possible degree of unanimity amongst all the parties, and he would only be able to do that if he did not take a strong political stand in the negotiations.

I have great respect for the hon members’ misgivings, but I really do not think that what they are looking for need be given by way of an assurance at this stage. We shall be learning in practice what is necessary.

Mr Chairman, we are now making provision here for the appointment of a Chief Whip of Parliament, and the hon the Minister has said that the State President will appoint the Chief Whip of Parliament. Here, however, we are making provision for his salary to be paid by Parliament. In this connection I want to put a question to the hon the Minister. If the State President appoints the Chief Whip and, as the hon member for Mossel Bay and I myself have suggested, he becomes a member of the Cabinet, would he obtain his own budget as a member of the Cabinet, or would he continue to be paid in terms of this clause?

We should like these things to be spelt out for us. I find it amazing that the hon Chief Whip of the Government says that the hon the Minister does not know how these things are going to work either. Work on this new dispensation has been going on for years now, and one of these days it must come into operation, yet now it cannot be spelt out in detail for us exactly how it is going to work. That is why we are asking these questions. We should like these things to be spelt out for us. How is it going to work?

Mr Chairman, he could be a Minister without a portfolio. He could also be a Minister performing another task. He could even be a Deputy Minister or an ordinary member, that is an open question, and I cannot today say what the State President will decide.

Mr Chairman, I think it is obvious at this stage that we cannot take this particular argument any further, and I think we have to leave it there. We support the amendment moved by the hon the Minister.

If we accept that the Chief Whip of Parliament will be appointed by the State President, then I think there is a consequential amendment which will have to be made in subsection (2)(d). As the clause stands, it reads:

In terms of that paragraph the other Whips are appointed by the leaders of the parties, but the Chief Whip of Parliament will be appointed by the State President. Therefore the Chief Whip of Parliament will have to be excluded from the provisions of paragraph (d) so that the paragraph will read:

In view of this I move as an amendment:

Mr chairman, there is a further problem and that is that the allowances of the Whips, the Chairmen and the Speaker, are all paid out of the Vote of Parliament. If the hon the Minister is right that this person may be a member of the Cabinet, then his payment will not come out of the Vote of Parliament. Therefore we shall have to amend subsection (3) too.

Because I think we are running into somewhat troubled waters, I would suggest that perhaps we should deal with the other clauses and then report progress and ask leave to sit again so that we can deal with clause 1 tomorrow. One can then go into detail on all the consequential amendments because I think we may be running into trouble, and I do not think the hon the Leader of the House wants legislation that is half baked.

Mr Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon member for Hillbrow. I think that instead of taking it for granted that the Chief Whip of Parliament will be a member of the Cabinet and therefore amending the Bill likewise, we should rather wait until we see what happens in practice. We can then amend the legislation next year, if necessary. If that appointment is a Cabinet appointment, we can amend the legislation later on.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

I would like to just briefly motivate the amendment. One of the problems which arises in respect of the activities of a Parliamentarian is that he is required to be absent on occasions on matters which are in fact connected with his duty as a member of Parliament, but which have indirect connection. Let me give a few examples. Sometimes when the defence authorities visit the border area it is expected of members of Parliament of the defence groups to go along. The hon the Minister himself expected people to go to the opening of the first toll road. There are other things which are expected of a member of Parliament where he should go. Therefore it seems wrong that there should not be permission which can be granted by the Speaker to allow him to go. If you leave it on the basis that his absence should be caused by activities directly connected with his office, matters would be vague and people could take advantage of that situation and absent themselves from all sorts of things. The argument would then be that they are connected with his duties. However, the moment you say that it must be an absence which is condoned by the Speaker, as is the provision in regard to the other matters, you have the element of control necessary. Without doubt a series of rulings will then be laid down as time progresses as to when the Speaker will condone an absence and members will know what sort of things he would be likely to condone. If he does not condone, it counts for the number of days you are allowed to be absent and if you are absent for more than those, you will be penalized and will have to pay a penalty. This becomes particularly important with standing committees, because you may well have parliamentary duties which the Speaker thinks are appropriate when you are expected to sit on a standing committee. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has said that the job of an MP is going to change completely and that it is going to become a fulltime job, that you are going to be expected to devote all your time to it, that you are going to be sitting on committees and that you are going to have to ignore a lot of the things you do now. That may have some other implications in regard to allowances, but what is equally important is that it seems wrong. Let me give an example. At present—I think it is public knowledge and that I am not giving away any secret—the total allowance that is paid to someone who attends a meeting of a select committee is R77 per day. This amount is inclusive of everything, for example his travelling expenses, hotel expenses, meals etc. I think R24 of that is intended as remuneration. You will have very great difficulty in getting a plumber to fix your tap for that remuneration per day.

Per hour!

Be that as it may, you then have the situation that if he does not go to that meeting because he is going to the border, the opening of a toll road or something else, R50 is going to be deducted from R24 so that to all intents and purposes he will be R26 out of pocket for doing a job which is connected with Parliament. This seems to be nonsense to me.

If I were a plumber, I would not be here.

I think a subscription may well be taken to allow the hon member for Umhlanga to do his apprenticeship as a plumber.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister to accept my amendment. It is completely at the discretion of the Speaker and it is only when it is connected with the duties of Parliament, and I think it is an appropriate amendment to insert here.

Mr Chairman, we on this side cannot fully associate ourselves with the amendment of the hon member. If we were to accept his amendment, this would mean that with the number of members of Parliament in the new dispensation Mr Speaker would virtually be able to do nothing but sit and decide on the merits of applications of hon members and whether or not the grounds they have advanced relate to something parliamentary. If the hon member feels there are other specific matters which should be recognized, these should rather have been included in the Act. I do not, however, think that our experience thus far has indicated that this is necessary. I also think that our experience thus far has indicated that the provision of 25 days has rarely been exceeded. Particularly as regards committee obligations in the new dispensation, if our sittings were to be of such a nature that we would have to reconsider the number of days for which exemption were granted, I think that this could be done after the new dispensation has been introduced.

I now turn to the problems this motion would cause parties. I maintain that it would be virtually impossible for the Whips of parties who, when all is said and done, are responsible for discipline and control as regards the presence of members of their party in the Council Chamber, to control the absence of members if there were to be an extension in the sense that Mr Speaker be placed in the position of having to decide on this matter. An hon member could just as well tell Mr Speaker that because he is a member of Parliament he is compelled to assist his party in by-elections and to be absent from the House for some weeks, in the way that certain members have been absent for several weeks at this stage. Then thé onus would be placed on Mr Speaker to decide whether it would suffice for them merely to attend the discussion of the Defence Vote and be in Rosettenville, for example, for the remainder of the session. I do not think we should place Mr Speaker in the position of constantly having to act as an arbitrator and approving or disapproving the absence of members. This would completely undermine party discipline and would also cause unending problems in regard to the functions of Houses and particularly of standing committees, for which a limited number of members are available, if this were to be the position.

Mr Chairman, permit me to react very briefly to the comments made by the hon the Chief Whip on the Government side. I would imagine, as I think he would do, that in fact there could be a series of rulings given by Mr Speaker which would make it obvious that beyond certain limits absence would not be condoned. One does not envisage for one moment that, because a man works in a by-election, that will have anything to do with his functions and office as a member of Parliament. It just has nothing to do with it and obviously Mr Speaker would not give that permission. Anyone can work in a by-election. It is not connected with a member’s office as a member of Parliament.

However, I want to pose a very simple question. Hon members are often involved in matters concerning the study groups they are in and and may be expected to go on a group visit, for instance to acquaint themselves with certain housing activities if they are in a study group relating to Community Development, to go to harbours and visit Richards Bay, as we once did, if they belong to the transport group, or to go to the border. It is activities of that sort I have in mind and nothing else. I do not understand why such activities are not considered as activities directly connected to one’s duties as an MP. I think it is part of the duty of an MP who is a member of the Defence group to go to the Border to see what is happening. If one is connected with the transport group, I think it is part of one’s duty as an MP to go to Richards Bay to find out what is happening there. All of those activities are relevant. In the standing committees one will be allowed to be absent for one out of every four meetings. What then happens if one belongs to a small party and one happens to serve on more than one standing committee and two such standing committees meet at the same time? There is no provision at all that a member can be absent.

The Standing Orders provide for it.

No, the Standing Orders cannot override the statutes. They are in fact subject to this statute. I can see a situation …

Then you can pay more attention to the House.

Who must pay more attention? I think some Ministers must pay more attention because they have difficulty with their legislation.

I want to, but you do not want to allow it.

That is the problem. I want to make it very clear that I am asking for this concession only when an hon member is busy with the affairs of Parliament and Mr Speaker has to give his permission.

Mr Chairman, at the moment a member is allowed to be absent for 25 days. If there are cases where members are, for example, serving on the Commission for Cooperation and Development, the House can decide that that member may be absent for a longer period. If, for example, members are visiting the border, the House can approve those specific members exceeding the 25 days. I agree with the hon member for Tygervallei, however that we would place Mr Speaker in an invidious position if he had to decide on the specific circumstances of each member.

We are in fact, making provision for matters not provided for in the past. If, for example, a member’s wife were to pass away, that would be a reason for his being absent. Children now also fall into this category, although I hope this never happens. So there are already concessions in this regard. When members have had to visit the border, and had already used up their 25 days, I can give hon members the assurance that they were never penalized in the past. I do not think that Mr Speaker should be placed in the position of being the referee in this case, because he would then be in an impossible position. I myself might possibly even try my luck during a by-election, leaving the onus on Mr Speaker, which is not right.

Mr Chairman, I have sympathy for what the hon member for Yeoville is trying to achieve in this regard, but I agree with the Chief Whip of the Government, the hon member for Tygervallei.

We do have the mechanism to cater for this very eventuality. As a matter of fact, the Whips of the various parties will remember that we used the mechanism last year when we granted an additional four days leave of absence because of the peculiar circumstances in which we found ourselves. That was negotiated via the Whips in conjunction with the Leader of the House and it was done by taking into consideration certain parliamentary duties which had necessitated people being away from this Place longer than they would have under normal circumstances.

The hon member for Yeoville made mention of visits to the border and certain other aspects. In each case I noticed that he referred to the type of occupation which involved all parties. If these duties involve all parties, then leave of abscence is surely a matter for the party Whips to negotiate during the course of a session of Parliament. The matter would be raised at caucus level and the Whips could discuss it at their weekly meetings. There may, for example, be a situation where, say, eight members of the governing party, four members of the official Opposition, two members of the Conservative Party and one member of the NRP go on a tour to the border. I believe those gentlemen should be granted additional leave.

Where in the statutes is it authorized that special leave can be given to members of Parliament by resolution of the House?

I regret that I cannot answer that question, but how did we then do it last year?

It was illegal.

No, it was not done illegally. We have the mechanism to do it and it was done last year with the agreement of all parties. Surely to heaven it is not beyond our imagination to have that as an ongoing process and to cater for the very eventualities referred to by the hon member for Yeoville.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to deal with that point any further. I want to raise a different aspect, relating to paragraph (d)(iii) of the proposed new section 2. This provision relates to an absence of one day in four from standing committee meetings when Parliament is prorogued. In my Second Reading speech I said it was fortunate that the hon Leader of the House was handling this Bill because this is a matter affecting the domestic affairs of Parliament. One day in four is an arbitrary number. I am not quarreling with it although. I do not know what the logic of one day in four was. If we are allowed 25 days in an average session of 150 days, it comes to one day in six. If one is allowed seven days when Parliament has another session other than the budgetary session, usually about 42 days, that again comes to one day in six. Therefore, I do not understand the logic of one day in four. The fine of R50 is also not commensurate with the actual emolument which the member receives.

Apart from that specific aspect I want to refer to the commitment. I want to ask the hon the Minister in his capacity as Leader of the House the question which everybody wants an answer to. To what extent will members be committed to standing committees when Parliament is prorogued? There is common discussion among members that the standing committees may sit in Cape Town or Pretoria and that members may have to leave their homes and attend such meetings for periods of a week, two weeks or even two months. Quite frankly, I think the time has come for the hon the Leader of the House to spell out to us today if possible what their commitments will be when Parliament is prorogued. They have to make arrangements with regard to a hundred and one things connected with their lives, for example business and travel arrangements. If the hon the Minister cannot do it now—I will not blame him for it—he must please tell us when we are going to know what our commitments are going to be. I cannot judge whether one day in four is fair enough. I have to take the hon the Minister’s word at this stage as to how long one is going to sit. However, the hon the Minister must please tell us what the commitments of members of Parliament are going to be with regard to standing committees when Parliament is prorogued.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the Opposition was present at a committee meeting where we discussed the new rules. The hon Chief Whip of the Opposition was also present. Those recommendations will come back to Parliament and then I will reply to all the matters.

The only thing I want to say now—I want to have it in Hansard—as that I do not want to have hon members of Parliament attending committee meetings in Pretoria of Cape Town and being out of pocket. I will see to that. We are not a backstreet business; we shall pay for it.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister to look very carefully at the amendment of the hon member for Yeoville. The position at present is that when members want special leave, such as we gave to the members of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, for example, this Parliament must decide on it. In the new Parliament it may, however, happen that a group of members of this House or of another House want to go on a visit that has some bearing on their functions, but the other Houses must then also give their consent. I want to ask the hon the Minister very carefully to consider the amendment of the hon member for Yeoville as to whether this discretion should not rather be left to Mr Speaker.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 3 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 4 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 5 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Title agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 56:

Mr Speaker, I merely rise to say that the official Opposition will support the Third Reading of the Bill. We accept that this is an indication of what will happen in the new constitution. There are certain grey areas that will have to be spelled out in regard to the functions of members of Parliament and I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister and the Government to spell out to members what their commitments will be. This will enable members to make their arrangements and play their full part as members of Parliament.

Mr Speaker, I just want it placed on record that the CP will also oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. In the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage we announced that we were dissatisfied about having to agree to a Bill before we knew what the House of Assembly would be up against as far as finances go. The hon the Minister did not reply at all clearly to the questions put in this regard. He must realize that in future this will be a general affair. Any amendment to this legislation will have to go through the long procedure prescribed in the constitution. Under these circumstances we cannot therefore, at this stage, support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Chairman, in order to assist the hon the Minister, and so that we can deal with this Bill as quickly as possible, we in this party shall not rise every time to register our objection. The hon the Minister knows what our standpoint is as far as this Bill is concerned. I do not, however, know how the hon the Minister always succeeds in winning the goodwill of the Opposition and then, just after we have been so kind as to support him, rises to his feet and sharply upbraids us.

I just want to repeat that I resent what the hon the Minister said yesterday regarding the argument of the CP that one House could ask that a member of another House appear before it with the agreement of the majority of that House, and that that could lead to conflict. We also said that a member of a minority group in a House would be at the mercy of the majority in that House to appear in another House sitting as a court. The hon the Minister then said that the CP was obsessed with race or words to that effect.

Obsessed with colour.

Yes, obsessed with colour. I just want to ask the hon the Minister whether this whole new dispensation is not based on colour? Is it not based on the Population Registration Act of 1950? Is that Act not based on colour? When the CP argues this matter, with colour as a basis, why is it then obsessed with colour, when the whole new dispensation which establishes separate Houses and gives separate privileges to those Houses with regard to own and general affairs that are based on colour, is not obsessed with colour? This is beyond me.

I repeat that we object to every clause in this Bill, and we should like this placed on record. The hon the Minister may therefore continue with his work.

Mr Chairman, I want to deal with just one aspect of this clause to avoid any misunderstanding and that is in regard to the new subsection (2) which is being added by clause 1(j), namely:

I want to make it very clear that as we see the position, when joint sittings of the Houses take place it is going to be almost impossible for there not to be any decision-making of some kind or other. I think therefore that this provision is going to have to be altered. In fact, we believe that it should be altered even now because, quite obviously, at a joint sitting, one can listen and one can speak but one cannot decide. To paraphrase the Constitution, that is what it provides at the moment. I say therefore that there are going to be a number of practical problems in relation to what happens at a joint sitting. Let us assume for a moment that a point of order is taken and that Mr Speaker gives a particular ruling and that there is a challenge to that ruling. All sorts of things can occur under these circumstances, and I think that we are going to experience difficulty in regard to this provision.

The fact that we are not going to oppose this clause must not be construed as meaning that we think that this is a satisfactory provision; on the contrary, we made our position in regard to the Constitution very clear, and that position remains. The only reason why we are not opposing this provision is because the Constitution has already been passed. However, I want to predict now that the time will come when this provision will have to be deleted from the Constitution, and the time will come when we will sit together in joint sittings where decisions will be made.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to spoil this idyllic co-operation by reacting too sharply to the hon member for Brakpan. We are still going to discuss amendments of the Constitution and on that occasion the hon member and I will have the opportunity to discuss these matters.

†In reply to the hon member for Yeoville I want to say that I do not have the power of prophesy to be able to say what will or what will not change. However, I would like to suggest that we allow ourselves to be taught by experience. I have noted the remarks of the hon member in this particular connection.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

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

Mr Chairman, I accept the amendment.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 56:

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Water Amendment Bill which was introduced during the 1983 session of Parliament was referred to a select committee for consideration after the First Reading, and the Bill which is now before hon members is the product of the investigations and deliberations of the select committee. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon member for Kimberley North, who was the chairman of the select committee, and all the other committee members on the excellent Bill which we now have. In many respects it contains improvement on the Bill which was originally referred to the select committee.

I am told that the discussions on the select committee were of an exceptionally high standard and that they testified to thorough preparation and study. I am also told that the chairman conducted the meetings in an able and knowledgeable way, and for this I should like to address a special word of thanks to him.

Since the Bill is a lengthy one, I do not propose to explain every clause it contains. Although the explanatory memorandum which was made available to hon members when the Bill was introduced last year is no longer applicable in some respects—which I shall point out in due course—the explanations it contains in respect of the great majority of the clauses are still applicable, except that allowance must be made for the new numbering of clauses.

I have pointed out in the past that the Water Act has been in force for many years and that a reformulation of the Act is therefore necessary in view of the many amendments that have been effected to it since 1956. This amending Bill is a step in the process of the updating of this very important Act on the Statute Book of this country, and it remains my intention to submit a comprehensive new Bill to hon members for their consideration in the foreseeable future, when a few remaining aspects which will require attention have also been adapted to changed circumstances by way of amending Bills. With the introduction of this measure, a large part of the revision has been completed, so it will be much easier to rewrite the rest of the Act.

†The clauses contained in the Bill under consideration relate in general to the following matters, and I shall restrict my observations to general remarks on the purpose and effect of the respective clauses:

1. (a) Irrigation boards
   Clauses 25 to 41 of the Bill contain the amendments originally proposed in clauses 20 to 36 of the Bill as read a First Time and the motivation contained in the explanatory memorandum still stands. I do not consider it necessary to add anything thereto.
2. (b) Water boards
   Clauses 42 to 53 of the Bill resubmit the amendments originally proposed in clauses 37 to 48 of the Bill as read a First Time, and the Explanatory Memorandum contains the reasons for these proposals. The select committee, however, proposes in clause 45(a) that the powers conferred in section 116 be made subject to the approval of the Minister. I accept this proposal by the select committee. Hon members will also note that the select committee proposes in clause 48(f) that the granting of State loans be made possible to water boards in respect of schemes for the supply of water mainly for use for agricultural purposes. I strongly support this proposal in view of the recent establishment of a number of water boards in rural areas for the supply of water for stock-drinking purposes, which is an agricultural use of water. The boards involved cannot be accommodated under the provisions dealing with the granting of State loans as these provisions only allow for the granting of loans in respect of irrigation schemes.
3. (c) Submission of reports on water works to the House of Assembly
   Sections 58, 121, 157 and 162 of the Act require the submission of reports to the House of Assembly in respect of water works contemplated in those sections. The select committee now proposes a raising of the amount in excess of which such reports are required. I again strongly support these proposals as contained in clauses 19, 48(f), 59 and 63 as they will limit this requirement to major works which justify the considerable effort entailed in the compilation of these reports.
4. *(d) Granting of water rights within Government water control areas
   Clauses 20, 32, 22 and 71 contain proposals for the amendment of, in particular, section 62 of the Act, relating to the granting of water rights within Government water control areas as well as measures aimed at exercising more effective control over the utilization of such rights. The considerations mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum in respect of clauses 16 to 18 of the Bill as read a First Time remain applicable, therefore.
5. (e) Safety of dams
   In clause 5, the select committee proposes that a new provision be inserted into the Act in order to increase the safety of dams. The proposals contained in this clause are strongly supported in order to avoid, as far as possible , any damage or loss of life which may arise from the collapse of bigger dams.
6. (f) Water pollution
   Clauses 4 to 13 of the amending Bill, as read a First Time, are fully explained in the Explanatory Memorandum. In the Bill which is now under consideration, provision is made in clauses 2 and 6 to 16 for the amendment and amplification of the Act with a view to the prevention of water pollution. The importance of the prevention of water pollution cannot be over-emphasized, and where wide discretionary powers are conferred upon me in terms of the relevant provisions as well as other provisions of the Act, I should like to assure hon members and the public that I am thoroughly aware of the responsibility which the exercise of these powers entails. The requirements which exist in terms of administrative law with regard to the hearing of all interested parties and the furnishing of relevant information to them will be striclty complied with at all times.
   The small number of provisions to which I have not directly referred do not contain any new principles, but represent improvements and amplifications which have proved to the necessary in the light of practical experience.

Mr Speaker, before coming to the Bill as such, I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister most sincerely on the fact that he referred the Bill to a select committee. We welcome this constructive approach and we are pleased to have been able to make a contribution with the regard to the proceedings of the committee.

I should like to congratulate the hon member for Kimberley North on the way in which he chaired the select committee. We appreciate his endeavors to achieve consensus on all contentious points.

†Mr Speaker, with regard to the Bill itself, we see it as an important step forward in respect of water management and control in South Africa. Water is, in the long term, South Africa’s most critical resource. It is the ultimate limitation to growth. We have projections that on the present assumptions the consumption and demand for water will exceed the supply by the year 2020, even if we exploit all available resources, which is ultimately limited, we are told, to 32 000 million cubic metres per annum. It is an extremely sobering projection to realize that South Africa can only sustain growth for another 35 years on present assumptions for a population not in excess of 90 million and provided also that the population density and pressure at that stage are not so great as to pollute the available water. This serves to highlight the importance of legislation and policy in this area. It is quite clear that in the future water administration or water policy is going to assume greater and greater importance and will need strong planning and control. I would predict that the correct planning and usage of water will become one of the main issues regarding natural resources in the Republic during the early part of the next century.

This brings me to the Bill itself. The board trend of the Bill is to introduce greater control, in the general interest, of water as an increasingly scarce asset. It contributes to a general tightening up of the Water Act of 1956 in respect of a number of general, technical and organizational respects. Since we welcome the general thrust of these proposals we will be supporting the Bill. However, during the course of the debate I would like to highlight a number of important elements. The first of these concerns the use of water for industrial purposes and the prevention of water pollution, particularly in respect of the disposal of industrial water.

The dilemma facing the select committee, and facing me as a member of the select committee, was that while on the one hand it was seen to be vital to exercise the strictest control over the usage of water and the prevention of its pollution, it was recognized that on the other hand that measures proposed should not unduly inhibit vital economic growth in South Africa. It is evident that a balance must be struck between the conflicting interest of conservation and economic growth. While it is essential to ensure clean water, adequate preservation and no wastage, it is also vital to coax industrial growth and not to kill off new enterprises through excessive and onerous restrictions which would create unnecessarily high operating costs.

The select committee members will recall that the FCI in particular sought to strike this balance by appealing for the incorporation of provisions based on what was termed “best practical means”. They wanted this built into the legislation. They further suggested that the drastic powers which are going to be given to the Minister should be counter-balanced by the right of appeal to the courts. The concept of best practical means when used in connection with the purification and disposal of water for industrial purposes would have included a set of criteria against which ministerial action could have been evaluated. It was suggested that these criteria should include such factors as the provision and maintenance of purification appliances, the prevailing extent of technical knowledge in the field, the effective care and operation of such appliances and the cost likely to be involved in order to achieve reasonably practicable water purification. The FCI’s concern about establishing such best-practical-means criteria and having them incorporated into the legislation was clearly bound up with the second part of their-appeal, which was to establish a legal basis for appeals to the court should they feel aggrieved by ministerial action. I found myself sympathetic to their position, because it would indeed be economically disruptive and even inflationary if the powers to be granted under this legislation were to be used with an excessively heavy hand. Having said that, I want to add that I am pleased that, in introducing the legislation, the hon the Minister made a point of giving assurances that he will use these powers with great circumspection. I was concerned that, if the present legislation were to be hedged about too closely with rather vague criteria which could have the effect of bogging down all ministerial action in lengthy, costly and complicated legal wrangles, that too would be highly undesirable and would nullify the major objectives of this section of the Bill. Given the fact that this is pioneering legislation, I personally believe that the balance can be found in the first instance by granting the Minister the powers provided for in this legislation while at the same time appealing to him to incorporate best-practical-means criteria into the regulations which he is empowered to make in terms of the Bill. I believe that the regulations could at this stage be a mechanism for finding a balance between the interests of conservation and clean water on the one hand and the industries of commerce and industry on the other hand. Over a period of time it may be possible to incorporate such elements in future amending legislation, but at this stage I think that regulations should be the mechanism employed in order to give the hon the Minister real teeth in dealing with water pollution. Having said that, I hastily add that we on this side will be the first to complain should we feel that the Minister has abused the powers granted to him. Again, I welcome the assurances he gave this afternoon.

The second important element of this Bill I should like to highlight is the question of the safety of dams. I think it is worth noting that this is the first occasion, as far as I am aware, on which the SA Council of Professional Engineers has been recognized in legislation. That is the council as defined in section 1 of the Professional Engineers’ Act No 81 of 1968. I believe it is a healthy development that the SA Council of Professional Engineers will now be incorporated by way of consultation into the administration of dam safety. In principle I believe it is a good thing for a roster of competent professional engineers to be compiled who are able to provide a sound professional service in respect of the safety of dams and water works. Such a roster should then be made available to those persons and bodies contemplating the building of dams. It seems to me that this is a sound mechanism for an approved list to be prepared after consultation with the professional body, the body most concerned, and that it will be a service to the general public to establish such a list.

It must be noted, however, that in practice there is one potential danger which must be guarded against. That is the danger of a potential closed shop whereby the plum work of constructing dams, especially large dams, might be limited to an unduly short list of professional engineers to the detriment of others who might be quite capable of undertaking the work but find themselves not included on the list. This is an aspect which will lie very much within the discretion of the hon the Minister and we would have to be on our guard against any undesirable closed shop practice developing. It goes without saying that we must therefore be attentive to any well-based complaint from any professional engineer who might feel he has been unjustifiably excluded from such an approved list.

The next important aspect of the safety of dams which we on this side of the House can welcome, is the provisions of the proposed subsection (5)(a)(i) and (ii) whereby a Minister shall be required to establish an Advisory Committee on Safety of Dams as well as a technical review committee to advise him on technical matters in this connection. These provisions open the door to involvement on the part of the private sector in the administration of large dams. Provided that the membership of such committees includes independent people and people with suitable technical and scientific qualifications, I believe that these committees will undoubtedly play an important role in the future. I take the opportunity to commend the Government for having accepted these two provisions for inclusion in the Bill, which take due account of the role the private sector can play in the administration of water affairs.

A final matter in connection with dam safety, which I should like to raise by way of a small note of caution, relates to the definition of a dam with a safety risk. In principle it is quite obvious that dams with a safety risk should be defined as reasonably large dams or dams which the Minister may by notice in the Gazette declare to be dams with a safety risk. However, it is also clear that there are some reasonably large dams, particularly in remote rural areas, which might have a storage capacity well in excess of 50 000 cubic metres, but will not necessarily constitute a safety risk to human life or to the general public. In this regard one thinks of earth dams which are built by experienced earth-moving contractors in rural areas for farmers on a regular basis. I believe it would be a mistake to insist that such a large dam, even though the risk was absolutely insignificant, should have to be built under the supervision of a professional engineer. I think that the hon the Minister should by way of regulation consider making some exclusions in this regard.

The third element of the Bill which I would like to touch on briefly is the question of the alterations of the course of a public stream. This is a matter which can be very contentious at times, but an amendment moved in the select committee to exclude local authorities in their area of jurisdiction and to exclude irrigation boards from these provisions, together with the provisions which protect an interested party and his interests arising from the alteration of a stream, have now resolved the matter and will cover the most likely circumstances with the minimum of red tape.

The final important element of the Bill to which I would like to refer is clause 45, which provides that a water board may amend or vary its charges and prices in general or in respect of a particular consumer or category of consumers, but with the approval of the Minister. I believe that a manipulation of tariffs under the co-ordinating control of the Minister will be an increasingly important instrument in policy-making as regards water affairs in South Africa. The vital role which tariffs played in Natal during the recent crisis is to my mind an important pointer to future policy-making. Drastic savings were achieved through that mechanism, and it is my view that the manipulation of tariffs, of prices, is a far more powerful method of regulating usage than rationing or moral suasion as a solution to short-supply problems.

The recent drought is a case in point. I have mentioned the success achieved in Natal. With this should be compared the example of the Rand Water Board where that board attempted to conserve water in the PWV complex with a very mixed result. Appeals for restrictions and cutbacks on supply some municipalities obeyed and others did not. This created problems and there problems we discussed under the Environment Affairs and Fisheries Vote. There was no uniformity, and a great many hard feelings arose from the fact that people in Verwoerdburg continued to use garden hoses so that the overall saving there was much less than was achieved by the cut which was applied to irrigation farmers in the Vaalharts complex. This has been mentioned before. It was a most serious problem. It is my view that when a water crisis arises, it is vital that the hon the Minister come to grips with the problem and ensures that uniform controls are applied so that the burden is spread evenly among the different urban areas and between town and country. An obvious mechanism for uniform conservation and results to be achieved is for uniform tariffs to be applied when the need arises.

At present section 9A of the principal Act does not give the Minister the power—as I understand it—to control tariffs or for specific restrictions to be applied under his authority throughout the country. It only gives him the power to control the volume of water which is made available to a particular area. I believe that this is inadequate and therefore I welcome the power which is granted to the Minister in clause 45 to enable him to use tariffs as a conservation instrument across the board. I am very pleased that the select committee has agreed to the amendment.

In summary, this side of the House will support the Bill for all the positive reasons which I have enumerated and others which other hon speakers will mention. In doing so I should like to state that I do not believe that this is by any means the end of the road or the last word on the subject of water management in South Africa. I believe we must view water management and conservation as a dynamic policy area in which new ideas, techniques and controls must be solicited and considered as broadly as possible. I welcome the appointment by the hon the Minister of the committee to consider the problems in the PWV complex. We must take the view that in the future we must improve legislation as progressively as possible. We have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

To begin with, Mr Speaker, permit me to convey my sincere thanks and profound appreciation to, firstly, the hon the Minister for his kind words. They are appreciated. I also thank the hon member for Constantia for his kind and friendly comments on my chairmanship. In this regard I just wish to mention that the quality of chairmanship is determined by the quality of the people over whom one exercises chairmanship. Therefore it is a special privilege to convey my sincere thanks and profound appreciation to the Director-General of Environment Affairs and Fisheries and his officials. I can give them the assurance that it was an enriching experience to be able to deliberate with them on the very important amendments of the Water Act, Act No 54 of 1956, which are at present before the House.

Secondly, I also wish to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to the individuals and bodies that contributed valuable commentary and made submissions regarding the amendments, either by way of written memoranda or personal evidence.

Thirdly, it was also a special privilege to consider the amendments to the Act in the company of the members of the select committee. Once again I wish to convey to them my sincere thanks. It was a pleasant experience to be able to deliberate with them in the select committee.

It is particularly gratifying to be able to attest to the fact that the select committee achieved total unanimity in all its deliberations and resolutions with regard to the absolute necessity that, firstly, the limited supply of water at our disposal may not be polluted and, secondly, the use of this valuable commodity must be strictly controlled. Pollution of water, and control of its use, remind one involuntarily of the words of the Afrikaans song which goes as follows:

Profoundly aware as we are of how vitally important it is that our water resources should not be polluted and that water may not be wasted, one is inclined—and this is how I interpret the attitude of the members of the select committee—to change the words of the song and to sing as follows with enthusiasm and dedication on every occasion:

In other words we:

And, in addition to that:

As the hon the Minister said, the amendments concern certain broad aspects. Firstly, they have to do with measures to prevent the pollution of water; secondly, measures to ensure the effective control of the consumption of water; thirdly, measures to streamline the functioning of irrigation boards and water boards to a greater extent in the light of practical experience since 1956 and, fourthly , amended penal provisions as well as amendments of provisions relating to the division of land and the allocation of water in respect of the undivided parts.

The members of the select committee decided, with a view to saving time and eliminating repetition, only to deal individually with some of the amendments. Therefore I should like to draw the attention of the House to the amended section 20 of the principal Act as set out in clause 10 of the Bill. This section relates to the control that will be exercised over an alteration in the course of a public stream.

It is very interesting that there was a penal provision in the principal Act of 1956 relating to the alteration of the course of a public stream. However, no real provision was made in respect of how the course of a stream could be changed without its being necessary to impose penal provisions. The amendments provide that in order to alter the course of the public stream a permit issued by the Minister must, in the first instance, be obtained. The permit is subject to any conditions specified by the Minister. There are many problems in regard to this matter, viz the acquisition of a permit from the Minister. For example, the question was when it should be obtained. Eventually it was decided—and this is very important—that the course of a public stream could be altered without a permit in cases where it was altered in accordance with an order of a water court, as the hon member for Constantia also pointed out; this is in terms of section 9, which relates to the alteration of the course of a stream due to natural causes. Moreover, the course of a public stream may be altered by or on the authority of an irrigation board in terms of section 89(l)(e) and by a local authority within its area of jurisdiction. It was a wonderful experience to speculate how and when a local authority might change the course of a public stream and how it would go about it. Eventually it was decided that local authorities may alter the course of a stream in their area of jurisdiction without having to obtain a permit. Moreover this could be done by building a soil conservation work in accordance with the relevant provision of the Soil Conservation Act, and this afforded a solution to the problem. For example, a public stream may be running in the wrong direction as a result of a flood and the question arises as to whether the farmer should have the right to attempt to check it by way of a weir or whether he first has to request a permit. It was then decided that in a case where soil conservation works were being carried out, the farmer would not require a permit.

Certain procedures are prescribed in connection with the acquisition of such a permit, inter alia that due notice must be given to persons in control of land adjoining the land on which the change of course is contemplated. Such notice must be given in writing, and also by way of advertisements in the English and Afrikaans newpapers, and the advertisements must appear at least twice. Objections to such an application for a permit must be submitted to the Director-General of Environment Affairs and Fisheries within a certain time. If a permit is issued—and this is very important—it is necessary to include in the permit, in accordance with the provisions, that an objector or objectors may obtain a ruling from the water court. The Director-General must then, 14 days after such a permit has been issued, send a copy thereof to all legitimate objectors. An objector may, as long as he is entitled to the use of water in a public stream, submit to the Water court an objection to such diversion within 60 days. The water court may then confirm or set aside the permit for the diversion, withdraw or amend a condition or add new conditions. If the Water Court sets aside such a permit, the course may not be altered and if a start has already been made with the change the work has to be stopped. The person undertaking the change must then—this is also very important—undo, at his own expense, the work he has already begun to divert the stream, within a period determined by the Water Court, and take such steps as are necessary to revert the stream to its previous course. It seems somewhat drastic that the man who began the work with the permit in his possession should restore the position at his own expense if the Water court sets aside the decision. However, we must just bear in mind that the permit contains a warning that the Water Court may well uphold an objection.

Natural causes may be the reason for an alteration in the course of the stream, and in such a case a person who is deprived of his water rights by the alteration in the course may apply to the Water Court within five years to build the necessary works to revert the stream to its original course. This is what has been provided with regard to a very ticklish problem, viz the alteration to the course of a public stream with or without a permit in certain instances.

I should also like to refer to the specific provision in clause 69 whereby section 171 of the principal Act is being replaced. What we have here is a built-in penal provision. In the first instance where a person contravenes one of the statutory provisions he may be charged before a court. If he is found guilty, that court may decide in the presence of the accused what benefit has been derived by the accused from the contravention of the provision of the Act and may thereupon fine the accused by the amount of that benefit he has derived. Secondly it may also be that damage is caused due to contravention of a statutory provision. The legislation provides that in such a case the court may also decide immediately on the degree of damage caused and recover it from the accused. In this regard I should like to quote the provisions of the proposed new section 171(2), which reads as follows:

In other words, the idea of penal provisions, and together with that, the provision that the man must repay as a fine the benefits he has derived as well as the damage he has caused.

It is also important to consider the safeguarding of industries by way of inspections. Hon members will understand that whereas the act is there to prevent pollution in and by industries, the Act must give inspectors the right to visit industries in the case of pollution or to determine whether there are possibilities of pollution. The Federated Chamber of Industries has, quite rightly, expressed its concern that such an inspector may come into possession of secrets with regard to production methods etc. They were justifiably concerned about that, and for that reason we are grateful that that objection has been accommodated by the insertion of the provision in clause 66, which reads:

Then a few exceptions, in regard to which disclosure is allowed, are specified. Then, if he discloses any information he may not disclose, he is guilty of an offence. Moreover there are amendments to the 1934 Act, viz the Vaal River Development Scheme Act, providing for the division of riparian land and also providing how the water is to be allocated to the undivided parts.

I repeat that it was a pleasant experience to deal with these matters. I think that the amendments being proposed represent a considerable improvement on the existing Act. A definite effort has been made to give teeth to bodies in order to prevent pollution of water and the misuse and wastage of water.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I should like to request your permission to confine myself to my notes today as far as possible. It is somewhat more difficult to make a speech about the Water Act than to make a speech in Potgietersrus. Therefore I ask that you permit me to confine myself to my notes as far as possible. The audience here is a clinical, analytical and expert audience, although all of them may not always be listening. At Potgietersrus there is an audience that listens and applauds. Therefore it is far easier to speak there.

I now turn to my notes. Sir, water is life. That is something we have accepted. The recent years of drought have impressed upon us the profound significance and impact of these few words, ie that water is indeed life. South Africa is known as an industrial country. It is also known as a country with a strong gold mining industry. Notwithstanding our low rainfall and limited water resources, our country is credited with many achievements in the agricultural sphere.

We recall that South Africa is not only self-sufficient as far as its own domestic food production is concerned, but has also distinguished itself by being one of the few countries in the world that is still able to export food to hungry countries in other parts of the world. If necessary, South Africa could get by without its industries if it only had water to produce food. Similarly, I could say that if necessary, South Africa would be able to get by without its gold mines. If in the distant future the evil day were to dawn when our rich gold mining deposits were to be exhausted, South Africa would have a difficult time of it, but if we have rain to produce food South Africa will continue to live.

That is why this Bill has been introduced. It concerns the interests, the weal and woe of everyone in South Africa because it concerns the heart, the jugular, of the life of South Africa; it concerns water. It is my conviction that everyone who had a part in the drafting of this Bill, the hon the Minister, his able department and each of the officials of the department in the Water Affairs Division who was concerned with the Bill, the members of the select committee and the people who submitted evidence, contributed to the establishment of the Bill with one aim in mind, and that was to deal with and appreciate South Africa’s water as something precious, and that they took the decisions embodied in the Bill with that in mind.

The hon member for Kimberley North, who was chairman of the select committee, was invariably impressively well prepared for meetings. [Interjections.] The wise and well-considered way in which he dealt with these matters was always impressive. [Interjections.]

Earlier on I referred to industry, the gold mining industry and the agricultural industry. Each of these industries can, in the first place,—depending on their attitude—save water; that is to say, if their attitude is right. In the second place if their attitude is not right they can waste water. In the third place they can pollute water, if they are malicious and uncaring.

I wish to turn briefly to that section of the Bill that concerns water pollution. I want to quote from an annual report dating back as far as 1970. I am authoritatively informed that this report, entitled Report of the Commission of Enquiry into Water Matters—it is a blue book we received in 1970—is regarded by experts as virtually the alpha and omega of water affairs in South Africa. As long ago as 1970—that is 14 years ago—the commission said the following about the prevention of pollution (page 19):

Many of these entreaties, directives and desires expressed in the report are indeed clearly embodied and realized in the Bill. I quote further:

This is specifically emphasized in the Bill:

In addition I want to say that the department, and here I refer specifically to the Water Affairs Division, has at all times been at its post and over the past number of years has been attempting to deal with these problems that we are concerned about and that are the reason for our having given teeth to this Bill. In the latest annual report of the department there is a heading “Pollution control”. This division of the department worked hard during the financial year. A large number of effluent samples were analyzed. The first region I wish to deal with is the Rand. This region includes Pretoria, Johannesburg, Bethal, Ermelo, Amersfoort and Vryheid and the areas surrounding these places. In this region 901 sample tests were carried out during the financial year. In the southern region, which includes the entire Cape Province, 5 156 samples were tested for pollution during the same period. In the Eastern Region, viz virtually the entire remaining area of the country, 2 120 samples were taken, whereas 1 269 samples were tested at the mines. This works out to a total of 9 446.

I have said that there are three bodies that can be held chiefly responsible for the pollution of water. One is the agricultural sector. However, the possibility of pollution by this sector is limited. It may occur due to heavy fertilization of their lands by farmers. Irrigation and rain can cause those minerals to find their way into water streams, but the chances are not very great. It may also happen that when weeds are exterminated using weedkillers, those poisons can be washed into the rivers. As a farmer, however, I venture to say that at most there is a very slight possibility of that. At one stage there was the feed-lot industry, but that stopped being an agricultural matter long ago, and has become an industry. Therefore we can dwell on the remaining two sectors that may cause pollution. The first sector I wish to deal with is the industrial sector.

I do not wish to take up the time of this House unnecessarily, but I do wish to quote what are specified in the Bill as factors that can play a part in water pollution. Right at the beginning of the Bill one reads in clause 1 that as regards use of water for industrial purposes, the following may give rise to water pollution:

One could carry on in that vein. The proposed section 12 provides that if an industry uses more than 150 cubic metres of water per day, that industry has to apply for a permit for the consumption of that water. That is an important amendment. Previously the figure was 300 cubic metres. What I like about this is, firstly, that as soon as that industry applies for the use of 150 m3 per day, that application, together with full details, has to be considered by the department. The department can then immediately infer whether that type of industry will cause water pollution or not. If there are signs that it will pollute water in any way its case is further investigated and then the permit is awarded to it accordingly. As I said, the amount of water in question used to be 300 m3 and is now 150 m3. When such an industry applies for a permit the department is therefore afforded the opportunity to carry out an inspection in advance and issue its finding accordingly.

Mr G C D Claassens of the department made the following striking statement about industries and water pollution before the select committee:

Sir, I repeat: To combat pollution costs money; not to combat pollution costs more money. I think we can say, with gratitude—I think that the committee also found this with the various witnesses who appeared before the committee—that the attitude of the mining and industrial sectors is good. I would say it is very good. I do not doubt for a moment that we are going to have the responsible co-operation of the industrial sector and the mining sector in the implementation of this Bill. This Bill is not there to restrict these people. Indeed, it is there to help them. The day South Africa’s water is polluted to such an extent that neither the industrial sector nor the mines nor the public can use it, the mines, the industries, agriculture and every man and beast in South Africa will come to a standstill. Therefore one concludes that this Bill is in the interests of South Africa as a whole.

The proposed section 21 also obliges the industrial sector to purify water that is used to such an extent that it may be returned or discharged or may flow back to the source from which it was obtained. An important measure is that the supply of water to anyone who deliberately fails to comply with these requirements may be terminated or reduced. Heavy fines may also be imposed. The proposed sections 22 and 23 also deal with various types of pollution. In addition—the hon member who was chairman of the committee has already referred to this and I just wish to emphasize it—the Director General may in terms of this Bill authorize any person in writing to enter upon premises where activities that could cause water pollution are in progress, for inspection purposes. If, after he has received the report of the inspection, the Director General finds that he is justified in issuing a direction against the body in question he may direct the industry to take steps to rectify the matter. I think that is very fair. He may direct the industry to take steps to put its house in order. If that industrialist, or the person whose affairs are not in order, is aggrieved by the direction, he has 60 days to appeal to the Minister, an appeal which, we believe, will be duly considered. We believe that this, too, is just.

As far as mine pollution is concerned, I wish to refer once again to the annual report of the 1970 commission, and I quote (page 113):

The commission also issued the further interesting finding regarding something that occurs in my part of the world:

Therefore the activities of mines, too, are being dealt with by this legislation, as well as our industries and anyone who may be responsible for water pollution.

I wish to conclude by pointing out that the attitude of the mine managements and of industrialists is good. However, among these people, and occasionally among farmers, too, one encounters people who have the wrong attitude to water pollution. However, one will always encounter such people, just as one encounters politicians whose attitude is not always right. That is only human. [Interjections.]

It is not the aim of this legislation to hamstring mines and industries. We profoundly appreciate the economic contribution of mines and industries to the welfare of South Africa and we know that they will give their co-operation as regards the implementation of this legislation because this is in the interests of everyone in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon members for Constantia and Meyerton in which they complimented the hon member for Kimberley North, who was the chairman of the select committee, on the excellent manner in which he carrried out his duties. Those of us who served on the committee know that the work took a long time and required some sensible guiding on many occasions. This was never lacking and I know that I speak for all members who served on that select committee when I say that the chairman did a very good job.

It is almost a year ago that the select committee met for the first time, and it has therefore taken us almost a year to get where we are today. I believe a great credit is due to the officials not only for the manner in which they presented the documentation but also for the manner in which the committee was able to function. It is also interesting, when one casts one’s mind back, to realize that when the select committee first met, the country was in the throes of a water crisis in many of the summer rainfall areas.

The legislation now before the House carries with it a message which can be so easily forgotten, and that is how essential it is that there must be proper control and correct utilization of water, and that the quality of water we preserved. I think that is a message which is carried forward in this legislation.

While many points have been covered by previous hon speakers, I wish to refer specifically to clause 20 of the Bill which amends section 62 of the principal Act. Anyone who has read the Bill will note that it takes up almost a quarter of the space of the entire Bill. This clause deals principally with the allocation of water of a public stream in a water control area that is not served by a State impoundment. The control and usage of water in such areas have been subjected to numerous amendments from time to time, and provisions contained in this Bill attempt to streamline the existing legislation and bring it up to date with present requirements. It is proposed that the right to the use of water be vested in the Minister. This would include the abstraction, impoundment and storage of water in any water control area. Similarly the Minister’s approval would be required for the construction, alteration and enlarge ment of any water scheme except in the case of existing utilization of public water being attached to a piece of land prior to the declaration of the Government water control area.

It is interesting to note that such irrigators would enjoy provisional entitlement of not more than the annual quantity of water used during the qualifying period for the area concerned, it is quite apparent that the Minister is indeed being given very wide powers under this legislation and it is well to note that the allocation of water for irrigation purposes in the Government water control areas is now being linked to particular pieces of land. This is an important feature of the legislation as it is an attempt to encourage the more efficient use of water for irrigation purposes. It is most desirable in that the country is faced with the reality that it cannot afford to ignore that water is a limited commodity and must therefore be utilized on an on-going basis, by all sectors, in a very much more efficient manner than it has in the past. This is particularly applicable in agriculture, which is responsible for some 70% of the water utilization in South Africa. The efficient utilization of water must therefore become the war-cry of all consumers if the future needs of this country are to be sustained.

Regulations appertaining to the use of public water include the maximum quantities that may be used during specific periods, and also the different conditions that may be applied for different times of the year or in respect of different categories of land. This in effect means that the hon the Minister has the power to apply ad hoc regulations to meet any possible contingency and provide a much more flexible means of adapting the use of water to any prevailing conditions.

Subsection (2)(c) of clause 20 makes provision for the use of water for irrigation purposes, and provides for the furnishing of details of existing schemes to the Director-General in order that he may determine the water allocation for each piece of land once an area has been proclaimed a water control area. A point of interest here is that consideration may be given to the allocation of water rights to irrigators who were unlawfully extracting water from a public stream during a particular qualifying period and prior to the proclamation of a water control area.

The select committee gave considerable thought to the right to appeal by a person who felt aggrieved by the determination of the Director-General in regard to water allocation to a piece of land. The original draft catered for an appeal to the Minister and to the Minister alone, but as a result of representations received from various organizations, including, organized agriculture, it was accepted by the Select committee that the Minister may find himself in an awkward situation if he were to override the decision of his own Director-General. Consequently provision is now being made for certain procedures to be adopted in regard to appeal. Firstly, a person who feels aggrieved by the decision of the Director-General may within a specified period of 90 days appeal to the Minister. Secondly, should the Minister uphold the decision of the Director-General, the person concerned may appeal to the water court, which may confirm the Minister’s decision or make such an order as it deems fit.

As I have already stated, the Minister’s powers are being greatly increased by this legislation. This is, however, necessary if a fair and equitable allocation of water is to be available to all users. Those of us who represent rural constituencies have been inundated during the past few years with complaints from our constituents in the farming community that they were being deprived of and denied their rightful share of water for irrigation purposes. It is therefore obvious that in time the further extension of water control areas throughout the country will become a reality to ensure that the increasing demand for water will be met by more equitable allocations, allocations which, as I have said before, must be closely linked to more efficient utilization.

It is for this reason that we welcome the fact that as far as the agricultural sector is concerned, the hon the Minister has the power to determine the quantity of water that is adequate annually to irrigate one hectare of land. Consideration will obviously have to be given to the agricultural potential of a particular area and one appreciates as well that a provision is necessary whereby no alteration to an existing waterworks can be carried out without the approval of the Minister. This conforms to the overall control measures contained in the Bill. Similarly, the Minister has been vested with powers to deal with unauthorized enlargement or alteration of existing waterworks.

An obvious vexed question in the past has arisen when a piece of land has been subdivided and the water rights have not been allocated in proportion to the relevant subdivision. This is now being catered for, and provision is being made for disputes to be referred to the hon the Minister, who may call upon the parties concerned to reach agreement, failing which he may suspend the water allocation applicable to the relevant pieces of land.

To sum up, the provisions contained in clause 20, which seek to amend section 62 of the principal Act, will result in the more efficient application of the Act relevant to the allocation and the utilization of water in water control areas. The Bill itself, Sir, will have far-reaching effects that will leave its mark for many, many years to come. It is with pleasure that we will be supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I want at the outset to thank all hon members for a most interesting and constructive discussion on this Bill. I am especially delighted that complete consensus could be reached on as important a measure as this. I think it must be looked upon as a very clear message to the nation that when we talk about the most valuable natural resource of this country, party politics play no role whatsoever. I am particularly pleased to be able to say this today because throughout this debate it has been made very clear that all hon members are very concerned indeed about this very valuable natural resource in our country, namely water.

*Mr Speaker, I should also very much like to take this opportunity to convey the sincere thanks of officials of the Directorate of Water Affairs to hon members who have expressed thanks to them. I can give them the assurance, while we are specifically discussing the Directorate of Water Affairs, that we have some of the best officials in the world. We have in our employ engineers who are really of top quality, and indeed, they are regarded as such not only in our country, but abroad as well. They are recognized as officials and professional people who comply with the highest standards that can be set in any profession. Therefore I wish to thank hon members once again for their praise of these people and assure them that whereas I have now been a Minister in this portfolio for two years, it has always been a pleasant experience for me to have contact with these people and to see with what absolute dedication they approach their task, and always in the interests of the people of South Africa. Perhaps I should also mention the wonderful way in which these people also provide assistance with regard to water development in our neighbouring states. This is something that is very seldom mentioned, viz the contribution of the officials in the Directorate of Water Affairs to the joint water committees, and the absolute dedication with which they also tackle and try to promote water development in our neighbouring countries.

The hon member for Constantia thanked me for referring this legislation to a select committee. I think that it has become the custom over the years that all legislation of this department be referred to a select committee. I think it is a ood custom, and what we have before us today once again attests to what can be achieved by means of consensus politics.

Which is going to happen in the new constitution.

Yes, I think so. The hon member has hit the nail on the head.

*I should like to repeat that I want to thank hon members for the way in which they have approached this matter. I also wish to say to the hon member for Constantia that in future, too, we are going to refer legislation of this nature to a select committee because one likes to depoliticize a department such as this. To depoliticize it one first has to have the matter discussed in a small committee, and then return to this House with full consensus. I think this is a very good idea and I thank the hon member for having referred to it.

I wish to single out a few outstanding characteristics of today’s debate relating to water. Mr Speaker, you must not accuse us of wanting the deliberations of the Standing Committee on this amending Bill to stand over again. However, a number of aspects of the utmost importance relating to the consumption of water in our country have manifested themselves. I think that all hon members subscribe to the statement that water is South Africa’s most precious natural resource. Without it we shall go under. The hon member for Meyerton used a very striking expression that I should like to repeat. He said that water is the jugular of a country. I think that that is a statement that we would do well to remember in the future. Water is indeed the jugular of a country. What is a jugular? If one cuts a jugular, death follows. I think that this has been impressed upon us during this drought that we are still battling with in some areas—it has been impressed upon our people—that water is an extremely precious commodity and that it must not be wasted. Here I have in mind a slogan of the department: “Count every drop, every drop counts”. We speak about a drop, only a drop of water, but without a drop of water we cannot fill our dams. That is indeed true. I think that this slogan has got through to this country due to the drought we have had to struggle through.

The hon member for Constantia touched on a very important matter which I, too, would like to discuss briefly today. It concerns the fact that it is estimated that we shall have sufficient surface water to last us until the year 2020. I just want to say in passing that I think that technology with regard to the utilization of water is developing so rapidly that we can shift that date onwards. I think that modern development with regard to irrigation, the consumption of water and the re-use of water in our industries and in our homes is developing at an astonishing rate. For example, I saw yesterday a shower head which someone developed that uses exactly 50% less water than the normal shower heads. Nevertheless one is soaked completely; there is no problem in that regard. One can soap oneself properly. I am not a good golf player but I do play golf now and again. The hon members who play golf will really be sympathetic in this regard. As far as I am concerned the 19th hole is the best hole in golf—that is, under the shower. Standing in the shower, one sees another player getting out from under the shower while the shower is still running. He soaps himself all over and plays around a bit. But while he is soaping himself that shower keeps on running. Hon members must not take it amiss of me, but I shout at such a person and tell him not to waste water like that. Therefore we can make contend that in terms of our resources at this stage, we have only enough water until such and such a year, but technology is developing so rapidly, as far as the utilization of water is concerned, that one is sometimes amazed.

I want to make another statement and I think the hon member referred to that as well. Those who read the report of the President’s Council with regard to demographic trends in this country will probably share my concern about the findings of the President’s Council in this regard. Their finding is that our country has water for a maximum of 65 million people. Once again I think that the finding of the President’s Council is based on the present situation, and perhaps developments in modern technology were not taken into account.

However, the fact remains that the aim of the report of the President’s Council is to warn South Africa by telling us that we cannot continue to allow our population in this country to increase at such a reckless rate. I cannot describe it as anything but reckless. I want to say very bluntly—indeed, I said this at an international symposium in Pretoria a short time ago—that we are accused of being politically motivated when we make appeals and adopt measures to get people to ensure that they have smaller families, because we do not want the Black people to breed us out of this country.

I think that is a wrong concept, and I think that we must keep politics out of this matter. We must say to the Black people that the issue here is not one of their numbers and ours, White against Black; it is a matter of a resource that is not inexhaustible. It concerns a resource in the sense that we have water for only so many people in this country. We then ask that in this regard, too, far greater responsibility be displayed. There have been tremendous successes with regard to family planning in this country. I may say that considerable success has been achieved in the hospitals in Cape Town. Mothers come and ask to have smaller families. I think that we must take the politics out of this matter and link it to the realities of South Africa, viz that we only have so much water and no more.

I want to refer to a second point which I think came very clearly to the fore in today’s debate. I refer to water pollution. In fact, all the hon members discussed this. When I make speeches I always say that a man who uses water and returns his waste water to the original source should just remember that there is someone further downstream who has to re-use that water. I wish people would realize that the water that is returned by them to the system has to be used again downstream. The other day I said to a group of industrialists that they should bear in mind that to a large extent, industries were kept going by products produced lower down, viz agricultural products. If they pollute that water, eventually we shall not be able to produce agricultural products under irrigation.

This is a matter of considerable importance, and I am very pleased that the select committee reached consensus with regard to this matter. On this occasion I should like to give hon members my absolute assurance once again that the Minister—and here I do not wish to refer to myself—will use these very extensive powers vested in him with regard to this matter, with the utmost circumspection, because as the hon member for Constantia and, I think, the hon member for Meyerton as well put it, one must try to maintain a balance. One does not wish to put a damper on the development of industries, but one does not want to pollute the water either. One must try to strike a balance, but it is not so easy.

I do not want to mention the place by name, but I am aware that someone was caught polluting water. Where the water returned to the system, he placed a hose in such a way as to ensure that where the water was monitored, the readings would be correct. Therefore he used clean, fresh water to allow his dirty waste water to comply with the standard which would have meant that it was clean, fresh water. Nor, in the midst of this drought, did he care how much water he used. Such things simply cannot be afforded and one really has to clamp down on such people.

I think it is important, too, that we should have spoken out so clearly about the question of water pollution in this country. The officials of the Directorate of Water Affairs can speak of the heartbreak it causes us when good agricultural land is totally destroyed due to the use of polluted water. Therefore I want to say that we can on longer afford this and we shall have to impose very stringent measures to clamp down on people who do not want to listen. There need not be the slightest doubt that we shall assist people who have difficulties with these measures.

There is another matter I should like to raise and I hope I will be excused for doing so. If an industry has difficulties with effluent or if an industry is to be established somewhere and we know that it will have problems with effluent, such an industry must be established near the sea so that it can deposit its effluent there without any problems. Why can we not have industrial development along our other large rivers such as the Tugela? That is one of the reasons why I saw fit to appoint the Braam Raubenheimer Committee. The Vaal River is the most patient river in our country, but it is also the most over-utilized river in our country. We simply cannot get industries to establish themselves at other places. In Natal, for example, there is no problem with regard to labour. Workers from kwaZulu can commute to industries along the Tugela without any problems. There is the necessary infrastructure such as railway lines, roads and two harbours. I do not know why we cannot get industries established there. At present a few problems are being experienced with regard to the East London area, but that will not always be the case. In the Port Elizabeth region there are no problems as regards water. I simply do not know why we allow increasing establishment of new industries in the Witwatersrand region. I have great confidence in the three members of the Braam Raubenheimer Committee. They are extremely competent people and I have every confidence that they will come up with sound proposals with regard to the further utilization of the Vaal River. During the discussion of my Vote, reference was made to a specific industry and I should like to raise the matter again. I refer to the processors of skins, the tanneries. I cannot see why we still have to deliver salted skins to tanneries in large urban areas. Indeed, I think that the day will very soon dawn when we will have to impose a total prohibition on the processing of salted hides and skins delivered to tanneries by the Meat Board in controlled areas. I do not think we can afford this any longer.

The hon member for Constantia mentioned a further point to which I should like to react briefly. He said that an effort must be made to impose water conservation by way of higher tariffs. I agree with him that in the Durban/Pietermaritzburg region in Natal there was tremendous conservation of water because people had to pay through the nose for water if they consumed more than a certain amount. As far as industries are concerned, I do wish to say that the water input to the end product is really minimal. What I really want to say, therefore, is that one will not be able to get industries to conserve water by imposing higher water tariffs. It is a principle that we try as far as possible not to limit the water consumption of our industries during periods of drought to such an extent as to make them uneconomic. I think that that is a good policy.

The hon member for Kimberley North mentioned the song “Kinders moenie in die water mors nie”. I think his adaptation of the song was excellent. As I wrote to the chairmen of the various groups, due to certain problems we are not going on a tour this year. If we go on tour again, the Director-General will play the guitar and I shall accompany him on the concertina and we shall play this song all the time. Make no mistake; I say that we shall strum it. I think that that is a very good adaptation of this old song that we all know.

We can have two tours next year.

Yes, the hon member is quite right. That will make up for this year.

*A few hon members also discussed the change in regard to public streams. I am very pleased that the select committee incorporated this matter in the legislation. This is a good thing, because I can say to hon members that we have had endless problems with this in practice, and as the provision has now been formulated in the legislation, it is workable. Thank you very much for that. I think that this is a very good amendment that has been effected.

I wish to conclude by thanking hon members once again for their fine contributions today. Perhaps on such an occasion I should reiterate that the days of cheap water in South Africa are gone forever. The other day a major irrigator along the Vaal River came to see me. He irrigates hundreds of hectares of land. His final remark before leaving my office was: “Mr Hayward, water is too cheap in South Africa; that is why people waste it.” This week the Director-General received a deputation from a place not far from here. I think that these people pay something like R7 per hectare for water. The water comes from a State structure, a State canal. They simply draw it from the canal. They approach us to ask whether we would not consider abolishing the water rates entirely. They pay R7 per hectare. I want to say that nowadays, a man who pays R7 per hectare for water does not know how lucky he is. In several places in this country one has rates of R500 to R700 per hectare, and then people still tell one that they can make a good living out of it. We shall have to learn to use water more effectively. If we make it more expensive, we shall compel our people to use it more effectively. This drought proved that to us. At several places of which I am aware, because I myself have gone to inspect them, people have introduced different irrigation systems, effected changes to houses and industries to provide for the re-use of water. This drought has taught us that one can indeed use water more effectively. I contend that a mechanism whereby to preserve our water—which is a scarce resource—for posterity is to set our water tariffs at such a level that people will pay to use it carefully, and conserve water.

Sir, thank you very much for this opportunity. I hope that we shall soon be able to effect the further statutory amendments that are required, and I hope that all the hon members who served on this select committee will again be available to do a good job of revising the rest of the Act so that we shall be able to give South Africa an exemplary Act relating to this very scarce resource in this country.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.