I have to announce that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders today considered proposals for accommodation for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. The committee took note of the fact that the rent for the former accommodation of the President’s Council, which initially had been allocated to the House of Representatives, would amount to at least approximately R3 000 000 and of the practical difficulties of having a House of Parliament on the Foreshore, away from the parliamentary complex.

The committee consequently decided—

1. (1) that the Senate Chamber and certain additional accommodation on the ground floor and the cellar floor of the Senate section of the building be provisionally made available to the House of Representatives as well as offices and other facilities in the Marks Building;
2. (2) that, as already announced, the House of Delegates be temporarily accommodated in the Marks Building,

subject to the availability of accommodation in the proposed extension to the Parliamentary Building on the site between the present building and Tuynhuys.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:

1. (1) that the request of Mr P J G Venter, Deputy Secretary to Parliament, to retire on pension from the service of Parliament with effect from 1 August 1984 on account of ill-health, be granted;
2. (2) that the vacancy caused at the Table by Mr P J G Venter’s retirement be filled by the appointment of Mr A J de Villiers, MA, B Ed LLB, Senior Under Secretary, as Deputy Secretary;
3. (3) that it be left to Mr Speaker’s discretion also to use officials of Parliament other than members of the Secretariat, for service at the Table, as circumstances may require.

J W GREEF, Chairman.

Committee Rooms,

House of Assembly.

4 July 1984.

Mr SPEAKER stated that unless notice of objection to the Report was given at the next sitting of the House, the Report would be considered as adopted.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, before I come to the motion please allow me to refer to your announcement from the Chair today concerning the untimely and premature retirement of Mr Venter. We on this side of the House should like to express our regret at his premature retirement and to take this opportunity to thank him most sincerely for the invaluable services, help and guidance that he gave not only to Whips but to every single member of this party. At all times he was willing, able and prepared to help us through the myriad of rules and procedures necessary for us to transact our business in the House. He did it in a most efficient way. We want to take this opportunity to wish him a speedy recovery. We hope he will enjoy a pleasant retirement.

We know that the secretariat in his absence have been under tremendous burden and stress. We only marvel at the way in which they have managed during his absence. We take the opportunity also to congratulate Mr De Villiers on his new appointment and to wish him every success. [Interjections.]

I now turn to the motion. I wish to take this opportunity firstly to put the standpoint of the PFP on this motion relating to the Advocate-General’s report. It was our intention to move an amendment to the motion to enable the select committee to take evidence and to call for papers. Unfortunately, for reasons that I shall explain in a moment, it is not possible for us legally to move such an amendment. Let me point out that the PFP has a special interest in the report that has been tabled today because the whole thing started when our hon leader received information concerning oil deals with the South African Government and with the Strategic Fuel Fund, deals the nature of which urged him to alert the hon the Prime Minister, who in turn immediately referred the matter to the Advocate-General. In the meantime all kinds of allegations were published in the Press and were even discussed in the House. In fact, as recently as 4 May this year, there was a debate in the Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs, and reference to page 82 onwards will inter alia reveal discussions on alleged frauds with the Strategic Fuel Fund involving some R30 million. There were further allegations concerning a payment of $46 million by the same fund and a third allegation in regard to the payment of RI0 million to one J C van Vuuren who, we understand, has since been deported from England, A further allegation is made in regard to a payment of R13,5 million as a premium on one shipment, and so on. In addition to this, some of our members received documents and information that in our view called for an investigation. Hon members will therefore appreciate our deep concern and anxiety concerning this report.

A close examination of the Advocate-General Act, No 118 of 1979, precludes us from moving the amendment which we intended to move. I should like to point out to the House that the motion before us states that:

When one examines the section on which this motion relies, one finds that in terms of section 5(1), when the Advocate-General has completed a report he must hand it to the Leader of the House, who in turn must lay the report upon the Table within seven days. Section 5(2)—the section on which this motion relies—goes further and states:

In other words, the Advocate-General can use his powers—which he has done—and declare that the publication of the report will not be in the interest of the State and to mark it “Confidential”. In terms of this section he should hand this report to the Leader of the House, who in turn must Table it and appoint a Select Committee however, the select committee can only consider and report on the recommendation of the Advocate-General and on nothing else. In other words, it has to consider what can and what cannot be published bearing in mind the further restriction of the Petroleum Products Act, Act No. 120 of 1977, section 4A of which under the heading “Prohibition of publication of certain information” provides the following:

1. (a) information in relation to—
   1. (i) the source, manufacture, transportation, destination, storage, quantity or stock level of any petroleum products acquired or manufactured or being acquired or manufactured for or in the Republic;

It is clear that the provision is pre-emptive. In addition there is a further restriction contained in section 6(3) of the Advocate-General Act, Act No 118 of 1979, which provides:

In other words, the information and evidence given before the Advocate-General is his prerogative and cannot be used, for example, by the Select Committee. It therefore prohibits the disclosure of documents which are before the Advocate-General and prevents the examination of any witness who was examined by the Advocate-General. The Advocate-General is the sole judge and the Select Committee cannot now find on the merits of the finding of the Advocate-General. The work of the select committee is therefore circumscribed. The further investigation of allegations cannot be undertaken by the select committee. Its sole and restrictive task will be to consider, and I want to emphasize this, what can or cannot be published out of the report of the Advocate-General. The select committee can decide that certain paragraphs of the report be published, while others will remain confidential. The select committee is not only restricted by the restrictions contained in the Advocate-General Act, but also in respect of the provisions of the Petroleum Products Act. At this stage we do not know what the report contains. We do not know its length or its complexity. I therefore want to submit that it would be wrong to prescribe to the select committee that it must report on 6 July 1984, namely in two days time. The hon the Leader of the House is placing a guillotine on the work and deliberations of the select committee which I believe is both undesirable and possibly impracticable.

I am quite sure that the members of the select committee will bear two factors in mind. Firstly, they will bear in mind the urgency in view of the possible close of the session, although some might not think so. Secondly, they will keep in mind the need, if necessary, for a debate in this house to take place in order to discuss the report if possible. In the light of all this I therefore wish to move the following amendment:

A further provision in the Advocate-General Act makes provision for a select committee in these circumstances to sit when Parliament is prorogued.

Mr Speaker, I rise merely to say that the CP supports the motion of the hon Leader of the House. I should like to associate myself with the hon acting Chief Whip of the Official Opposition in conveying his thanks and appreciation to the Deputy Secretary to Parliament. Our cooperation with him has been very cordial in these times.

The hon the Leader of the House requests that the report be issued before Friday, 6 July. I understand that he is in a great hurry. We must get finished. I want to say to him that we, the parties that have co-operated with him, realize that it is not his fault that we are still going to be sitting on 13 July. He did his best to end the session as quickly as possible. The hon the Leader of the House said that this was a brief report that the select committee must consider. The hon member for Brakpan, the chairman of our group for mineral and energy affairs, will serve on the select committee. All we ask the hon the Leader of the House is that when the report is issued, a debate is conducted on this matter in the House of Assembly. If we find that in that committee things crop up which justify a further investigation by a select committee, we reserve the right to request such a select committee at that juncture.

Mr Speaker, firstly, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon member for Hillbrow concerning Mr Venter and Mr De Villiers. I am not going to elaborate on that. It is said that no man is indispensable, but I think that in the case of Mr Pieter Venter he is an exception to the rule.

As regards the motion before us, I want to express our appreciation to the hon the Leader of the House and thank him for calling the Whips together the day before yesterday and being absolutely frank with us in the discussions he had with us. He told us that he intended giving notice of this motion yesterday. I want to reaffirm that the original intention was that this committee should report back by Thursday, 5 July. I think I was the person responsible for impressing upon him that I felt that the intended date was too close and that it should be extended to Friday, 6 July. I was the one responsible for that, if my memory serves me correctly. [Interjections.] Did the hon member say something about praise? I want to tell him that on that occasion the hon member for Hillbrow agreed with the date of Thursday, 5 July. He did not object at all to that date at the meeting we held. [Interjections.]

Having said that, I want to add that we are prepared to abide by the recommendation of the Advocate-General that the report be not published in full. The hon the Leader of the House now taken this matter further. He said there should be a select committee which would be able to look at the full report and which would then decide whether or not more of the content of that report should be released. He has further agreed that we may have a debate on this issue at a time to be agreed upon between the Whips of all the parties. I do not believe that anything can be fairer than that. I should like to stress to the house that the Advocate-General has stated very clearly in his recommendation that his findings and recommendations contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 must be made available for public consumption now. Is the PFP then not trying to stretch things a little too far? Are they not looking for a pie in the sky? Is it not sufficient unto the day for the select committee to be allowed to commence with its work, get on with it and report back to the House and for the House then to debate the merits of the case after the select committee has reported? I believe there is ample time between now and Friday, 6 July, to complete that report, because as I understand it the Advocate-General’s whole report consists of no more than some 47 pages.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to express my thanks to hon members of the Opposition for their expressions of sympathy in regard to Mr Venter. He was one of our most competent officials, a man endowed with a very keen intellect. At the moment his family are having a very difficult time of it. On behalf of our party let me also express my thanks to Mr Venter for the work he did for our parliamentary cause. I congratulate Mr Attie de Villiers on his promotion. He deserves it.

At all our meetings I kept the hon member for Hillbrow informed. What are we requesting here? Here we are dealing with a report of the Advocate-General, the problem being to decide whether it should be released or not, with the Advocate-General suggesting that a portion of it should not be released. We want to refer this report to a select committee. The official Opposition, however, has come to light with a story about irregularities taking place here. They now want to subpoena witnesses and re-open the case, in spite of the fact that we have repeatedly told them that they should lodge their complaints with the Advocate-General. The Advocate-General has now submitted a report in which he states that he has listened to all the gossip-mongering and recommends that the report be referred to a select committee.

Have you read it?

But I did receive the report. Does the hon member think I would be stupid enough not to have read it? [Interjections.] It is only a 47-page report, and an efficient select committee would be in a position to have read it by tomorrow afternoon. What is wrong with Friday? That is why I am saying that it is not unreasonable to expect a select committee to have completed its deliberations no later than Friday. We have also told the Whips that we shall be debating this matter this coming Monday. We even went as far as to put aside an hour and a half for that purpose. We have agreed on everything, because there is nothing we are trying to hide.

Let me tell the hon member for Kuruman that I am surprised at his having treated me in such a friendly fashion today, although he has always treated me in a friendly fashion. I think he is setting a trap for me. [Interjections.]

All I can say is that this side of the House has taken the right decision, and that is why the two smaller Opposition parties are prepared to support us. The hon member for Kuruman, however, made two mistakes. We are not going to adjourn on Friday of next week. If everyone co-operates, we will be able to adjourn on Wednesday, 11 July. [Interjections.] The hon member was right when he said I was a smart Leader of the house. I agree with him. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House should also like to congratulate Dr De Beer on his appointment and we wish him the very best of luck. We should also like to thank the hon the Minister for his remarks about improving the productivity of the Public Service by calling in the National Productivity Council.

We are very sorry that he has not accepted our proposal in regard to the confidentiality of documents because we feel that it is as important to hon members of this House as to members of the Public Service to be under the same obligation. In our discussions of the Bill the question was raised as to why the National Intelligence Service should not be included in terms of subclause 1 (xix) with a view to saving all the duplications in the Bill.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the CP allow me to congratulate Dr De Beer on his appointment as chairman of the Commission for Administration. We wish him every success in that position.

The matter of the confidentiality of State documents has not been satisfactorily explained by the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development referred to the Archives Act and alleged that a Minister had the right to release a State document if he felt that it was in the interests of the State to do so, but the Archives Act refers to the Minister of National Education and not the Minister of Co-Operation and Development. The way in which the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development, a person of his seniority, tried to wriggle out of the situation of the handling and forging of the relevant document is absolutely unacceptable to us.

Clause 1 of the Bill before the House gives us the definitions and deals with terms used throughout the Bill. For that reason I think it would be appropriate for the hon the Minister to reply, under this clause, to my request yesterday concerning his interpetation of section 12 of Schedule 1 to the new Constitution, read in conjunction with section 16 of Act 110 of 1983. While he was replying yesterday to certain matters I had raised because the hon member for Kuruman happened to irritate him, like a naughty child who cannot have his way, he simply sab down. Just allow me to put this matter right. The hon member for Kuruman said to the hon the Minister: “No one is listening to you.” He did not say: “I do not want to listen to you.” The amateurish and petit bourgeois little article on this incident that appeared in the Afrikaans morning newspaper that…

Order! The point the hon member is now discussing has nothing to do with the principles or details of the Bill.

I am sorry that you called me to order on this point. While the hon the Minister was replying to the Second Reading debate yesterday afternoon and was replying specifically to the points I had raised, something happened, and the hon the Minister then resumed his seat without replying to me fully. The hon the Minister would seem to have been under a misapprehension, and I am therefore asking the hon the Minister to reply now to the matters I raised yesterday.

Order! The hon member’s version of yesterday’s events is correct, but unfortunately I cannot allow him to debate now what happened yesterday, unless this has something to do with the principles of the Bill. I suggest that the hon member rather raise this specific incident at Third Reading.

Sir, I accept your suggestion.

In Schedule 1 of the Bill before us reference is made to the “Office of the Prime Minister”. I was under the impression that the Office of the Prime Minister was going to disappear under the new dispensation. If that is the case, why is reference still made, in the Schedule to this Bill, to the “Office of the Prime Minister”, as a State Department headed by a Secretary-General?

Mr Chairman, in reply to the hon member’s last question I must point out to him that until such time as the new constitutional dispensation has been officially introduced, there will still be a Prime Minister. Proclamation of this measure will take place as soon as possible after it has been passed. As far as I know after that it will automatically, in terms of interim provisions, be interpreted as referring to the Office of the State President as well.

The hon member said that I did not reply to him in full yesterday. No matter what the hon member for Kuruman said, the fact remains that he was rude, and I think the time has come for us to be allowed to react to this in such cases …

Order! I would be glad if the hon the Minister would leave this for the Third Reading.

Sir, I shall do so.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister stated here that I was rude.

Of course you were.

Mr Chairman, is that hon member not also being rude now? Is the hon member who made that interjection not a rude member too? Yesterday I made a certain interjection as a result of the fact that the people seated around the hon the Minister were making so much noise that we could not hear what he was saying. That was when I said that no one was listening to him.

Order! I think this is a matter which it would be more appropriate to raise in the Third Reading. In the meanwhile I would be glad if the hon the Minister would withdraw the word “rude”.

Sir, I withdraw it.

The hon member for Brakpan put certain questions to me regarding the Schedule to the Constitution Act and asked which were general affairs and which were own affairs. If he were to read through the whole of Schedule 1 to the Constitution Act he would find that the wording in paragraph 12 is a little different. Paragraph 12 provides deals with staff administration—which is an own affair—in terms of the provisions of any general law in relation to staff in the employment of the State. In other words, staff administration per se is not an own affair. Yesterday he quite rightly said that this was an act of a general nature, and that for that reason this was a general affair. It is, however, this very Act which is making it possible—this is al ready true in practice—for every department to have a great degree of autonomy with regard to a whole range of matters on which it can decide for itself. In regard to the administration of staff involved in own affairs—the actual day-to-day administration—this is an own affair with regard to which that own department can consistently take action. Since it is an own affair, it takes its own decisions within the bounds of its authority in terms of the general Act. This is how the position should be interpreted.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout referred to the fact that the National Intelligence Service was not being excluded in a certain clause. In this connection he referred to clause 2(3) in general. The National Intelligence Service is part of the Public Service. The hon member will find a reference to this in clause 7(l)(a)(iii). It is therefore not excluded from all the clauses. The clauses that do apply, namely clauses 9, 10(1), 11 and others, are implemented by the National Intelligence Service in so far as they are not in conflict with its own Act. That is the reason why we have to adopt this rather cumbersome procedure.

I think that I have now reacted to everything that was referred to in this discussion on clause 1.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, the Conservative Party will vote against all the clauses. I am mentioning this in advance in order to assist you.

Order! I shall nevertheless have to put each clause and the hon member will then have to register the CP’s objection to each clause so that it can be recorded in the minutes.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clauses 3 to 9 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 10:

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

1. 1. On page 21, in line 28, after “prejudiced” to insert:
   • for reasons of race, creed, religion, language, colour, sex or marital status

Clause 10(l)(a) contains a completely new clause which is being introduced into the Public Service Act. I want to thank those responsible for drafting the Bill for including this provision because the principle of it is an outstanding one. Let me quote clause 10(l)(a):

1. (a) no person who qualifies for the appointment, transfer or promotion concerned shall be favoured or prejudiced.

In the light of the new dispensation and in the light of the multiracial population and the difficult problems that we have in our country we feel the grounds should actually be stated on which a person cannot be favoured or prejudiced. For that reason we want to include “race, creed, religion, language, colour, sex or marital status”. In other words, there should be no differentiation on any particular ground against any person. There are people in the Public Service who have been prejudiced on account of one of these grounds which I have raised. I trust that the hon the Minister will accept this amendment.

Mr Chairman, in sentiment I do go along with the amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenhout because we also believe in this general philosophy. However, I cannot help but feel that his amendment has the effect of restricting the possibilities of prejudice. A person could for example be prejudiced if he is a member of the Broederbond, of the Free Masons or of the Afrikanervolkswag. Or, if a person is fully capable of doing a job and is partially crippled—he may lose a leg and wear an artificial limb—he may also be prejudiced. I cannot help but feel that if one states specific grounds it will have the effect of limiting the grounds on which a person can be prejudiced. Whilst we very strongly support the idealism behind the amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenhout, we will not be able to support it.

Mr Speaker, I fear that the amendment is based on something of a misunderstanding in regard to what the real intention of this clause is. If the hon member carefully reads clause 10(l)(a) and (b) he will see that paragraph (a) prescribes what should not be taken into account when someone qualifies for a particular post, whereas paragraph (b) prescribes what should be taken into account if someone qualifies for a specific post.

*The key in this instance consists of two words. In the first place neither in paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) is an effort made to specify when a person qualifies. However, they do provide that when someone does qualify he must not be favoured or prejudiced, and that certain things must be taken into account. The actual effect of the amendment is that in fact the hon member for Bezuidenhout is making paragraph (a) less effective than it is at present. All the grounds he mentioned fall under that, but as the hon member for Umbilo rightly said, one could add other grounds as well. Therefore clause 10(l)(a) has been framed as widely as possible. Accordingly, I think that the amendment is based on a misunderstanding.

The question as to when someone qualifies in terms of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) is one that will be determined by the policy followed at a specific period. What the hon member is really trying to do is to prescribe a policy. The policy does not form part of the legislation, nor do I think it ought to. Let me mention an example in this connection. We have discussed this in previous debates. Where service to a specific population group is at stake, we prefer people of that specific population group to progress. Then that is policy, and a White person, for example, will not qualify if there is a suitable Coloured person. On the other hand, if it is a matter of service to the White population group, the Coloured or the Indian will not qualify if there is a suitable White person available. Therefore the policy must remain flexible, and this policy manifests itself in other fields as well. For example, it is policy that certain posts, due for example to the nature of the work, as reserved for a specific sex. It is also policy that certain posts must be filled by a married or by an unmarried person. Therefore I really cannot accept the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I listened with very great interest but I am not convinced. Paragraph (b) states:

will be laid down by the commission. I want to make absolutely certain that if for instance a woman attains the position of Deputy Director she will not be prejudiced because of her sex only and therefore precluded from becoming a Director. It may happen in the future, and then it may be contended that a woman cannot work such long hours, etc, and should she be a married woman it could be contended that she has other problems as well. I want these sort of things to be eliminated completely. So I do not think this provision should be proceeded with, because of the arguments raised by the hon the Minister.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 11:

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

1. 1. On page 21, from line 52, to omit “Commission may recommend” and to substitute:
   • Minister or Administrator may approve, subject to the provisions of subsection (3),
2. 2. On page 23, in line 3, to omit “paragraph (d)” and to substitute “subsection (2)”.
3. 3. On page 23, in line 7, to omit “(d)(i)” and to substitute “(2)(a)”.
4. 4. On page 23, in line 14, to omit “(H)” and to substitute “(b)”.
5. 5. On page 23, in line 21, to omit “(iii)” and to substitute “(c)”.
6. 6. On page 23, from line 26, to omit subsection (2) and to substitute:
   1. (3) Before the Minister or Administrator approves a shorter period contemplated in subsection (l)(a) in respect of an officer who is not a member of the services or the National Intelligence Service, or communicates with such an officer in terms of subsection (2)(a), the Commission shall make a recommendation.

These amendments are being inserted because, in terms of clause 11(1)(a), line 52, the Commission for Administration is only empowered to make recommendations in regard to officers who are not members of the Services or the National Intelligence Service. In terms of amendment No 1, the relevant Minister or Administrator may approve a shorter period than five years for the duration of the first term. Amendment No 6 makes such approval by a Minister or Administrator subject to a recommendation from the commission if the officer is not a member of the Services or the National Intelligence Service. Before the Minister or Administrator makes an offer to the head of department for the extension of the first term, the said head of department not being a member of the Services or the National Intelligence Service, the commission must make a recommendation.

Because clause 11(1)(d) is being renumbered 11(2), there are certain consequential amendments affecting the numerical sequence. The same applies to amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Mr Chairman, since we shall not be voting for the clause in any event, I am not going to express any opinions about the hon the Minister’s amendments. I should like to refer the hon the Minister once again, however, to my speech in the Second Reading debate yesterday in which I told him that I found it quite strange that if anyone is appointed to the post of head of department for a period of five years, he can subsequently be appointed, on an annual basis, for a further period of five years. According to the way in which this Bill is set out, someone could become a head of department at a very early age. The first period of five years could therefore expire when the relative official is still very young, and that also applies to the further periods of five years. Such a person would therefore have to leave the service at a relatively young age, unless he is placed in another post. The hon the Minister said that his re tirement age remained 63 years or 65 years, as the case may be, but if such a person is a competent person, why can he not be appointed to that post for an unspecified period, as is the case at present? He would then have to relinquish that post only if he were te become incompetent or if other disqualifying factors were to enter the picture, as would normally be the case. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would elaborate on this.

Mr Chairman, following upon the question asked by the hon member for Brakpan, I would like to point out that there are other clauses in the Bill that are connected with this provision, for example clause 13(2)(c)(i). I have great difficulty coming into this discussion now because those provisions only appear further on in the Bill.

Mr Chairman, to remove all uncertainty about the periods of appointment let me say, firstly, that no restriction is being placed on the number of periods. There can consequently be successive periods of five years, even five of them if the person concerned is young enough. Someone who therefore becomes a head of department at a young age will hot be prevented from being a head of department for, say, 25 years. In this connection let me refer the hon member to the provisions of clause 11(1)(c), which reads as follows:

It is really not the intention to restrict the period to two terms of office or to force anyone into early retirement. The object, the underlying point of departure, in this connection is that the heads of department are the department’s top management and that their position should, firstly, be less “officialized” and he should have the greater independence characteristic of managerial personnel. This system is completely in line with customary practice in all large companies in the private sector. Although many companies have career opportunities, an age for retirement, etc, the moment someone is appointed to a managerial position he is appointed for a specific period and there are specific objectives. There is consequently greater mobility. The built-in optionality does not only apply to the employer, but also to the employee, the manager. I can imagine a person who becomes a head of department at a very early age—because that is the present state of affairs—feeling, after 15 years in that position, that he has achieved his objective and wants to accept new challenges in a different field. The only thing that such a person can do, in the prevailing circumstances, is to resign and then lose all his pension benefits. He can then only receive his own contribution plus a small amount of interest. Here, however, we are now introducing the question of optionality. Someone who therefore feels that he wants to accept a new challenge elsewhere can, like hon members of this House, after completion of fixed periods of service, and with the assurance that he would have his period of service recognized for pension purposes, leave the service and seek a livelihood elsewhere. There are minimum requirements, but this offers a head of department considerable benefits. When we were considering and discussing this system, what concerned me—and I hope this will never become a reality—was that it would be too attractive for heads of department to leave the service at an age earlier than their retiring age. After negotiations, however, I am convinced that we shall be able to obviate this with the policy that we shall be implementing. I do, in any event, have enough confidence in the career opportunities offered in the Public Service, because in the past, in spite of attractive offers, which in some cases amounted to two or three times their present remuneration, heads of department have nevertheless chosen to remain in the employ of the State owing to the career opportunities and service incentives in a managerial position in the employ of the State.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether his interpretation is that the five-year period could, on each occasion, be extended by five years, each subsequent year by five years?

Yes.

Amendments 1 to 6 agreed to.

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

Clause 12 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 13:

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

1. 1. On page 25, in line 53, after “Officer” to insert:
   • , other than a member of the services or the National Intelligence Service,

The purpose of this amendment is merely to place, beyond all doubt, the fact that the commission’s power to make recommendations, which is at issue here—this relates to the transferring of a head of department—is limited and does not relate to a member of the Services, including the National Intelligence Service.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

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

Clause 14 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 15:

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

1. 1. On page 31, from line 13, to omit “11(1)(d)(i)” and to substitute “11(2)(a)”.
2. 2. On page 31, in line 36, after “and” to insert:
   • , if the officer is not a member of the services or the National Intelligence Service,

The first amendment is consequent to the amendments already agreed to in regard to clause 11. Like the previous amendment, these two relate to the powers of recommendation relating to a head of department who is not a member of one of the Services or of the National Intelligence Service.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

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

Clause 16:

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

1. 1. On page 33, in line 21, after “State” to insert:
   • and he has been convicted by a duly constituted court of law
2. 2. On page 33, from line 26, to omit subsection (3).

Subsection (2) provides that:

Then a large number of reasons are given for which an officer may be discharged. Most of those appeared in the old Act, but there are two new ones, namely:

1. (g) on account of misrepresentation of his position in relation to a condition for permanent appointment as determined in section 9;
2. (h) if his continued employment constitutes a security risk for the State.

As I stated yesterday, there are three qualifications in relation to appointments. They are that the person concerned must be a South African citizen, that he must be of good character and that he must qualify as regards his condition of health. I cannot see that the question of misrepresentation can be so important, but as regards the second provision, namely “if his continued employment constitutes a security risk for the State”, I want to ask who is going to decide whether he will be a security risk and in what way. The only way that one can determine whether such a person is a security risk or not is if he has been convicted by a duly constituted court of law. That is the only way of determining whether a man is a security risk or not. Otherwise this whole matter simply becomes a can of worms and one could experience a great deal of difficulty in the Public Service in this regard.

My second amendment is even more important. I do not think that provision should be made in a law for telling a lie, because that is what is actually being done. One is saying here that if a man is discharged in terms of paragraph (g), he is deemed to have been discharged in terms of paragraph (e) which refers to misconduct. Secondly, if a man is discharged because he presents a security risk, one cannot say that he has been discharged because he is unfit for his duties or cannot carry them out efficiently. He may be an extraordinarily efficient person, so that is not the reason why he is being discharged.

If the hon the Minister will accept these amendments of mine, we will then have a clean Bill because I do not think that this is the correct sort of thing to do.

Mr Chairman, in regard to his first amendment, I should like to refer the hon member for Bezuidenhout to clause 3(3)(c), which has already been approved, as well as to clause 35(l)(o). Clause 3(3)(c) provides that when it considers it necessary, the commission may give directions regarding the security requirements with which officers and employees have to comply. That is therefore the first source from which security regulations or rules, if I may put it that way, can be prescribed. Secondly, clause 35(l)(o) provides that the State President may, after the commission has made recommendations, make regulations regarding the general security in departments and security requirements with which officers and employees shall comply. That is where the definition of security will emanate. It is not simply a question of individuals making subjective decisions willy-nilly in this regard.

*The hon member’s argument that one should first be found guilty in court really does not hold water. If one were to accept that then one really need not refer to any of these other matters, because clause 16(2)(e) already provides that a person may be discharged if found guilty by a court. Therefore we are specifically making provision here for cases in which the offence may not be punishable in a court but is nevertheless a serious offence. The hon member’s own argument, as well as that of the hon member for Brakpan, in regard to the question of security in respect of documents is a typical example. Here I refer to documents released in an unauthorized or improper way. That would be a breach of security and surely, in terms of his own argument, in such a case the hon member would want this to be regarded as a serious offence which could even lead to discharge. Unfortunately, therefore, I cannot accept his first amendment.

I also wish to say to the hon member that regulations will be drawn up in consultation with the Public Service Joint Advisory Council and, in terms of section 17 of the Interpretation Act of 1957, these will be tabled in Parliament for the information of members. Therefore these regulations are public. This is not something that is done secretly. Moreover hon members have the opportunity to object to them or discuss them. Moreover a person who is a security risk need not necessarily commit an act to the detriment of the State. For example, a person who has a great deal of debt could be regarded as susceptible to bribery in specific circumstances. A person who has a loose tongue or a person who cannot maintain confidentiality may be a security risk. A person who has undesirable associations may in specific circumstances be a security risk. However, the fact is always that the commission must recommend discharge and the officer in question must, in terms of clause 29, be able to appeal to the commission and, in terms of clause 34, to a court of law as well.

With regard to amendment 2 I also think that the hon member perhaps failed fully to understand its significance. There are pension regulations at the moment, and these regulations attach specific consequences to discharge on specific grounds. Certain grounds of discharge are regarded as so serious that they are penalized. Other forms of discharge are no so serious that one wishes to take penal action, and therefore the pension regulations draw distinctions. All that this clause—the clause that the hon member seeks to amend by way of his amendment 2—seeks to achieve, is to link the need to amend the pension regulations again, to include these additional grounds for discharge as well, to existing provisions of the pension regulations, which will now eliminate unnecessary red tape as regards the amendment thereof. What we are doing is to grade these two new grounds of discharge and link them—in the one instance it is more serious and in the other, less serious—to two specific existing grounds of discharge, for which provision is already made in the pension regulations.

Mr Chairman, with regard to my second amendment, while I understand and appreciate the statement made by the hon the Minister with regard to its combination with the pension regulations, I believe that the average person reading this will not interpret it in that way.

Amendments 1 and 2 negatived.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 19:

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

1. 1. On page 39, in fine 20, after “thereof” to add:
   • : Provided that such code of conduct shall be drawn up by a judge of the Supreme Court after consultation with the Commission for Administration and the Public Service Joint Advisory Council, and issued by the State President as a regulation in terms of section 35(l)(c) of this Act.

The reason for this amendment is that we believe the commission should not draw up the code of conduct but that it should be drawn up to a completely neutral person and only after taking evidence as to what is required in that code of conduct. We do not believe that it is correct that it should be drawn up by public servants and, therefore, what we are asking for is that a judge of the Supreme Court should draw up the code of conduct after consultation with the Commission for Administration on the one hand and with the Public Service Advisory Committee on the other hand, a body which consists of both the Public Servants’s Association and officers of the commission. In that way we can be certain that the code of conduct will be compiled correctly.

Mr Chairman, once again I find myself on a different track from the hon member for Bezuidenhout. Way back in the middle sixties we in Natal found ourselves in the position where it was necessary to draw up in respect of municipal employees and councillors something similar to what is envisaged here.

You drew it up.

No, I did not draw it up. [Interjections.] Let me make my speech, please.

The position was that we had this code of conduct drafted by a judge of the Supreme Court. It was drafted by a judge, and I regret to say that both councillors and municipal officials to a very large degree looked upon this as a code of conduct that was imposed upon them. It was stated many, many times that had this code of conduct been drafted by the municipalities themselves through the UME, they would probably have had a harsher code of conduct, but they would have accepted it because it was their own. That was the experience which we had with this very sort of situation where a code of conduct was drafted by a judge of the Supreme Court who ultimately became the Judge President in Natal. From that experience I would be rather loath to support this amendment.

Mr Chairman, I have had experience with the particular code of conduct which the hon member mentions, and let me say to the hon the Minister that this code was so good that it was adopted as the code of conduct for all councillors in the Transvaal although it was never imposed in terms of a regulation. Every single councillor in the Transvaal got this code and said that it was a good code; if one would abide by that code, then one would not get into any real difficulty. That is the reason why, contrary to the argument advanced by the hon member for Umbilo, having it drafted by a judge is a very good idea.

Mr Chairman, I do not see my way clear to accepting the amendment. Fact of the matter is that a code of conduct in terms of the Bill will be drafted in a very democratical way. Firstly, the Commission for Administration which is there to guard the interests of the employees of the State will be involved in drafting it. Secondly, it will be put before the joint advisory board on which representatives serve who are appointed by the employer organization as well as by the recognized employee organizations. In other words, they will be involved. Thereafter the regulation is published and put before Parliament in terms of section 17 of the Interpretation Act.

*The only requirement which is not being met and which the hon member wants met, is the involvement of a judge in this matter. In all the other professions, however, a judge is not involved. I am referring to professions which embody very strict provisions in their codes of conduct. One can call to mind the profession of attorneys, the medical profession and so forth. One can also call to mind the rights of trade unions.

Within the State one has a comparable example. In terms of the South African Teachers’ Council Act that council may draw up a professional code of conduct. It may refuse to register a person as a teacher if that person has been found guilty of contravening the code of conduct. That council may also strike from the register the name of a teacher who contravenes a provision of the code of conduct. Nowhere is a judge involved. I think the hon member is needlessly suspicious. Democracy will prevail in this regard, and sufficient protection against any abuse of this power has been built into the provision.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer the hon the Minister of clause 19(g), which is applicable to an officer who makes use of his position in the Public Service to promote or to prejudice the interests of any political party. This provision should be read in conjunction with a clause which we are still going to discuss, namely clause 30.

I know that both these provisions are also contained in the existing Public Service Act. Yesterday the hon the Minister and I crossed swords for a while in regard to this matter, but I think he will concede that I am correct when I say that the circumstances in the present political situation have become a little more difficult. Yesterday I told him that I would be able to give him quite a number of examples, in private, of things which were happening in the Public Service context, things which were not all that pleasant.

The public servants are no longer all Nationalists.

Yes, that is the point. Public servants are no longer all members or supporters of the hon the Minister’s party. Therefore it is very desirable that the hon the Minister …

[Inaudible.]

If the Chief Whip of the NP wants to make a speech or put a question, I shall resume my seat so that he may do so.

For that reason it is important that the hon the Minister, in view of the statement which he issued prior to the referendum, should explain clause 19(g) to us, read in conjunction with clause 30, and tell us whether the behaviour of a senior official, who as a member of a political party canvasses among officials who are his juniors, cannot be regarded as an abuse of his position in the Public Service for party-political purposes. I would be pleased if the hon the Minister would give us his views on this matter.

Mr Chairman, I am very surprised to hear the remarks made by the hon member for Brakpan. It appears that now that he has become part of the Opposition, he is for the first time seeing the problems which an Opposition has.

One should have been on both sides to appreciate it.

Yes, that might be true, but when the hon member was on the opposite side of the House and the Opposition parties raised certain issues, he did not raise his voice once in protest.

The principles of the Bill under discussion are the same as the Act which was in force when the hon member for Brakpan was on the opposite side of the House. I therefore have no objection to this.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to make a general statement. The provisions in this Bill in regard to the participation of officers in politics, do not apply only to supporters of Opposition parties. They are directions which apply to all officials, including those who support the party of the government of the day. They, too, are subject to precisely the same provisions.

A person who is subject to the provisions of clause 19(g) may not be administratively dismissed, nor may administrative steps be taken against such a person. A charge must be preferred against such a person. According to the provisions of clause 20 an officer shall be notified of a charge against him, and only then may steps be taken against him in this manner. He then has the opportunity of defending himself and of stating his case.

The Commission for Administration has informed me that over a period of many years no complaints or representations whatsoever have been received by them—and the Commission is the body to which officers must have recourse—on the grounds that officers felt aggrieved and lodged a complaint on the grounds that they had been discriminated against on account of political considerations. Any officer is at liberty—the procedures are available to officers who feel aggrieved—to have recourse to the Commission, which will investigate the complaint. Speaking in technical legal terms, there is really no reason why justice should not be done and enforced if abuses should occur— which are possible under any Government.

The Government is not disposed, nor is it its policy, to discriminate against officers on the grounds of their political convictions. The hon the Prime Minister once testified to the fantastic co-operation he had experienced as Minister of Defence over the years, while the entire top structure of the Department of Defence were not supporters of the NP. With the caliber of officers we have, it is really possible to ensure that kind of objective co-operation, as long as the officer is prepared to practice his politics within the framework of the legislation. A conflict will only occur when the officer contravenes that basic precept. I can give hon members the assurance that the Government is very sensitive about acting correctly in this connection. I have heard such interjections as: “What about a magistrate here, or what about a magistrate there?” In such cases hon members will simply have to ensure that proper representations are made. It is not the practice to drag the facts concerning individual cases across the floor of this House and to disclose people’s personal circumstances. Hon members must also bear in mind that decisions are sometimes taken because they are in the interests of the Public Service. Sometimes decisions are taken on grounds which are not known in public. I do not know what case the hon member is referring to at all, and that is why I am using a completely hypothetical example. Surely we know that when a person is reprimanded for completely different reasons, for example because he was negligent in his work, he will not state in public that he was transferred or down-graded or that something else happened to him because he had been negligent. Surely he is going to look for an excuse. He is going to look for a fig leaf. What easier excuse is there than to throw up this kind of smoke-screen, which could even turn him into a hero? Consequently, if a person feels that he has been wronged, and if this is indeed the case, he must stand up for his rights. However, we cannot simply assess the statements made by people that certain administrative steps or personnel decisions in their regard were taken for political reasons at their mere face value. One can only assess a case if one really knows what the underlying reasons are for the specific decisions taken by a departmental head or a commission in regard to a specific individual.

Mr Chairman, in view of what the hon the Minister has said, I think it is desirable that we take this matter a little further. Mention was made, by way of interjection, of this unfortunate incident in Louis Trichardt. The hon the Minister said that he was not aware of the circumstances there, but I want to refresh his memory a little. Last year we put a question to him. The transfer of that person coincided with the by-election held in Soutpansberg last year. The former hon Minister of Manpower and that magistrate had problems. The Minister wanted to influence the magistrate, while he wanted to interpret the Electoral Act strictly. He was then transfered to another post, after which he was no longer the chief magistrate of the district in which he was stationed, although he retained his status. The Minister is now saying that the Government is sensitive in respect of matters of this kind. The reply to our question last year was that the transfer had occurred in the interests of the Public Service. We were requested, in that connection, to consult some section or other of the Public Service Act. If the hon the Minister was so sensitive about this kind of matter, why did he not then, confidentially, give us the background information as to why it had happened, and then ask us to leave it at that? However, it was very clear that he had been bullied by the former hon Minister of Manpower. Shortly afterwards the magistrate was transferred. Whatever the hon the Minister may say, such an incident which comes under the public spotlight, reflects on the integrity of the Government. Consequently, if the hon the Minister is sensitive about these things, he must act in a sensitive way in this connection.

Mr Chairman, I vaguely remember the question to which the hon member is referring. If my memory serves me correctly, the question was originally put to me, but it was then pointed out to the hon member that the question should rather have been put to the hon the Minister of Justice, because it was not a decision taken by the Commission, but by the Department of Justice. The hon member thereupon received a reply from the Department of Justice.

For some time now, as the delegate of the Prime Minister, matters pertaining to the Commission for Administration and officials in general have been entrusted to me. I can look the hon member in the eye with a clear conscience and say that I have not yet received a request from any hon member in this House concerning the transfer of any official falling under the Commission for Administration. I have never received a request for a certain person to be removed from che constituency of an hon member because he was causing problems there. I am generally involved in everything which falls under the commission, and this is the evidence I can give in this case. In my opinion the hon member is being unnecessarily suspicious because the Government is not disposed towards that kind of thing. If it can be proved that individuals acted incorrectly, the matter will be gone into, and we shall do so in terms of the Act.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 20:

Mr Chairman, in terms of clause 20(7)(b) a fine not exceeding R2 000 may be imposed. We are dealing here with an internal investigation in regard to which the Minister or the Administrator may recommend that a fine of this magnitude may be imposed. In my opinion this is rather onerous, and I should like to ask the hon the Minister to reconsider the matter, without my having to move an amendment.

Mr Chairman, the provision in the present Act also makes provision for a fine in this connection, and therefore this is no new principle. The fine for which the existing Act makes provision is £200, which proves that this provision was in force even before decimalization.

Just as, in many other Bills, we effect upward adjustments in fines from time to time, owing to inflation and other factors, this is regarded as a fair adjustment, particularly in view of the time that has elapsed. It is not a more serious penal provision than was originally envisaged when the legislation was placed on the Statute Book.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 21 to 30 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 31:

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

Since we are now beginning with a new system of term appointments, it is necessary that we introduce a degree of flexibility. I readily concede that the Commission is being given rather wide powers here, but in our opinion the Commission needs these powers in order to make the necessary adjustments in the development of the system of term appointments. We shall, as the situation develops, have to act rather tentatively. That is one only reason why we are requesting these powers.

Mr Chairman, I do not think the hon the Minister has gone far enough. The words “any special service benefit” are very wide and are not defined anywhere. I think it should be defined in the regulations or elsewhere so that everybody will know what a “special service benefit” is; otherwise a golden handshake might be called a special service benefit. I think it is necessary that this concept should be defined somewhere so that we will know what it means.

In any event, Mr Chairman, there are two restrictions which apply. In regard to being credited with years of service for pension purposes, a general maximum of five years applies. This is prescribed elsewhere, and in this regard therefore it may not be more than five years. There must be flexibility, however, and the period may be less than five years. The other way in which one can bestow such a benefit is by way of cash. As far as a cash payment is concerned, the Treasury will have to agree to it. In this connection, therefore, there is no sole decision-making since it is subject to Treasury approval. Naturally the Treasury will lay down strict norms in this connection.

Mr Chairman, as I indicated in the Second Reading debate, I am a little unhappy about this particular clause because of the penchant we seem to have for handing out golden handshakes. I realize that the heads of departments will be employed for consecutive periods of five years and that there may be circumstances when they are prematurely retired. However, they still receive their pension benefits and get their golden handshake or whatever it may be if they are retired under these sort of circumstances and I can therefore, for the life of me, not see why it should be necessary to have special service benefits under these conditions. I do not think that the hon the Minister has motivated this properly and I find it difficult to support it. When one employs people in the sort of category we are referring to here, one expects to get a good job out of them and one does not expect them to do a shoddy job. One expects to get the best out of them and that is what they are being paid for and that is why they are in that high position. Such being the case I do find it difficult to appreciate the sort of circumstances the hon the Minister is referring to.

Mr Chairman, it is not clear from what the hon member has said whether he is referring to the amendment I have moved or to the clause as such.

With regard to the clause as such I want to give him the assurance that it is basically in more modern language a re-enactment of what has stood on the Statute Book for may decades. With regard to the amendment, it is limited only to heads of departments, because they are now also accepting the risk of fixed term appointments. In other words, because of the new concept of optionality and the greater risk involved, this provision is to our minds necessary. There are the restrictions and the ceilings to which I have referred in reply to the hon member for Bezuidenhout. It is therefore not a question of having a totally free hand as there are built-in controls with regard to the magnitude of what one can do in this regard.

*We must make flexibility an integral part of this system because we still have to see precisely how it is going to develop. It may for example be necessary to include an incentive in order to induce a person to remain on in his post for a second or a third term. One would therefore want to apply a policy by means of which officers do not receive too much of a golden handshake after the expiration of their first term and rely on that happening. We must therefore look after the interests of the State as employer and its ability to keep people who render effective service in its employ for the maximum period possible. At the same time we must make provision to ensure that when we have disrupted a person’s career as a result of the fact that it was not possible to re-appoint him because the commission did not recommend it owing to specific circumstances, he does not suffer unnecessary harm.

The hon member must realize that with the acceptance of term appointments a Director-General sacrifices his security of employment until he is 60 or 65 years of age, or whatever his specified retirement age may be, and accepts the risk that he may perhaps not be re-appointed after five years and will be compelled to retire earlier. That is why it is necessary to build in this flexibility.

I want to suggest that next year, during the discussion of this Vote, we could report on the progress that has been made, what policy has been developed and precisely how we want to deal with this matter. I do want to ask the hon members for their support. If they work with the Treasury on a regular basis, they will know that they need not insert anything in this legislation to bring us to book in the case of malpractices, because the Treasury will watch us with an eagle eye.

Mr Chairman, I get the point that the head of a department is putting himself at risk by working on a five-year service cycle. The point is, however, that, if he is doing the job adequately, he will be appointed for a further five years and so on until he gets to his retirement. Therefore it will not be necessary to think in terms of giving him a special service benefit. If, on the other hand, he is inadequate in his job, he is paid a special benefit for being inadequate. I am sorry, but I cannot accept that as being a reasonable approach. If it were a question of his being employed in terms of a five-year contract which stipulates that, in the event of his services not being renewed, he will get one year’s salary or something like that as severance pay, that would be a fairly normal procedure, but I do not think that an open clause such as this is as normal as the specific contractual severancepay clause. That is what worries me. As I have said, regretfully we have recently had problems with what I consider to be rather generous hand-outs of public money and I think it has made us a little sensitive on this issue.

Mr Chairman, one must also be positive. Under particular circumstances we may also need these powers to retain the services of a very special public servant in a top management post. He may be offered thrice his salary elsewhere. This provision would then at least enable us to some extent to negotiate a second, third or fourth term for such an employee under particular circumstances. I can understand the hon member’s qualms, but we could not think of a different way of obtaining the necessary powers to evolve this system. He must trust us for a year. Then we can discuss the matter again when this Vote comes before Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I must say that the last argument advanced by the hon the Minister is his best one yet. I appreciate that there could be circumstances in which one would have to pay more, to retain a particularly good employee. Nevertheless, I still have grave doubts about the wideness of this particular provision.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

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

Clause 32:

Mr Chairman in the case of overpayment it is being provided here that as regards the person to whom an overpayment has been made:

Yesterday I also asked the hon the Minister about this. I do not think it is fair that in this connection an order should be made against an official who received an overpayment as a result of circumstances beyond his control, and that that official himself is not consulted about the order to compel him to repay that overpayment in instalments. I want to suggest for consideration to the hon the Minister that the words “after consultation with the officer concerned” be inserted here. I think that would be fairer. In practice it will quite probably happen that the officer concerned will be called in and that he will be consulted, after which he will then be told to repay a certain amount monthly. However, it would only be fair to the officer if those words which I have suggested be inserted here.

Mr Chairman, this is a new provision which is actually intended to facilitate the implementation of clause 28, and to ensure that proper powers exist to enable clause 28 to be applied effectively. The hon member will also note that while there may at the same time be an underpayment, this same clause 32 authorizes the reimbursement of such a person without applying unnecessarily complicated procedures.

Without this authorization one is compelled, in order to rectify a perfectly normal calculating error made when writing out a cheque, to work through the Treasury and apply unnecessary red tape. So what we are dealing with here are normal calculating errors, if I may put it in that way, and these have previously been dealt with in the same way, although in this connection we were in fact skating on thin ice because no authorization actually existed for such actions.

This provision simply authorizes a perfectly simple procedure for rectifying bona fide errors. We are not dealing here with the deduction of money from a person’s salary by way of a fine or anything of that nature. Such an officer was simply overpaid, and the recovery of that overpayment by way of deduction must therefore be authorized.

Mr Chairman, everything the hon the Minister has said is acceptable to me, but this mistake could have happened a long time ago. In the meantime the officer may have been transferred to another town, in which he has bought a house. Here, the head of the department, in consultation with the Treasury, is going to order that officer to repay that overpayment in instalments, which he cannot afford. This places him in an embarrassing position. Consequently my request to the hon the Minister is that he should accommodate the officer in this respect.

Mr Chairman, I think the spirit and intention of this clause is also reflected by clause 32(3) which goes a great deal further. It provides that such an amount may even be remitted, in whole or in part. The right to instruct a person to make the repayment by way of monthly instalments is a right which will be exercised in consultation and after discussions. That is the method the Commission applies. It is also the method the department applies. Normally it will be an agreed amount, and will be applied fairly. When the amount is as large as the one to which the hon member referred, consideration will far rather be given, if it was not his fault, if he spent the money and he no longer has it, to accommodating such an official in terms of clause 32(3) so that he need not even repay everything, because one would not like to hurt one’s own employee, as far as those deductions are concerned, to such an extent that one turns that employee against one and places him in a position where he is angry at one. I honestly think the hon member should trust the discretion of the top level management of each department to take great care to ensure that their own employees will not be treated unfairly.

Mr Chairman, I accept the hon the Minister’s explanation.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clauses 33 to 38 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Title agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Human Tissue Act, 1983, provides that regulations may be made by means of which the artificial insemination of persons is regulated and controlled. It has not yet been possible to make these regulations because a legal question arose as to whether the expression “Artificial insemination” was wide enough to include in vitro insemination, the definition for which this Bill makes provision merely seeks to ensure legal certainty in this connection.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill. In fact the hon the Minister knows that we on this side of the House will support both measures dealing with gametes, male or female. In the Human Tissue Act of last year the principle of the donation of tissue by a living or by a dead person was accepted and medical science uses this both in organ transplatations and also for artificial insemintion. As the hon the Minister quite correctly said, clause 1 of this Bill is basically to define artificial insemination. It deals mainly with two aspects: Firstly, where it can take place and, secondly, who the donor must be. First of all, as the hon the Minister said, it can be invivo, in life, or in vitro, which means in glass, the well-known test tube babies. This definition therefore allows both in vivo and in vitro insemination. It is actually a tribute to modern science that methods can now be used to make it possible for insemintion and conception outside the human body and to make it possible for couples to have children this way. Following on last year’s debate, I do not think that anybody in this House opposes the concept of both in vivo and in vitro insemination.

The second part of this definition deals with by whom the gametes may be donated. It may be either by the husband, AIH, or AID by the donor. We on this side of the House accepted this principle last year and we again accept it this year. In fact, last year the hon the Minister and his department were kind enough to give us a very adequate code of conduct as published by his department for the medical profession to deal with this measure. We discussed it here last year and on the whole we on this side of the House supported it. In fact, I have had requests from other parts of the world by people who are interested in this code of conduct and our Human Tissue Act both of which are recognized as leaders in the world as far as this aspect is concerned. Therefore we on this side of the House accept the principle of artificial insemination by husband or by donor.

This bring me to the amendment which appears in the name of the hon member for Pietersburg on the Order Paper. I want to tell the hon member that we cannot support his amendment, which is aimed at amending the relevant provision to read:

If the words “who shall be the wife or the donar” are inserted, this will be limited to artificial insemination both in vitro and in vivo only by husband. That is how I understand the amendment.

I find that this amendment is first of all limiting in that it only allows it for married women; in other words, if an unmarried woman would like to have a child, she would not be able to have it by means of artificial insemination. In the second instance I am sure that the hon member will know that in the case of many married couples the cause of sterility is the lack of the husband to produce sperms. The husband is therefore at fault when the woman cannot become pregnant. If the amendment is accepted, a great number of patients will not be allowed to have children because of the limitation that a donation can only be made by the husband.

I should like the hon member to take this into consideration: According to his amendment it will be illegal for the medical profession to inseminate a married woman artificially except if the husband is the donor. As the law stands at present, she and her husband can reach consensus and she can go across the road to her neighbour’s husband who can inseminate her. Such an action will be legal. It might be immoral but it would still be legal. The hon member now discriminates against a married woman in the sense that she may have an immoral relationship and a child by immoral means by her neighbour’s husband but not by artificial insemination. I think the hon members of the CP are trying to change a general affair into an own affair even when it comes to artificial insemination. [Interjections.]

I am sure the hon member for Pietersburg has been a general practitioner and therefore I am slso sure that he has already had the situation where a married couple who want a child comes to see him. That couple cannot have a child because of sterility. It is then discovered that the husband is sterile and that they therefore cannot have a child. I wonder whether the hon member told such a couple in the past that nothing could be done, that they should adopt a child and that artificial insemination could not be done. I wonder whether he has seen such people. Has he seen their frustration, their sadness because they cannot have a child? I just wonder whether, if a married couple have reached consensus to have a child by artificial insemination through a donor, we have the right to tell them that they may not have a child while we say nothing about the wife having an immoral affair with somebody else. I cannot understand his amendment and therefore we cannot support it.

I should like to tell the hon the minister that there seem to be public concern about artificial insemination in vitro. The Press picks this up as a sensational item, and we read about the legal rights of frozen sperm. I hope the hon the Minister will make the rules and regulations in terms of which this can be done quite clear to the public. He should also tell the public how the organizations, institutions or persons who will be allowed to do artificial insemination in vitro will be regulated. I think that will obviate a lot of the concern.

Lastly I want to appeal to the Press—I know that they have to report certain matters—to keep sensationalism out of this. We had the experience during the heart transplant operations that a number of people were badly influenced and had misery brought into their lives due to unnecessary sensationalism in the Press. This Bill deals with a very important aspect of life, namely the idea of fatherhood and motherhood and the presence of children in this word. I believe that we in this House and the public in general should treat this matter with sensitivity and appreciation and try and respect people who can use this as the only means to have children.

We will be supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Parktown. I want to thank the hon the Minister for this measure because there was obviously reason enough to obtain a wider description of what artificial insemination really is.

It is very clear to me that we are dealing here with different philosophies and conceptions of life. On the one hand one finds a standpoint among people, particularly in medical science, who have no problem with abortions taking place as far as embryos are concerned—as soon as conception has occurred until approximately the third month when consciousness develops. On the other hand there is the view generally held by the Churches, viz that as soon as conception, insemination, occurs, one is dealing with human life and that that life must then be respected and may not be dealt with in the same way as something which falls outside the human sphere, in the sense that human beings have a spirit which animals and material things do not have.

I think it is a good thing that it was stated here today—references have been made to this in passing—that as far as the old Act is concerned, we made it very clear to one another last year that the Act not only made provision for a wide spectrum of matters, but that section 22—dealing with artificial insemination—left the possibility open that there could be development in the medical sphere and that provision would have to be made for it.

As far as research in this specific field is concerned, I do not think that everything possible has already been done. I am convinced that the last word on this subject has definitely not been spoken. The standpoints of medical science, the jurists, the Church and the State—whose responsibility it is to implement legislation—will all have to be taken into consideration so that a balanced view of this extremely contentious matter can be expressed.

I now want to refer to the amendment of the hon member for Pietersburg. I think that I can understand the reason for his amendment, although I do not agree with it. The implication of his amendment is that all women who are unable to fall pregnant within the marriage—in what way does not matter—will never, as long as they are married, have the privilege of experiencing motherhood. The only method which exists, namely artificial insemination, is condemned by him. Tremendous medical breakthroughs have already been made to help parental couples who would otherwise never have had children—one out of every eight parental couples can only be helped by means of artificial insemination—to become parents. For that reason we must ask ourselves, in view of breakthroughs made in the medical sphere, whether we do not also see the hand of the Lord in this, in that He has told us to go forth and subdue the earth, whether it is by means of science or by whatever means it may be, in order to eliminate problems in that way.

When there are differences in principle, we are treading on very complicated ground. The hon member for Parktown requested the Press not to stir up emotions or become sensational about these matters. However, it is very difficult to expect that from the Press. We now have a case which falls directly into this category, namely the case of the two orphaned frozen embryos in Australia whose parents died in an air-crash. The authorities there directed that the two embryos should be destroyed.

I said earlier that the last word had not yet been spoken, and that there were many complicating factors which were emerging. In the case of these two emryos it was established that it was not the natural father of the embryos who died in the accident, and also that more than R1 million was at stake for the two emryos by way of an inheritance if it were made possible for them to develop and be born in a natural way. These problems only emerge in practice, and one can only deal with the problems when they emerge. The last word has certainly not been spoken in regard to this matter. We shall have to reflect very seriously on the whole issue of artificial insemination, not only in the medical sphere, but also in the ethical sphere.

The hon member approached the matter from a specific angle with the amendment which he moved. We could have put forward many other amendments. I just want to advocate one thing, and that is that as science develops, we should make provision for new circumstances.

There is one thing I should like to get off my chest. Apart from the legal question in regard to the orphaned embryos to whom I referred, we are also dealing with an ethical question—and I think this is perhaps more important for us today—namely what is morally permissible or prohibited in such a case. A considerable difference of opinion exists in this regard. The issue is aggravated by complicating factors such as those to which I referred earlier. There are no simple answers to these questions. The dilemma surrounding these two orphaned embryos brought a very important issue to light in a rather crude way—I should like to bring it to the attention of the hon the Minister—namely what is the status of the fertilized ovum around which the controversy centres. No clear decision has as yet been given in this regard by any of the four organizations to whom I referred at the beginning of my speech, and whom I think ought to be consulted and to whom one should listen so that one can formulate a balanced view on this matter.

It is clear that mankind’s technical abilities have sometimes developed more rapidly than his ability to give ethical consideration to the consequences of everything that is technically possible. In this case it appears that it is possible to procreate human embryos in a test tube and to preserve them in a frozen state and to dispose of them as one sees fit without the question of the status of the embryos ever having been answered. For that reason it seems to me that the heart of the problem is that the evidence of medical science indicates that human life begins at conception, which in this case means that the embryos should already be regarded as human lives. This is a standpoint which the Church could also confidently uphold. However, if one considers the matter from the point of view of medical research, one will not easily obtain the co-operation of researchers to support the point I am now trying to make when it comes to ethical issues, because one would, from that point of view, be impeding research.

Consequently this creates tremendous ethical problems for us, and it is not strange that people have already asked for a moratorium until such time as the ethical questions have been solved, and also for scientific research to cease provisionally, until our ethical sensibility has caught up with our medical ability—as they put it.

I should like to convey my appreciation for what the medical scientists have done up till now, but on the other hand I also want to point out that although we have objections in principle to artificial insemination, particularly in the cases where external donors are involved, we should take into consideration that we are dealing with individual married couples who have already gone through the whole experience, deciding in the end that they wanted to become parents, and that this was the method they wished to adopt, and many have already found happiness in that way. All I ask for, therefore, is an appreciation of the issued involved.

Mr Speaker, it is not clear to me what the standpoint of the hon member for Brits is in regard to this amending Bill. He began by saying that he appreciated the standpoint of the hon member for Parktown, and that his appreciation arose from two differing conceptions of life. He then went on to condone this legislation, in this sense—as I understand it—that we will be entirely in favour of a donor being used in artificial insemination. At the end of his speech, however, he said that he was opposed in principle to artificial insemination taking place by way of a donor. I should therefore like to ascertain from him what his standpoint really is. Is he in favour of a donor from outside a marriage being used for artificial insemination? The hon member must state his standpoint later.

My views on this matter are poles apart from those of the hon member for Parktown, for what is involved here is an outlook of life. Our standpoint on this side of the House is that it should not be possible for artificial insemination to take place from outside the marriage. I have been in practice for many years and I have never once recommended it. In fact, great psychological problems can develop in the case of an outside donor and the hon member for Brits ought to know that. Apart from our moral and ethical objection to such an action, we know that grave psychological problems can arise when a donor-father from outside the marriage is used for artificial insemination.

Recognition is being given in this legislation to the rapidly developing knowledge and experience recently acquired by scientists, particularly in respect of human in vitro insemination. In the present Act provision is only made for the transplanting of human gametes from one person to another, and also for their import and export. Last year already we expressed our serious religious and ethical objections to the possibility that the gamete of a donor, a gamete of a third person, may be used for artificial insemination outside the marriage context.

We on this side of the House believe that the marriage is a monogamous institution, a communion of one man with one woman, and that the introduction of a donor from outside is diametrically opposed to the principles which we uphold. We are not ashamed of that standpoint, and that is why we want to place it on record. Apart from the fact that I also have a scientific problem in this regard, because one knows what underlying tension problems can be caused when insemination from outside the marrige is allowed. In many cases that could be the first rift in that marriage.

We will only be able to agree to a situation in which the amalgamation of male and female gametes within a marriage context cannot occur in a natural way, and that in such a case in vitro insemination may take place and the fertilized embryo is then re-implanted in the womb of the woman concerned.

As the Act is now being amended, with the addition to section 1 in the Human Tissue Act of the provisions of Clause 1, precisely the same objections which we still have exist, and the chance of malpractices are, to tell the truth, being increased according to our principles and standpoints. Male and female cells from outside the marriage may now be united and then implanted within the marriage context. Our standpint is that it is diametrically in conflict with our Calvinistic Christian-convictions for sexual coupling outside the marriage context to be allowed. According to our convictions this is in its deepest essence and principle a contravention of the seventh commandment and therefore we definitely cannot support the addition to section 1 of the Act.

I want to point out that we must be very careful in allowing these in vitro inseminations. When cell division takes place and progresses to a stage where there are eight, it is technically possible to transplant eight identical embryos in various host mothers. One must therefore be very careful about what is allowed in this connection. As the hon member for Brits correctly stated, a whole series of ethical, moral, religious and legal questions have recently arisen in connection with the embryos of a parental couple that were being preserved in an institution in Melbourne, Australia, after the parental couple had died in an air-crash. This illustrated to us anew that the ethical, moral and legal codes sometimes do not keep pace with the rapid development of medical science. I want to quote from an article in Die Burger of 26 June, as follows:

I think this is definitely a matter which should receive timeous attention in South Africa, since such a case could occur in this country as well.

Another vexatious question in this connection is this: When does life begin? There is a difference of opinion in this regard, too. Does it begin when amalgamation of the sexual cells occurs, or does it take place only when a nervous system has developed, or does it take place only when the fertilized embryo is re-implanted in the lining of the womb?

In Die Transvaler of 22 June a report appeared in which two theologians, a scientist and a legal expert expressed different opinions on the question of precisely when life began. It is almost the same as the contentious question as to when a person is really dead and when a person may be declared to be legally dead. This is another question which is unresolved, and in regard to which a wide diversity of standpoints are held.

As clause 1 stands at present, we cannot accept it and we shall move the amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper during the Committee Stage, and if the hon the Minister indicates at this early stage that he is not going to accept our amendment we shall be compelled to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pietersburg said that the amendment contained in clause 1 was a contravention of the seventh commandment. With all due respect to the hon member, I do not see any signs of adultery in this Bill or in the principal Act. How this provision can therefore be in conflict with the seventh commandment is beyond me.

We support this amending Bill for a number of reasons. I think it should be accepted as a fact that there are no bounds to either technological or scientific development. I think it should also be accepted as a fact that many of the benefits which we enjoy today owing to Technological and scientific development and particularly to development in the sphere of medical science, can be traced back specifically to research in a specific area. That is why I think it would be wrong to prohibit research in any sphere per se by way of legislation. Actually I think that the contrary is true. I think there is an obligation on the legislature to keep pace with research and with technological and scientific development. If the legislature does not do this, all kinds of malpractices and dilemmas arise.

Both previous speakers referred to the matter in regard to the embryos. I just want to quote an observation in this connection:

In addition I just want to refer to the comment of a medical practitioner at the hospital in question. He said:

Consequently I say that I think the onus rests on the legislature to keep pace with research so that dilemmas of this kind do not arise. I think that the present legislature has an excellent record in this respect.

This Human Tissue Act of 1983 must therefore be seen as an attempt to keep pace with research and to regulate any possible practices which may arise. All that this amending Bill is doing, is to make those regulations applicable to other possibilities not originally covered by the Act. To my mind, what we therefore have here is not a deviation in principle from the standpoints that was stated last year. Last year the Human Tissue Act already made it possible for artificial insemination to occur with the introduction of a donor, but because, as the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, insemination in a test tube did not by definition fall under artificial insemination, this kind of research and insemination was not being regulated.

The hon member for Pietersburg said that his kind of insemination increased the chances of malpractices. I agree with him, but the purpose of this amending Bill is in fact to regulate and to control any malpractices that may arise, as the original Act does in respect of artificial insemination. The intention of this amending Bill is in fact to control all kinds of malpractices which may arise in this area of research timeously, so that we will not arrive at the kind of dilemma in respect of fertilized embryos as is now being experienced in Australia. On those grounds we therefore give this amending Bill our whole-hearted support.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I must inform the House that the NRP is allowing a free vote on the Bill before us. It is felt that this particular subject is one conscience. Therefore the comments I am going to make are my own and do not reflect the official policy of the party.

It is obvious from overseas reports in vitro fertilization has not been thought through to the various problems that can arise and the ramifications of those problems. What has been allowed overseas so far is neither more not less than genetic engineering, which in turn is going to lead to cloning. The scientists and doctors have been given unfettered freedom to experiment with the natural conception of the human being. I want to say that I appreciate the fact that artificial insemination does help childless couples. However, I want to pose the question whether having a child is not a God-given right and whether it is not becoming a science-given right. One only has to see what is happening in Australia to which most previous speakers have referred in regard to the recent controversy there about the embryos being held in deep-freeze. I should like to quote from a few Press cutting in this regard. The first of these is from The Citizen of 20 June of this year, and reads, inter alia:

The report goes on to say:

Let us go a little further and have a preview of what could also happen to embryos of human tissue. I quote in this case from The Argus of 21 June under the heading “Supertrout”. It states, inter alia:

I also want to pose the question whether we imagine that scientists are going to stop at mere experimentation on fish. I do not believe they are. Their capacity to become swollen-headed with power to produce super human beings is I believe a real threat to society. One has only to go back as far as the Second World War to see what happened to Hitler and his henchmen with their experimentation. I sincerely believe scientists are allowed to go too far. They are being allowed to tread on a terrain that should be reserved for the intimacy of persons and the acceptance of God’s wish for every couple either to have children or not. Even today the one-parent family through the use of artificial insemination by an unknown donor is accepted.

Another point to bear in mind is that only a few weeks ago there were many speakers in this House who expressed their concern at the lack of family planning and the need to reduce the aggregate number of children in all families. Today we are discussing IVF and its consequences as well as surrogate mothers and so forth. I wonder whether we are being consistent in regard to what we expressed a few weeks ago? I doubt it.

The Government of the day are very conscious of the role of the Church and its philosophies, and we accept that. One has only to consider the views of various ministers in regard to lotteries because of the moral implications. In this case I hope that the churches’ influence will not be disregarded because of scientific and public support which has overcome religious and other objections as has been seen overseas. There are far too many possibilities and tragedies and unknown consequences, in my opinion, to allow IVF to take place completely uncontrolled. One could say that the scientists and the doctors overseas are being given complete freedom to play the part of God.

Therefore I support the proposals on the understanding that they will be giving the hon the Minister some control. However, for my part I believe it would serve a far better purpose if IVF was completely banned altogether in this country.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon members who participated in the debate very much for doing so. I also want to thank them very much for the support which most of them gave to the Bill. To those who did not support the Bill, I want to suggest that they ask their legal colleagues what the things contained in the Bill mean.

The hon members made great play of the possibilities which may arise, and it was very interesting to listen to them. In doing so, however, they did not adhere very closely to the Bill.

The Bill merely seeks to broaden the definition of artificial insemination so that control may be exercised over in vitro insemination as well. That is all that is being asked for. Nothing further is being asked for. That is what the hon member for Randfontein said, but what the hon member for Pietersburg misunderstood completely. A doctor who interprets laws without the help of legal experts is a dangerous person. The hon member for Pietersburg wants to move an amendment. However, the hon member should consider what the meaning of that amendment is going to be. There are three sections in the original Act which are affected, namely sections 19, 22 and 23. In regard to section 23 the amendment which the hon member for Pietersburg wants to move means that artificial inseminations in terms of the ordinary definitions plus, according to his amendment, married couples, shall be done by a medical practitioner. The other in vitro fertilizations which are carried out may simply be done with the help of any other person. That is what the hon member’s amendment means. Hon members are all concerned about the proper handling and control over developments in this sphere. All that is being asked for in this Bill is that the definition be expanded; in other words, that the powers be extended so that there can be proper control and regulation, and those who vote against this are voting against such control.

You are opening the door too far.

What door? The door is already wide open. I am in fact asking that it be closed. That is the meaning of this. Those hon members, however, wish to leave it wide open, as it is at the moment. I am asking for the right to make regulations which will also deal with in vitro insemination. That is all I am asking for.

The hon members philosophized on this matter, but I want to point that we are not going to draw up these regulations in a haphazard way. These in vitro inseminations have unleashed a debate throughout the medical world in particular, and throughout the rest of the world in general. In our own country the people in charge of clinics and laboratories at which these inseminations are being done are themselves earnestly debating the issue. During the past week we read how two professors said that this kind of insemination ought to be only in laboratories registered with the South African Medical Council. I am inclined to agree with that.

At present there are no regulations in this connection. We shall have to deliberate very earnestly with medical practitioners, with the Medical Council, with the churches and with legal experts on how this matter should be dealt with and how these regulations should be drawn up. In the meantime this is all I am asking for: Give me the right to act so that I am able to make those regulations if I have to.

If I may give my own standpoint at this stage, I say that I cannot see the necessity for in vitro insemination being done except between husband and wife. I cannot see it, but in this regard I wish to negotiate very earnestly with people who work with this matter all day, and with the churches and lawyers and the Medical Council. In the meantime I am simply asking for the right, once we have negotiated, to make regulations.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister said medical practitioners should not try to interpret laws and that quite a number of other sections also dealing with in vitro artificial insemination are affected. Once again I want to make it clear that we are opposed in principle to ordinary artificial insemination taking place outside the marriage. We continue to adhere to that standpoint.

The hon member for Parktown asked: What about the thousands of couples who would then have to remain childless? I just want to point out that it happens very rarely that one finds no sperm cells at all in the male. Such cases do, in fact, occur, but they occur very rarely. It is in fact artifical insemination which makes it possible for a man with a low sperm count to fertilize an ovum cell himself. We therefore adhere to our standpoint that we feel that a qualification should be built in here by way of the amendment which I am going to move, because we are opposed in principle to artificial insemination being allowed to take place outside the marriage. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 3, in line 9, after “person” to insert:
   • , who shall be the wife of the donor,

Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon member. I think the hon member is making a fool of himself. In a democratic country, however, every person has that right.

Amendment 1 negatived.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

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

Mr Speaker, I want to say briefly that we adhere to our standpoint and will also vote against the Third Reading of this measure. I deplore the way in which the hon the Minister said during the Committee Stage that anyone was at liberty to make a fool of himself. This is a serious matter as far as we are concerned, and for that reason we shall adhere to our standpoint.

Mr Speaker, this is still a democratic country.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

At the annual general meeting of the Parliamentary and Provincial Medical Aid Scheme held on 26 April 1984, it was decided also to make members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates subject to membership of the scheme when the relevant provisions of the Constitution Act of the Republic of South Africa, 1983, come into effect. The amendments in this Bill make statutory provision for this.

References to the Senate, and to members whose membership is linked to the territory of South West Africa, are being deleted.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House will support this Bill.

It is only right that members of the other Houses and also members of the President’s Council should be in a position to belong to the Parliamentary and Provincial Medical Aid Scheme. The hon the Minister and the majority of the people in the medical world are aware of the fact that the costs of medicine and health service are rising extremely rapidly nowadays. Because of the additional members who are going to belong to this scheme, it is appropriate to point out that hon members who belong to this scheme should not incur medical costs with the idea that the scheme will pay. Parmed, like all other medical schemes, needs members who will have due regard for the financial position of the scheme and act accordingly.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to hear the standpoint of the hon member for Parktown and to hear that his party supports this Bill.

It is also our standpoint that it is necessary to make this medical scheme as strong as possible, particularly in these times of tremendously high medical costs. It is probably generally accepted that when the membership of the medical scheme is being enlarged, this can place the scheme on a firmer footing and can make it a stonger scheme.

As far as the elimination of the members of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa is concerned, this is also the end of an era in the history of the scheme, which one actually notes with regret. Owing to circumstances and the times in which we five, however, this must take place. For that reason we cannot see why, within that context, it should not be changed.

These are essential and timely amendments and we on this side take pleasure in supporting them.

Mr Speaker, in the first place I want to give the strongest possible support to the warning issued by the hon member for Parktown about the fact that since provision is now being made for the admission of new members, one must not try to abuse the benefits offered by such a scheme. We who serve on the management committee of the scheme know only too well that costs are escalating tremendously year by year and that we can barely keep pace with the increase in the price of medicines and medical services. Each year it is necessary to increase the contributions of members. For that reason I should like to support the hon member’s warning.

The legislation before us stems from the new constitutional dispensation, and for that reason we cannot support it. We also feel it is a great pity that South West Africa is being excluded from this legislation. I want to make it quite clear that we do not begrudge the elected members of the Coloured and Indian population groups the benefits of a medical aid scheme. This is not the case at all. As a matter of fact, we begrudge them far less than the NP does, being prepared to give them their own independent system of government from the lowest to the highest tiers. In such a situation we would not mind them belonging to such a scheme. We therefore want them to have all this, with all the benefits involved, including that of a medical aid scheme. The CP objects to an integrated system, of which this legislation before us forms a part. For that reason we shall be opposing the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I would rather leave the hon member for Pietersburg and his arguments. We will naturally support this measure. I should like to say that our Parliamentary Medical Aid Scheme is a unique scheme, unique in the sense that it has served its purpose over the years for provincial councillors, members of Parliament and for members of the judiciary, mainly members of what I would call the older brigade, the more elderly people.

I have enjoyed very much the years that I have spent on its management committee. I am very grateful to the hon member for Vryburg who indoctrinated me in the early days as to procedures in the management of Parmed. It has been a tremendously interesting and rewarding experience to have learnt from him and also to have served with gentlemen like the hon member for Parktown and the hon member for Pietersburg on that management committee. I am pleased to see that the hon the Minister intends moving an instruction to incorporate members of the President’s Council. I think in the new constitutional arrangement it is obvious that those gentlemen should be accommodated. I am of the opinion that, in the new dispensation we would possibly find that the more may be the merrier with our medical aid scheme, in the sense that we could well find that there may be a stabilization of our monthly commitments towards maintaining the scheme, because any actuary will tell one that the greater the number the less possibility there is of a pattern of continual increase such as there has been over the past few years. Nonetheless, I should like to say that we in this party are grateful for the benefits that we have received from what has been, and I sincerely hope will continue to be, an excellent medical aid scheme for Parliamentarians.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Parktown, the hon member for Middelburg, the hon member for Pietersburg and the hon member for Umhlanga for their support. I also want to thank the hon members for appealing to members to adopt, as far as possible, a protective attitude towards the medical aid scheme and not merely to get everything they possibly can out of the scheme. When one is invited out for a meal, it is customary to be told: “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” As far as medical schemes are concerned, it is axiomatic that what one member uses unnecessarily, is paid for by another member. I therefore want to make an appeal for us to adopt a protective attitude towards our scheme as far as possible.

The hon member for Umhlanga rightly pointed out that as the membership of a medical scheme increases, the position of the scheme is improved and from a financial point of view one should therefore support it.

I expected the hon member for Pietersburg to object to the extension on the grounds of what his party advocates. I assume that before he became a member of Parliament, he was also a member of Provmed. [Interjections.] I shall not pursue this matter. Provmed has never consisted only of Whites, and at that stage this did not bother the hon member. In the course of time one probably does change one’s principles on the grounds of expediency.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Instruction

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

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

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

1. 1. On page 3, in line 19, after “or” to insert:
   • of the President’s Council or

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Cabinet instructed me to investigate and to make recommendations on the pension rights of persons who will become members of the new Parliament and President’s Council. This Bill is the result of that investigation, and I should like to thank the Whips of all the parties in this House for their co-operation and for the proposals which I received.

As far as Parliament is concerned, the Bill will come into operation with retrospective effect from 1 July 1984. This date was chosen because we believed, when we commenced our negotiations, that this session would end in June, as usual. I think we should keep to 1 July 1984.

As far as the President’s Council is concerned, it is not possible to involve the members of the existing President’s Council at this stage, because there are material differences between the Parliamentary scheme and that of the President’s Council. The most important difference is the fact that the scheme of the President’s Council is optional and that approximately one-third of its present members chose not to become members of that pension scheme. Integrating these members into the new scheme for the next two months only would not be fair or worth while.

Members of the existing President’s Council who become members of Parliament or of the new President’s Council will have their parliamentary or President’s Council pensions discontinued and they will be obliged to become members of the new scheme for which provision is made in this Bill. Their previous pensionable service, I repeat pensionable service, will be recognized. This means that those who were members of the President’s Council scheme will receive full recognition for their pensionable service in terms of that scheme, while those who were not members will not receive any recognition for the period during which they served on the President’s Council.

†Mr Speaker, the rest of the changes which will take place as a result of this Bill are of such a nature that they could best be debated in the Committee Stage. I will gladly reply to all queries which members may have in connection with this Bill, generally or in connection with their rights in particular. However, I think it is my duty to highlight some of the more important changes for the benefit of members and especially the reasons for such changes.

The efficacy of any pension scheme can, to a certain extent, be judged by the extent to which it gives a member the peace of mind that, when the time comes when he can no longer provide his dependants with the necessities of life, his pension scheme will intervene and render assistance by way of a pension or other benefits. In this respect the present pension scheme has failed its members dismally, especially those who died in harness before completing 7i years’ pensionable service. Hon members will recall the cases of some of our former colleagues who died under such circumstances and whose widows were left penniless and had to be assisted by way of petitions to Parliament.

This Bill seeks to rectify this sad state of affairs. Henceforth all widows, regardless of the period of their husbands’ pensionable service prior to their death, will be entitled to a pension. This provision will also apply to the surviving spouse of a female member, because provision is also made for the payment of pensions to the widowers of former female members. I would have thought the two lady members of the House would have been here to listen to this. It is the first time this House agrees to their rights.

Another group of members left in the lurch by the present pension scheme are former office-bearers who, after they vacated their offices, stayed on as ordinary members. On their retirement, these members, depending on the circumstances of their cases, usually become entitled to benefits which are almost equal to those payable to ordinary members, and hardly any recognition is given to the fact that they held certain offices. This discrepancy will be rectified by means of the special pensions payable in terms of clause 10.

*As far as the recognition of previous service is concerned, only previous pensionable service will be recognized. Pensionable service in terms of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme and the pension scheme for the existing President’s Council will be fully recognized.

With regard to previous provincial service and service in the CRC and the Indian Council, a distinction must be drawn between the cases of members who had more than 7½ years previous service, and therefore qualified for a pension, and those who had less than 7½years’ service. In the case of those who had more than 7½ years’ pensionable service, their pensions will be suspended upon their election or nomination to Parliament or to the President’s Council and they will not be entitled to the repayment of any contributions. In return for this, half their period of pensionable service in the province, CRC or Indian Council, as the case may be, will be recognized.

As regards the other half of a member’s pensionable service, which has not been or is not regarded as pensionable service, members will now be given the opportunity of buying any portion of it.

Since I came to be in charge of the portfolio responsible for the administration of pension, which has given me a special insight into the pension affairs of members, I have come to realize more and more that the pension rights of members of this House offer only a very limited degree of compensation and security in what must be one of the most insecure professions in the country. What I find particularly disquieting, in the light of this, is the fact that one still finds people outside who try to make out a case, or to prove, that the pension scheme is just another attempt on the part of the legislature to bring about the wrongful enrichment of its members. I want to make it clear to those persons that this scheme will not give hon members bigger pensions or benefits. The opposite is closer to the truth, because members are being expected to make bigger contributions. I want to emphasize that.

The improvements which are now being proposed will affect only exceptional cases which are being prejudiced at the moment. Although we must ensure at all times that members are not wrongfully enriched and that there must not even be the appearance of such enrichment, the contrary is also true: A pension scheme should not enrich itself at the expense of its members.

Mr Speaker, let me say at the outset that I am pleased we have this opportunity to discuss this matter in open, public debate. I think this is a good principle and one that we should continue. When we look at the changes in the constitutional structure of South Africa, then I think it was necessary also for changes to be made in regard to the pension arrangements for holders of political office. At the same time, it gives one the opportunity to look at some of the shortcomings and problems in our present pension scheme, and to make use of the opportunity to rectify those shortcomings.

The principles on which the PFP base its attitude to this particular Bill are in fact fairly clear. Firstly, we believe that the pension scheme is a generous one for those who qualify. However, as the hon the Minister pointed out, we live in very uncertain times, and one cannot compare the career of a politician, I believe, with the career of anybody else in the business sector. In the business sector, one’s working life expectancy is round about forty years whereas to the best of my knowledge there has been nobody who has sat in this House for forty years. I would imagine that the career life of a politician is much shorter, and one has to take this into account when comparing this scheme with other schemes.

I think that one of the major problems we have had to deal with in regard to our present pension scheme is the sharp distinction it draws between the haves and the have nots, those who qualify and those who do not qualify. I feel particularly sensitive about this because I am in fact speaking from the seat of a former colleague of mine who died before he had had seven and a half years service. The net result was that his widow received absolutely nothing from the pension fund, and I think that this is an important point to bear in mind. Of all the changes made, I think that this is in fact the one I appreciate most of all because when one has lived with a colleague—all of us have that sort of situation—who has died and his widow has received absolutely nothing from the pension fund because he died prematurely, one feels very sorry for that widow indeed.

The second problem we had was that when the pension scheme was originally introduced, the intention was that a member would serve for two parliamentary sessions. This was originally equated with a period of 10 years, and later, seven and a half or eight years. If a member had been here for seven and a half years he could purchase the remaining six months service. When one actually looks at the history of the modern Parliament, one finds that a member can serve two parliamentary sessions and still not qualify for a pension. I do not think that this was ever the intention and I am pleased that the matter is now being rectified.

The hon the Minister also spoke about the removal of discrimination against males. This of course relates to the fact that where there is a lady member, her spouse will now be entitled to some benefit. The hon member for Houghton has often raised this issue. I think it has been an anomaly in the system and we are pleased that it is being rectified.

What about our lady?

Your lady too. There is no discrimination among political parties in this regard.

The other anomaly that had to be removed was the possibility of a member’s being paid twice. He could be paid a salary by occupying a particular office and could also receive a pension. This anomaly is now going to be removed and we think it is a good thing. In fact, I should think that the overall effect of this provision is that it may actually save the taxpayers of South Africa money.

A further problem that we have and which has not been rectified by means of this Bill, is the question of severance pay for members who cease to be members. If one is fighting an election campaign and unexpectedly loses, there is a period when one is tremendously uncertain, particularly if one does not qualify for a pension. In Great Britain I believe that they now have a system whereby a defeated MP is given three months severance pay so that he can find his feet. I think that is a very good system.

In the President’s Council we do better. We give 16 months.

It makes you think, if I may quote that well-known advert. The other problem that one has had is that any additional benefits should not increase the cost to the taxpayer, and I think the point made by the hon the Minister is a good one, namely that this is not going to cost the taxpayers of South Africa more money.

I think that this Bill does a lot to remove many of the problems that we saw. However, there are two general points that I should like to make. The first is that this Bill provides for widows’ benefits. There are a lot of pension schemes that do not provide for widows’ benefits and I wish that they would use this as an example. The hon the Minister could actually tell us that if one looks at the number of social old-age pensioners in South Africa one sees that there are far more women social old-age pensioners than there are male social old-age pensioners. One of the reasons for that is that women qualify earlier, but the other reasons of course is that women live longer. If one wants to solve the problem of providing for the population of South Africa’s pensioners, then a pension scheme should provide for widows’ benefits. I am glad that ours does because I think this sets a very good example.

The second point that I wish to make is that with regard to political office bearers this Bill makes membership compulsory and provides for the transferability of one’s pension if one moves from one particular position to another. This is an example that we should like to see made into a general principle for all pension funds in South Africa, and here again I am glad that we are setting the example. Sir, we support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member. He made a constructive contribution in this regard.

I wish to commence by saying that I think we should compliment the department and the hon the Minister on the legislation we are dealing with at present. Over the years the laws regulating the pension schemes for members of Parliament and political office-bearers have become so complicated because of the additions made to them from time to time, as well as the amendments effected to them, that few of us could make head or tail of them. The way in which this piece of legislation has been drawn up, and the way it has been worded in particular, probably makes it one of the most comprehensible and readable pension laws.

The Bill we are dealing with here now is the final product of many hours of talks and negotiations between the hon the Minister and the Whips of all parties. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister expressed his gratitude to the Whips for the inputs they made on behalf of their members. However, on our part I want to place our tremendous appreciation for the endless patience with which the hon the Minister negotiated with us on record. I think that at one stage we had made him so dispondent that he wanted to abandon the legislation. That we eventually reached consensus so that he could proceed with the Bill is very much to his credit.

As the hon the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech, this Bill does not bring too many new benefits for members, but I would be so bold as to say that obvious shortcomings in existing laws are in fact being rectified and that the contributions of members are consequently being increased. Mercifully, in the 18 years the hon the Minister and I have been members of this House, not many of our colleagues have passed away whilst in service. However, the tragic truth is that in most of the cases when our colleagues did in fact pass away in service, their dependants really had to suffer. I recall one such particular case of a dear colleague when the Whips of our party had to cover the costs to have his remains sent back to his constituency.

Hon members who serve on the Select Committee on Pensions could attest today to the fact that over the years there have regularly been petitions before the select committee from widows who have been in dire financial straits which had to be considered by them. This does not exclude the widow of respected former Ministers in a previous dispensation.

The additional cover that a member’s dependants are at least assured of a pension if he should pass away in service before he has the minimum pensionable service, will bring peace of mind, particularly to our younger members who have families. A young proffessional person who enters politics today knowing that the average Parliamenty lifetime since becoming a Union is only about seven years and six months, definitely runs a particularly high risk. We have already had five elections in the 18 years I have been here since 30 March 1966; in other words, an average interval of between three and four years between elections. The chances that one could fall by the wayside in that process, have indeed increased considerably. Because more security has to be given I think that since the trend is shorter intervals, it is only fair that a member who has completed two full Parliamentary terms of office should qualify, irrespective of whether or not a period of seven years and six months has lapsed, since, after all, he is not treated as though he has had service over a period of seven and a half years, since the pension he receives is only calculated in terms of the years in which he did in fact do service.

In this regard there is the glaring example of the former member for Orange Grove who completed two full terms of office and who only needed a few months to be able to qualify. All his attempts to return to this House or to be elected to the President’s Council have been in vain thus far. Such unfortunate circumstances, if I want to describe “injustice” in mild terms, will hopefully now be eliminated by this legislation.

This year is truly the “year of the woman” in another sphere as well. The hon the Minister took up where the hon the Minister of Justice left off with his Matrimonial Property Bill, so as to look after the interests of Bessie and Helen. [Interjections.] The hon member for Houghton has been a member of this House for as long as I have been alive. [Interjections.] She has contributed to a pension fund for 20 years because those were the previous requirements of the fund, but if she were to have died before her spouse, he would not have qualified for a single cent of the pension. The scheme would therefore have been unjustly enriched at the expense of the hon member, but that is now being rectified for the peace of mind of the hon members for Houghton and Germiston District. The hon member for Germiston District is not here at present, but she could even consider slaughtering a beast for the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

What we were asking for over the years was not to be unjustly benefitted in the pension legislation applicable to us. I notice that the hon member for Germiston District is entering the Chamber again—when she heard about slaughtering a beast, she was here! [Interjections.]

We have never claimed unjust benefits in this House. The other day an article in Rapport of 27 May 1984 regarding the pensions of British Parliamentarians caught my eye. The headline reads “Pensioene vir minnaresse”, and I want to read what it says, inter alia, viz:

Order! Which clause is the hon member dealing with now?

I am referring to the “love clause” in the Bill. We are not claiming privileges of that nature today, but I do not think it would be amiss if we considered that in the future.

I was privileged to have a small share in the events leading up to this legislation. I wish to conclude by saying that this legislation is one of the many fine beacons on the road of the public life of the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare, and from all sides of the House we want to thank him for this measure.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the CP, and particularly our Whips, I want to express our appreciation to the previous speaker, the Chief Whip of the governing party, who channeled our discussions to the Minister and also assisted in drafting the details of this Bill. I want to join him in thanking the hon the Minister for the way in which he gave the Whips a hearing on this entire matter. He was very patient with us and even suggested certain changes to the Act himself. We want to thank the hon the Minister for that.

We in the Conservative Party agree with the hon member for Tygervallei regarding the contents of this legislation and the fact that this is a very neat piece of legislation. The legal draftsmen must really be congratulated on this, because it is easy to read, it is easy to understand and it has many benefits for members of Parliament. But the Bill makes provision inter alia for the payment of pensions to members of Parliament and the President’s Council, and Parliament and the President’s Council are by definition institutions of the new Constitution Act, Act 110 of 1983. Of course the Conservative Party is opposed in principle to the new constitutional dispensation and its implementation. This Bill therefore carries into effect the implications of the new constitutional dispensation. For that reason the Conservative Party wants to state—I also put this to the hon the Minister—that we cannot support the principle of the Bill, which provides for the implementation of the new constitution. [Interjections.]

We are grateful for the remuneration of members of the House of Assembly that is built into this legislation. The hon members for Tygervallei and Edenvale referred to provisions affecting women members of Parliament. The hon member for Germiston District is affect by this and we are grateful that we have one of the two women in the House of Assembly in our party. She is a stalwart in our party.

We are grateful that in the case of a member who has served on a provincial council, whereas in the past, only half of that period counted for pension purposes, that member is now able to purchase the remaining part of his term of office on a provincial council to lengthen his pension period in the House of Assembly. We are grateful for this and believe it is a step in the right direction. Sir, you will allow me to express the hope that the provinces will follow the example the hon the Minister has set here, because there are members serving on the provincial councils who were elected to those councils after many years of service in the House of Assembly. They did not qualify for pensions here and they do not qualify for pensions in the provincial councils either. We therefore hope that the provincial councils will follow the example of the hon the Minister and will also rectify this so that the former service as a member of the House of Assembly of a member of the provincial council will be deemed to be pensionable service. I know of a few such cases. Mr Fanie Potgieter was a member of this House and he is now a member of the Cape Provincial Council. Dr John Jurgens was a member of the House of Assembly and he is now a member of the Transvaal Provincial Council.

And Mr Geoff Oldfield.

Yes, he was also a member of the House of Assembly and is now a member of the Natal Provincial Council. Then there is also Mr Piet Niemand, who was the member of Parliament for Pietersburg for six years and is now a member of the Transvaal Provincial Council. We hope that the position with regard to these people will also be rectified.

As regards the two periods the hon member for Tygervallei referred to, I want to say that this is a major improvement. This enables members who are elected to a second term of office to receive a pension.

We are also grateful for the provision in connection with a member who dies after his election. We found that when Mr Hans Campher, for example, died after one year of service in the House of Assembly his widow did not receive any benefit.

The CP cannot support the principle of the Bill, but … [Interjections.] Sir, I am grateful that the Whips of the NP, with whom we negotiated on this Bill, and the hon the Minister, were not as ridiculous as some of the hon members on that side of the House.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon the Minister that we unfortunately cannot support the principle of the Bill, although it provides for many good things.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Kuruman will forgive me if I do not react to his contribution at all. I would far rather react to the speech of the hon member for Tygervallei, the Chief Whip of the NP, and refer to the exceptional way in which he contributed towards bringing the measure before this House today. I want to express my particular appreciation to the hon member.

Unfortunately we have to decide on our own welfare here. However because there is no one else who can do it, we have no choice in the marter. Nor do we apologize for what we have done in terms of this measure, because we believe not only that we are fully entitled to do our duty in this regard as well, but that the interests of the country also require of us to be realistic in a matter which affects the public interest as directly as this one does. It is not our intention to shout the merits of public service from the rooftops, but it is necessary for us to touch briefly on a few of the lesser-known facts.

It is probably true that parliamentary service results in those persons who find their way to Parliament being in the limelight more often than other people. It is also true that the limelight can frequently be soothing to the ego and can lend one a lustre which it is not easy to achieve in any other way. It is, however, equally true that that limelight can be murderous and soul-destroying and can take its toll. However, that is not all. The public life of a parliamentarian also demands other sacrifices of him. His entry into public life, more frequently than is generally realized, results in his either immediately or gradually having to give up his business interests, his farming activities or his career for the uncertainties of a political career. He usually also forfeits his opportunities to provide for his old age, particularly if he enters public life when he is middle-aged. One hesitates to underline the fact, but the fact remains that very profitable careers or professions are sometimes sacrificed for the privilege of serving one’s fellowman in public fife. We do so willingly, however, and are prepared to contribute our share, but it is appropriate for us to take cognizance of the fact that the privileges we enjoy also have their price.

It is possible that the general impression created by the Bill is one of an increase and improvment in the pension benefits of members. There is no doubt that the benefits of members are being improved, but hon members probably also learned with a shock this afternoon that we are going to have to pay for this. The ways of Parliament are such that when it gives it also takes in one way or another.

At the end of the term of a representative he frequently has to find a new home for himself and his family at a very high cost. In this regard I am referring particularly to our Ministers and our Deputy-Ministers who are expected to live in an official residence. It is true that it is no sacrifice for the man who feels called upon to enter public life to give what is asked, but there is no getting away from the facts of his situation. Financially and otherwise he pays a very high price for the privilege of serving his country and his people in the way in which his talents enable him to. In return he gets an uncertain term of office, one which may be too short to make provision for himself, but long enough to disrupt his own affairs, cut him off from his former sources of revenue and do him irreparable harm. In addition, the sort of life he leads, which requires him to take the lead financially and otherwise in every worthy cause in his constituency, makes it impossible for him to save during his term of office. When he retires, or when the uncertainties of public life prevent his making progress, he frequently finds himself in an unenviable position, while his neighbour who avoided public service is by comparison far better off.

It is important for us to attract the best talent from among our people to enter the ranks of the leadership corps, because in the particularly difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves we need them to serve our country and its people and to lead them to security and prosperity. I should like to express my particular appreciation to the Cabinet which, through the hon the Minister, initiated this measure, and I want to give them the assurance that we on this side of the House support the legislation.

The hon the Minister said that we can discuss the details of this measure in the Committee Stage, but I should like to bring one deficiency—from my point of view—to the attention of the hon the Minister. In clause 14 provision is made for the pension of a widow or a widower and in the case of a gratuity, provision is also made for the other dependants. I should, however, like to know from the hon the Minister whether provision should not also be made for the children in a case where a member and his wife both die. If the hon the Minister would consider such an amendment in the Committee Stage, I should be glad to move it or the rest, I take pleasure in supporting the measure before the House.

Mr Speaker, when I delve into the history of the Members of Parliament and Political Office-bearers Pension Scheme, it never ceases to amaze me when I think of the lack of attraction or security there must have been in the days when three people sitting here today were first elected to this place. I am referring to the hon the Prime Minister, the hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Durban Point. If I am correct, I do not think there was any such thing as a pension scheme when any one of these three members came to the House. You wonder what it was that prompted them to come to this House. Here we are today and, thanks to the measure before us, those of us elected or appointed over the past 10 or 12 years are in a much more secure and happy position. As the hon the Minister has said, we can leave this place or even go into the next world happy in the knowledge that those whom we leave behind will be provided for. The legislation has been amended many times since its inception, and has been improved with each amendment, but I want to say today that the hon the Minister should be congratulated on putting a package before us that incorporates the most significant improvements ever. I am equally delighted that the hon the Minister, in his Second Reading speech, has highlighted the fact that there is nothing for nothing in the Parliamentary Pension Scheme. As he said in respect of the previous Bill, there is no such thing as a free lunch. The Parliamentary Pension Scheme does involve us in a commitment on our part. In respect of the new scheme we as Parliamentarians are going to have to pay more. I do not think that there is a solitary person in this House who will begrudge that. We are getting tremendously improved benefits. Firstly, let me say that I add my voice to those who have made reference to the ladies sitting in this House whose husbands have been, as Dagwood Bumstead would say “a sorry lot” up till now. One can also think of the improvement in that two consecutive terms in Parliament, that is, being a member for two full consecutive lives of Parliament, will now be deemed to be sufficient for a member to qualify for a pension. Seven and a half years brings us to the pensionable year and we are pleased that there is no longer any need to buy-back. We are also pleased about the provisions in respect of office-bearers and equally pleased about the provisions relating to provincial councillors who are elected to Parliament and vice versa. The most important improvement of all is the provision that is now made in respect of the family and dependants of those unfortunate members who die and, because of their lack of pensionable service, leave virtually nothing for their dependants. Here I think in particular of the case of our friend, and I mean that, the ex-member for Pinetown who died so tragically. We must ask ourselves how we are going to attract the people we dearly want to see in the halls of power in Government in this country, how we are going to attract the quality and calibre of people we want to this Chamber and the other two Chambers if we are not at least able to assure them of some form of security for their families in the event of their untimely death. I think this is a wonderful provision.

In conclusion I would like to say that in the presentation of this Bill we have had an exercise in consensus in that there has been on-going discussion between the Minister and the Whips of the various parties, and via the Whips of the respective parties in their caucuses. One might call this a very interesting exercise for the future. I look upon it as being almost a standing-committee situation, but with the difference that each party has basically been represented by one person. I know that the hon the Minister will agree that, when we originally sat down to discuss this issue, each one of the parties had a particular point of difference. I know that each representative went back to his caucus where the measure was then discussed and that each representative has had a feedback from his caucus and that thoughts on the subject have come from the PFP caucus, the CP caucus and our own caucus. The Minister has looked at these and, through the negotiations by the Chief Government Whip, he has been able to collate these, he has been able to accommodate certain objections and he has been able to come to the House with a Bill that is a Bill of consensus. I think that he is to be congratulated on that. I want to tell him that we look forward to the new era of this new pension scheme for Parliamentarians, irrespective of the House in which they serve. We are delighted that we are able to say that he has in fact done a first class job.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank hon members sincerely for all the thanks and congratulations in connection with the drafting of this Bill. I must say that acknowledgements are due to the Cabinet as well. I want to thank them for permitting me to investigate this act from scratch. The previous Pensions Act had started to become something of a labyrinth, so that one did not always know where one was with it. Above all, I must thank my department and the Director-General, and in particular Mr Piet Swart, the law adviser. I really must congratulate him on the drafting of this Bill. I am also aware that he has been congratulated in this regard by the State Law Advisers. I owe him a debt of thanks. At times we were on the edge of the precipice, but he and I will keep that a matter beween us. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him.

It is a privilege to be able to introduce this Bill here. I must say, in all honesty, that in fact there is only one improvement that might entail any additional expense to the State as far as this House of Assembly is concerned. I refer now to the clause which provides for the eventuality of the death of a member before he is entitled to a pension. That risk is so small that it makes the peace of mind given to hon members in this regard, worthwhile. For the rest, the members pay more for the benefits they are going to receive. The hon member for Umhlanga and other hon members have pointed this out. Each of the hon members sitting here will pay a larger monthly amount. Those who were members of provincial councils and who are now being accorded the right to purchase that service, pay more for it than a member of the House of Assembly pays for his service. Therefore they do not get it for nothing. They have already rendered that service. They are now merely purchasing the right to a pension which that service did not entitle them to. Therefore I say they pay more than a member of the House of Assembly pays for his service, which he also buys in any event. Therefore, no favours are being handed out in this connection. However, I think we have succeeded, merely by way of eliminating anomalies, in submitting to the house a fine piece of legislation that will be to the benefit of all of us.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00

Evening Sitting

Mr Speaker, when business was suspended for supper, I just had started replying to the debate.

†do not see the hon member for Edenvale here, but I shall come back to him. He is probably still enjoying his supper.

The hon member is at a select committee meeting.

Yes, I shall come back to him in any case.

He is on a select committee. He will not be back.

But I will come back to him in any case. [Interjections.]

*I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon Government Chief Whip for his words to me. I appreciate them. For his part, the Government Chief Whip, in our long negotiations with the Whips of the other parties, himself took a great deal of trouble to obtain the best from this legislation. I wish to thank him sincerely for that. I was always able to rely on his support, and hon members of this House can also depend on his appeals at all times when it is a matter of possible benefits for them. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Edenvale also touched on some of the subjects raised by the hon Chief Whip. In the first instance, as the hon member for Edenvale put it, the parliamentary pension scheme is generous to those who qualify but, he said, there were some discrepancies in regard to those who did not qualify. I am therefore very pleased to be able to give hon members peace of mind in the fact that if something happens to them after they have had seven and a half years’ pensionable service, whether they are male or female, their dependants will receive a parliamentary pension. I am pleased that we have been able to make this provision.

As I have said before, the possibility of that sort of thing happening is very slim, and therefore the risk to the State in this respect is also very slim. I think therefore that this is a risk that can be taken without any qualms whatsoever.

Another point raised by the hon member for Edenvale was in regard to the position of members who had served two full terms of Parliament. A full term of Parliament is supposed to be five years. However, as mentioned by the hon Chief Whip, there have been some instances where two full terms of Parliament amounted to little more than three years plus three years. Those members were therefore left without a pension owing to circumstances entirely beyond their control.

The only period in which a Parliament ran its full span of five years was from 1961 to 1966.

Yes. The position is that members have no control whatsoever over these circumstances, and therefore I think it is reasonable to expect that a member who has served two full terms in Parliament will be entitled to a reasonable pension. I think it is a good thing that we are in a position to change that situation tonight.

To my mind the hon member for Edenvale raised one very, very interesting point, a point which never crossed my mind before. The position was that if the hon member for Houghton had left Parliament for a better place her husband would have received no pension. The hon member for Edenvale has brought a matter to our attention which I must admit I have thought about for the first time only then, and that concerns discrimination against males. I must say that I do not give the hon member for Houghton’s husband a very good chance of receiving a very large pension. She has survived in Parliament for so long while everybody thought that she would not. So I do not give her husband anything but a slight chance. However, I hate to discriminate against him. That is why to me it is a pleasure that I am in a position to change this law as far as this is concerned.

*The hon member went on to speak about the special pensions that are being created. I might just explain briefly that these special pensions will be paid to persons who were office-bearers, in the Cabinet, as Chief Whip or as Speaker or whatever, who, after vacating the post, resumed their seat in this House as ordinary members. The aim is twofold. In the first place, we do not want to find ourselves in a position of having to create a crisis in that a member of the Cabinet, for example, may be left out of the Cabinet in a reshuffle by the Prime Minister—in future the State President—and as a result has to resign because a by-election has to take place. He is here being put in a position to resume his seat as a member of this House. He will then obtain a pension while sitting here—the difference between the pension he would have obtained outside and the salary he receives here. This will be paid to him in the form of a pension.

The public at large may think that these pensions are too liberal, but a simple calculation will lead one to the conclusion that the State is saving money in this regard, for the simple reason that that member, if he had left, would have been entitled to that pension, and in the interim the State is saving the salary and allowances of another member who would have had to come and sit in this House. Therefore there are no additional expenses for the State. At the same time we are establishing a tradition which, in my opinion, ought to be a very sound tradition for the future, viz that members who have been office-bearers and have elected to vacate them, may still sit here for years and make exceptional contributions to the country, while at the same time the State saves money. I think that this is an exceptionally good procedure.

The hon member for Edenvale asked additional questions here, inter alia relating to the uncertainty hon members are faced with if they lose their seats and have to depart from this place. It is, of course, part of the problems that politics entail that one has to expect that uncertainty. The hon member made a plea for “severance money”. I want to say that I do not think he should apply to the Department of Health and Welfare for that, because that is a salary item. If he is asking for a salary in this regard, then it must be asked in respect of something other than the pension fund. I do not wish to intimate thereby that the matter does not have merit, because I think it should be considered.

For the most part the hon Chief Whip on our side expressed his gratitude for what had been achieved. I have already thanked him for doing so. He is one of those who was most active in asking for the things concerning which I have just replied to the hon member for Edenvale. The hon Chief Whip thought that we were still getting rather too little. And he quoted an extract from a newspaper cutting to indicate how in England they can even draw some pension for their mistresses or girl friends. If I may give him a little advice, I could point out to him that in terms of the general pension legislation he is entitled to make over part of his gratuity to his girl friend. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon. member for Kuruman.

He had a problem.

Yes, he had a problem. I can understand that he had a problem, but I can help him. He is of course always free to move an amendment to the effect that they refuse to accept this Bill, but he should not take that opportunity because we might agree with him. That, of course, is a problem.

In any event, I want to thank the hon member for Kuruman for the co-operation I have had from him. In all honesty, I must say that when we negotiated with one another he had no objection in principle to this legislation. This evening, however—I do not begrudge it him—he does have an objection in principle. I can set his mind at rest, too. He can move that amendment if he likes; I am not going to accept it, and therefore he shall receive his pension like all the other hon members. I thank the hon member for also having made an exceptional contribution.

The hon member for Umhlanga expressed his thanks—basically along the same lines— and added that in his opinion this was an exceptional exercise in consensus. By way of negotiation—on-going negotiation—and by way of give and take, we have managed to obtain a better piece of legislation than we started with. In that I agree with him. There is only one way to understand one another and that is to speak to one another, but then one must not cling to rigid ideas, because that gets one nowhere. Therefore I am grateful to all hon members.

The hon member for Witbank put a specific question to me. His problem related to clause 14. He wanted to know what became of the children if something happened to both the husband and wife. It is interesting that it should be he who thought of that, but I understand why it was he who thought of that and not the rest of us. I fear that I must say to him that I do not believe that provision can be made for such an eventuality in this Bill at this stage. The matter can be investigated when this legislation is considered again in future. In the meantime, I think that the hon member is free to take out a very cheap policy that only makes provision for that until such time as such problems are solved for him. He will quite probably be able to obtain such a policy at a very low premium if he thinks that it is necessary for his specific circumstances. Although I have sympathy for him, I fear that it would not be possible to accept such an amendment at this stage.

Mr Speaker, I once again want to thank the poor hon members … [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, you surely cannot take it amiss of me if I speak about poor members in this regard. In any event, I thank hon members for their co-operation and support.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Before any person can be admitted as an attorney in the Republic of South Africa, he must, in terms of section 2(l)(a) of the Attorneys Act, 1979 (Act No 53 of 1979), have satisfied all the requirements for the degree Baccalaureus Procurations of a university in the Republic, and he must, in terms of section 15(l)(c) of the Act, be a South African citizen, or have been lawfully admitted to the Republic for permanent residence therein, and he must be ordinarily resident in the Republic. Under certain circumstances, such an attorney can be removed from the roll of attorneys if he loses his South African citizenship.

Some of the independent states of which the territories used to form part of the Republic of South Africa already have their own universities at which law degrees are offered which do not differ materially from South African law degrees with regard to the syllabus and the standard of training. Because of the fact that there are citizens of the countries concerned who have obtained legal qualifications at their own universities, but who have a right of residence in the Republic, and vice versa, a need has arisen for the reciprocal recognition of legal qualifications for the purpose of the admission of advocates and attorneys. After, inter alia, the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa had been approached in this connection, it was agreed that certain foreign legal qualifications would be acceptable for the above-mentioned purpose in this country if proper control was exercised over the standard of such qualifications. As in the measure which was passed by Parliament earlier this year in respect of the admission of advocates, it is being proposed in clause 1 of the bill which is before us that provision be made, for the purpose of the admission of attorneys, for the acceptance in this country of a law degree of a university in a country which has been designated by the Minister of Justice, after consultation with the Presidents of the respective law societies, by notice in the Gazette, and in respect of which a university in the Republic with a faculty of law has certified that the syllabus of instruction and the standard of training thereof, together with such supplementary examination as may be required, are equal or superior to those required for the South African law degree. However, this proposed amendment would be incomplete if it failed to make adequate provision for the requirements of residence in the Republic which should be applicable to the holders of the foreign law degrees concerned. In terms of the Status Acts of the respective TBVC countries, certain categories of persons lost their South African citizenship and became citizens of those countries with effect from the date on which those countries became independent. However, those Acts also provide that with the exception of citizenship, the persons involved who were resident in the Republic of South Africa at the time of independence do not lose any existing rights, privileges or benefits in the Republic merely by virtue of the provisions of the Status Act concerned. In the light of the judgment in Ex parte Moseneke 1979 (4) SA 884 (t), it is clear that the persons concerned have in this way retained, among other things, their right of permanent residence in the Republic. The situation is complicated by the fact that non-South African citizens who have been admitted as attorneys in the Republic in terms of section 22 of the Attorneys Act, 1979, can be removed from the roll if they fail to obtain a certificate of naturalization within a specific period. Consequently it is being proposed in clause 7 of the Bill that a person may also be admitted as an attorney in the Republic if he is a citizen of a TBVC country and belongs to a category of persons, and complies with such conditions, as may be determined by the Minister, after consultation with the law societies, by notice in the Gazette. The definition of this category and these conditions will be related to the fact that the persons concerned must not only have the right of lawful residence in the Republic, but must be ordinarily resident in this country. A consequential amendment concerning the circumstances under which such a person may be removed from the roll is contained in clause 9(a) and (b) of the Bill.

†Similar to the proposed arrangement in clause 1, provision is made in clause 6 for the passing of a supplementary examination in compliance with the requirements of a South African university for the issuing of a certificate in terms of section 13 of the Act, whereby the person concerned is exempted from obtaining the prescribed South African degree. This arrangement is desirable, especially in view of the fact that the foreign legal qualifications concerned do not always include an acceptable course in both official languages of the Republic.

It appears that some doubt has arisen with regard to the nature and extent of the Supreme Court of South Africa’s discretion to decide whether a person is fit and proper to be admitted or readmitted as an attorney. We propose to rectify this situation and to control beyond doubt the common law situation . It will therefore be noticed that specific provision is now made for the matter of readmission and that a distinction is drawn between, firstly, the complying of the person concerned with certain factual requirements in regard to which the court has to be satisfied, and, secondly, the question of whether the applicant is a fit and proper person, which rests entirely in the discretion of the court.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister has outlined the reasons which led to the amendments which he seeks to the Attorneys Act. I do not intend to repeat any of the points which he has made. We will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

The only aspect about which we have reservations was also briefly referred to by the hon the Minister, and is contained in clause 7. It relates to the requirements which have to be met by a person who wants to be admitted as an attorney. The relevant section in the existing Act requires citizenship and it requires the court to be satisfied that he is a fit and proper person. The Bill now introduces a subparagraph which enables citizens of the TBVC countries to be admitted as well. The one aspect which we are not happy with relates to subparagraph (bb), which lays down that a citizen of a state the territory of which formerly formed part of the Republic now also qualifies. It then adds that such a person should belong to such category of persons and comply with such conditions as may be determined by the Minister, after consultation with the presidents of the various societies, by notice in the Gazette. The hon the Minister has explained that this is intended to deal with, for example, attorneys who have already been admitted but who are citizens of those states. I accept that these people have to be accommodated but our concern relates to the fact that the clause is so vaguely phrased. Categories are not described and no attempt is made to define them. Conditions are not described and no attempt is made to define them. Our objection relates to the possible abuse that could occur under this clause. I do not intend to take it any further because the hon the Minister knows that there is an amendment on the Order Paper in which I will deal briefly with these points. We are happy with the amendments that relate to qualifications and to periods of articleship etc, and we will therefore support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I take great pleasure in welcoming the support of the PFP for this measure. The amendments contained in this Bill really relate to long-established laws in South Africa and are aimed at facilitating admission to the attorneys’ profession in many respects. Recognition is now being given to qualifications obtained at universities in countries which previously formed part of South Africa and which are now independent. As such, this is an improvement on the existing legislation, as well as a considerable extention of the profession. In this respect, in my opinion, this contributes to bringing the legal profession’s best traditions into the countries which previously formed part of South Africa and which are now independent.

I listened to the hon member’s remarks about clause 7, but I must admit that I cannot share his objection in that regard. In my opinion, the clause is clear, and there should be no objection to it. I take pleasure in supporting the amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, we in the CP support every clause of this amending Bill. [Interjections.] We welcome the legislative steps that are once again being taken to see to it that those being admitted or re-admitted practise as attorneys in South Africa are properly qualified. We also take cognizance of the fact that even people with qualifications from other countries will have the opportunity to practise as attorneys in the Republic after they have completed legally prescribed articles of clerkship, or have been exempted or partially exempted from doing so, and who have complied with the legally prescribed requirements for admission. We take note with approval of the provisions in the amending Bill permitting people with qualifications from other countries to practise in the Republic provided that their qualifications comply with the requirements as regards syllabus of instruction and the standard of training as determined by the authorities concerned. As it appears from the amending Bill, it may even be necessary in certain cases for supplementary examinations to be written, and we can understand that. Everything is aimed at ensuring that the suitability of whoever wishes to practise as attorneys in the Republic will contribute to the standard of the attorneys’ profession in the Republic being kept at a high, legally competent level.

The provisions as regards citizenship, permanent residence and continued residence in the Republic are once again underlined in the amending Bill. The requirements laid down in making it possible even for a citizen of a state of which the territory previously constitued part of the Republic to practise as an attorney in the RSA are reasonable, fair and desirable. We also wish to emphasize that we agree with the clear and unequivocal improved provision being made by way of this Bill in placing the discretion of the Supreme Court of South Africa with regard to the admission and re-admission of attorneys beyond any doubt. The court must be given a wider discretion and judgment in order to determine whether a person is fit to be admitted or re-admitted to practise in our courts as an attorney, notary and conveyancer. Our courts are being given that right in this Bill, and we take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, we have much pleasure in supporting this legislation. What is important here, is the maintenance of standards in a changing world, an African world, one in which so many standards have gone by the board and in which it behoves us to make quite certain that while in our own subcontinent participation in a legal system of which we are justifiably proud should be open to all, it should at the same time be carefully monitored by those who are its custodians. In so doing, while that participation should not be placed beyond the reach of people who wish to participate in the system, at the same time we must not allow the disappearance of the slightest vestige of the proud traditions which go with the legal system of which we are the custodians.

With regard to the qualifications of notaries, one wonders whether in the African context the title Mabalane, one who could read and write, was not the initial concept of the notary in Africa. I believe that this is true and that the man who could read and write throughout our own legal history was the notary. Here we have the situation where, seeking to comply with the highest standards, even those traditions and those aspirations towards participation in the system are under careful surveillance in order to maintain the standards which we think are terribly important for the maintenance of our Western culture and civilization. We are greatly concerned about the maintenance of standards right across the board, across the full spectrum of civilization, and the provisions in the Bill are in fact an indication of our country’s awareness of the changing face of Africa in which differences have come about. We do require to admit more people to the professions, but in so doing we should make quite certain that we do not lower standards in any way. This is a difficult task and one which I am quite certain this Government and the country as a whole will assist in the process of extending our system of legal process to all those who would adhere to those standards.

We therefore have much pleasure in supporting the legislation. It contains some interesting amendments, and behind some of these simple amendments lies a wealth of reality and an adaptation to the reality of the circumstances in which we find ourselves in this subcontinent.

Mr Speaker, I thank hon members for supporting this Bill. Whilst everyone is so unanimous, I have no other marginal notes to make. Once before when we dealt with the Bill relating to the admission of advocates, the hon member for Durban Central and I conducted quite a debate on this matter. I think it would be appropriate if we exchanged a few ideas about that during the Committee Stage. However, I want to ask the hon member to accept the Bill as it is worded at present, since it is an attempt—as the hon member for King William’s Town realised—to recognize those people who have completed their studies at universities in countries which formerly constituted part of South Africa for the high standard of their own legal training with regard to the requirements for admission which could be laid down for them. If their legal training comparable with ours, or is even of a higher standard, we afford them the necessary recognition. The significance of this should not be overlooked. That is that the administration of justice in South Africa and the legal training as such is keeping pace with what is happening in Southern Africa. I thank the hon member for King William’s Town for singling out that point.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 7:

Mr Chairman, in my Second Reading speech I referred briefly to the problem we have with this clause. The hon member for Port Elizabeth North also referred to this clause and apparently he has no problem with it. It is very clear to him. I should like to ask him whether he could tell us what is meant by a clause which speakers of a certain category of persons and of certain conditions that are laid down or that could be laid down without providing a definition of the categories or of the conditions in the Bill. As I have just said, our problem is that it is now granting the Minister the power to exclude any category or persons, or to make provision for them, and to lay down any conditions. Of course he has to negotiate with the presidents of the different societies, but he is not bound by their opinions. As we see it, this is granting the Minister too much power, and it could be abused. In our opinion, it should be possible to give a clearer definition of the categories contemplated and the conditions being considered in order to make it clearer in the Bill what the hon the Minister is considering and what he plans to do with these categories. For that reason I believe that the words to which reference is made in my amendment could be omitted without it prejudicing the amendments contained in the Bill. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 9, from line 6, to omit all the words after “Republic” to the end of the subparagraph.

Mr Chairman, my reply to the hon member for Durban Central is very simple. The matters relevant here are also matters that appear in clause 15. These provisions were included to deal with the situation in which citizens of the TBVC countries would also have to apply for South African citizenship within a specific period in terms of the present section 22. We want to make provision for these persons to retain certain rights despite the fact that they have lost their citizenship in the RSA, but have in fact obtained it in the TBVC countries. To deal with this situation we are compelled to designate a particular category of persons. Even if a reference to the category of persons should be a reference to persons from country A, B or C because universities are situated there, that is in fact a reason for the Minister to have the authorization to take such action. It is necessary for him to have that power, since it cannot be granted in respect of every country, for example, one that does not have a university itself. Consequently, we want flexibility.

One could also have a university which, in terms of all norms, did not comply with certain standards right from the outset. It is not impossible that that could happen, and the Minister must therefore have that power. The hon member used a key expression, viz “the abuse of power”. Surely the hon member ought to know that if a power is abused, if it is used for a purpose for which it is not meant in the legislation, action can be taken against the Minister, since the abuse on his part would also include mala fides. The hon member knows that according to that a Minister’s decision can be reviewed in terms of administrative law. I therefore cannot understand why the hon member is persisting with this argument, whilst he knows what powers the Minister has. The fact remains that this provision is positive. Surely the hon member cannot take it amiss of us if we identify particular categories of people in a positive way. However, we have here a specific, fixed, positive intention, and the hon member is opposing it. I cannot understand him at all. If he supports the basic principle why does he not want to grant this power to the Minister? Apparently the hon member is so far removed from the Government that he associates a Minister with a spectre. Other than that, I really cannot understand the hon member’s concern. This measure was agreed upon with the Law Societies and consequently the hon member must accept that they are satisfied with the Minister’s decisions and, in any case, with the fact that he has to consult. They know that he will not abuse his powers in any way.

I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon member.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment:

1. 1. On page 11, from line 27, to omit “satisfied the requirements mentioned in subsection (1) or, where applicable, that he is exempted therefrom under the provisions of this Act” and to substitute:
   • complied with the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1)

The logic of this is very simple, viz that when a person applies for re-admission as a notary and conveyancer, as it reads now, he could be expected to prove that he wrote an examination previously. The intention is not that he has to write another examination. The intention is simply that there should be a record in terms of which it can be determined that he wrote an examination previously. To go through that procedure in another way in order to furnish that proof is expensive and unnecessary. Consequently, I propose that we should refer only to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the re-admission process.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

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

1. 1. On page 11, from line 47, to omit all the words after “item” to the end of the subparagraph.

This amendment relates very closely to the amendment that I moved to a previous clause. The hon the Minister, tongue in cheek, I think, suggested that I was trying to express a vote of no confidence in the intention of this Bill, a vote of no confidence in the motives that the hon the Minister had with this clause. He knows that that is not the case. However, the hon the Minister also knows that not all Ministers always interpret these provisions in the same way and use them positively. They may well be used negatively and not positively. Theoretically this clause may be used by a Minister to remove existing attorneys from the roll if he decides that a particular category should be scrapped. If a particular homeland, for example, falls into disfavour with the Government, or a particular university falls into disfavour with the Government, for whatever reason it may be, the Minister has the power to decide that those persons who qualified through that university or those persons who come from that particular homeland should no longer be attorneys. Therefore our objection is to the negative side of it which is possible and which has not been catered for. There are no safeguards against it. I do not intend to take the matter any further because the points that I made during the discussion of my previous amendment apply equally to this amendment as well.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to state that I am not prepared to accept the amendment for the same reasons that I advanced earlier. It is my opinion that by deleting the words as the hon member suggests we shall in fact facilitate the removal from the roll of the person concerned because that qualification rather tends to protect an individual. Nevertheless I think we have agreed to differ on these issues. We are of the opinion that we need flexibility and we are also of the opinion that we have sufficient built-in protection against the abuse of power. Therefore I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 negatived.

New clause to follow clause 10:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Short title and commencement.

1. 11. (1) This Act shall be called the Attorneys Amendment Act, 1984.
   (2) Sections 4(b) and 10 shall come into operation on a date fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

The reason for this is that due to administrative processes linked to determining certain tariffs for fees, the rest of the Bill could be delayed because such administrative processes take a longer time. I therefore intend dividing the Bill up into different parts so that the first part can come into operation in the meanwhile, and certain other parts thereafter.

New Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Earlier during this parliamentary session, the civil jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts was adjusted in the light of the devaluation of money. The same consideration forces us to reconsider the criminal jurisdiction of these courts.

The present maximum admission of guilt fine has been fixed at R100 since 1974. Owing to the devaluation of money, the amount corresponding in value to R100 in 1974 is R317 today. In addition, the maximum penalties for certain traffic offences have been considerably increased recently. In order to prevent the courts from being unnecessarily burdened with the trial of cases in respect of which admission of guilt fines could have been paid, and to prevent the public from being subjected in the process to unnecessary expense, waste of time and inconvenience arising from their attendance at court, it is being proposed in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill that the maximum admission of guilt fine be tripled to R300. In the light of the same considerations the maximum fine which can be imposed in the case of proceedings in terms of section 112(l)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977—this is the summary procedure followed in less serious cases on a plea of guilty, without the normal interrogation procedure—which has always been the same as the maximum admission of guilt fine, should also be increased to R300. This is dealt with in clause 4.

This increase effects the automatic review of sentences of magistrates’ courts in terms of section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977. In terms of this section, a fine imposed by a magistrate’s court is subject to automatic review under specific circumstances, where it exceeds R250 and has been imposed by a magistrate with less than 7 years’ experience, and where it exceeds R500 and has been imposed by a magistrate with more than seven years’ experience. These amounts have not been adjusted since the commencement of the Criminal Procedure Act. Because of the devaluation of money, the present amount corresponding in value to R100 in 1977 is R220. Therefore both amounts should at least be doubled. In clause 8, it is proposed that the amounts of R250 and R500 be increased to R500 and R1 000 respectively.

†The Commission of Inquiry into the Structure and Functioning of the Courts, the Hoexter Commission, recommended that the maximum jurisdiction of lower courts to impose fines be increased to R3 000 in the case of district courts and R30 000 in the case of regional courts. The depreciation of money since 1977, however, indicates that the existing amounts of R1 000 and R10 000 should only be doubled. In clause 1 it is therefore proposed that the maximum jurisdiction of lower courts to impose fines be increased to R2 000 and R20 000 respectively. The amounts which may in terms of section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act be awarded by a magistrate’s court, namely R1 500 and a regional court, namely R10 000, as compensation for damage caused through the commission of an offence, also required reconsideration in view of the foregoing. The amount which may in terms of the said section be awarded in magistrates’ courts has always been the same as the civil jurisdiction of these courts, and in the case of the regional courts the same as the regional court’s maximum jurisdiction to impose fines in criminal matters. The Magistrates’ Courts Amendment Act, 1984, has increased the monetary limit of the civil jurisdiction of these courts to R5 000, and in clause 1 of this Bill it is proposed that the maximum jurisdiction of regional courts to impose fines be increased to R20 000. In clause 7 it is therefore proposed that the compensation competency of magistrates’ courts be increased accordingly.

Mr Speaker, I am also taking advantage of this opportunity to effect certain procedural amendments. In terms of section 170 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, an accused person who, pending his trial, has been released on warning and who fails to appear at the place and on the date and at the time to which such proceedings have been adjourned, is guilty of an offence. In the case of S v Madibu 1983(4) SA 428(0) it was, however, decided that an accused person’s failure to remain in attendance at such a trial or proceedings after the specified time to which the trial had been adjourned, was not an offence as contemplated in section 170(1) of the Act. In order to rectify this untenable position, it is proposed in clause 5 that an accused person’s failure to remain in attendance at such trial after the specified time on a specified date be declared an offence. The same situation presents itself in the case of a witness who is subpoenaed to attend criminal proceedings, and a similar amendment is therefore proposed in clause 6.

Mr Speaker, it is the view of this side of the house that this is a very good Bill. It is a Bill which should not delay us too long. One of the main provisions is that the punitive jurisdiction in regard to the imposing of fines by magistrates and regional court magistrates has been increased. This was a recommendation of the Hoexter Commission. Of course, I note that the hon the Minister has not followed Mr Justice Hoexter completely in that he has not utilized the exact same figures that Mr Justice Hoexter proposed and has in fact not increased the jurisdiction to the extent that Mr Justice Hoexter suggested. I do believe that I agree with the hon the Minister and I think that he has adopted the correct limits rather than the figures suggested by the learned judge.

The Bill also increases the power of a police officer to summons an accused to court, a provision with which we agree. It gives him slightly greater powers than those which he has had in the past.

In line with the increase in punitive jurisdiction relating to fines in a magistrate’s court, the Bill further empowers prosecutors to accept a greater sum as an admission of guilt. We believe that this is absolutely essential if one takes the earlier provisions into account.

The discretion of presiding officers in regard to minor offences, excluding sentences of imprisonment or whipping, has been increased, and very nominally I may say, to the sum of R300, which I think is entirely reasonable.

I think that one of the more important provisions of the Bill is to grant greater rights to magistrates and regional court magistrates in the awarding of compensatory damages in appropriate circumstances.

Finally, the upping of the limit of sentences which must receive automatic review is in keeping with modern times and in keeping with the devaluation of South African money. In brief, the Bill is innocuous. It marks a step forward and it is in line with the recommendations which have been made to the department by various instances. It is a Bill which has received the approval of the various legal fraternities, and accordingly it is only correct that we support it in all its stages.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon member for Sandton for his support of this legislation. As he rightly remarked, this Bill is simply bringing certain increases in step with the times and with inflation. The increases are very reasonable. It will relieve the position of our criminal rolls considerably. The same applies to review.

I particularly welcome the increase in the jurisdiction of magistrates and regional magistrates to impose compensatory fines. During the discussion of the Vote last year I gave this matter my attention, and I want to avail myself of the opportunity once again to plead that, as far as possible, our magistrates and regional magistrates should impose compensatory fines. Criminals usually claim that to them, their victims are completely faceless and that there is certainly no love lost between them and their particular victims. If a compensatory fine is imposed in cases where the amount can be determined easily, and a sentence is even suspended against the regular payment of the fine in instalments, it would bring the criminal closer to his victim. If there is still hope for him, this would remind him further of his deed and serve as an additional deterrent.

With these few words I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, we, too, support this legislation. As has been indicated, this legislation is in fact aimed at bringing the power of punitive jurisdiction and other powers of the magistrate’s courts in line with the decrease in the value of money. The other matter the hon the Minister pointed out is really a rectifying provision in which a decision by the court makes it possible for a person who is served with a summons to appear before the court may leave if his case is not called at the time indicated on the summons.

We do not have any problems with these amendments, except that the increase in the amounts in the Criminal Procedure Act emphasizes the alarming erosion of the value of money in South Africa. Yesterday and today we were once again given confirmation of how the value of the South African rand is declining to an increasing extent. That is not something we on this side of the House can do anything about. We are therefore compelled to support these amendments. However, I do not think we have a choice but to place our uneasiness about the decrease in the value of money on record.

As far as the other matter is concerned, I just want to say this: I think we can say that our courts function well. However, one still has the situation where a witness or an accused is summonsed to appear in court at a specific time on a specific day and that when he does so, his case is postponed again and again. All of us who have to do with the administration of justice should have as our objective that when we summons a person to court, whether as an accused or as a witness, he should be dealt with, or his evidence should be given, as soon as possible. I think this is something we should always try to do in our administration of justice, since we are sometimes inclined to disregard the position of that individual. Nor do I think it is always good for the individual’s impression of the administration of justice if he is treated in such a manner. However, I want to emphasize once again that we support the amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, the NRP will be supporting this legislation, but I should like to make a few comments about the position that this Bill enjoys on the Order Paper. It is noteworthy that during this session important amending Bills relating to the hon the Minister’s department have not enjoyed priority on the Order Paper. The hon the Minister is a sympathetic reformist and has a tremendous personality, and his department has reacted with commendable alacrity to all the required measures following upon various commissions and also the Law Commission’s report. However, the Bills relating to his department have been sandwiched into the Order Paper in such a way that the hon the Minister has had to stand up and rattle off a Second Reading speech, with the result that hon members and people outside are perhaps not always fully aware of the full import of the legislation he is introducing. I believe it is commensurate with the dignity of the courts, the department and the subject matter under discussion that the members of the various Justice groups in the House should put up a fight for more time for a proper discussion of these measures.

There are very important points flowing from these amendments. These are meaningful amendments and not merely minor technical aspects of Bills. Principles and important changes in our society are involved which I think should be given due respect in the House when they are debated. I am not asking for the NP’s “dank-die-Minister-toe-sprake”, or a long list of NP members who have not had a turn to speak during the session. I merely believe that a little more time should be spent on some of the aspects that are now lightly glossed over. With those few words we will be supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, allow me firstly to react to the hon member for Sandton, the chief spokesman on that side. I think it is high time that he give his unqualified support to something, and it was a fine gesture, since perhaps this is his last appearance in regard to Justice during this session. It is a good thing that he is giving this his unqualified support; perhaps he should do so more often. If he supports something, he must say so, and if he does not support it, he must say so at the outset, too. However, he has set himself a fine example.

As regards the contribution of the hon member for Nelspruit, and with reference to his speech under the Vote with regard to compensatory fines, I am very pleased that he raised that. It often happens that officials who impose sentences are criticized because the sentence is either too light or too heavy. When there is a suspended sentence it is often forgotten that the official concerned reached the conclusion that a person would be better off outside prison. Apart from that, he has also reached the conclusion that a compensatory fine would perhaps be more effective and a heavier punishment than a mere prison sentence. One often loses sight of the fact that this official finds himself in a position to consider all sides of the case, for example, the interests of the public that have to be protected, how often the crime is committed, etc. In the latter case one thinks, for example, of stock theft, shoplifting, car theft, and so on. How often it occurs in a particular community is another factor that has to be taken into account. Then there is also the possibility that the offender can rehabilitate himself. Whether he should rather be afforded the opportunity to go and earn money and pay a compensatory fine for the sake of his family, whilst at the same time he—and perhaps his family as well—is not being a burden to the State, is taken into account. If someone is given a prison sentence and his family has to be given welfare aid at a later stage, he is a great burden to the State. I am very pleased that the hon member raised this matter. We have too little time to debate that at length now. However, the public must understand that our judicial officers assess each case according to specific legal guidelines laid down in the case of Zinn 1969(2)SA537(A). According to that it can be determined which sentence would be the most effective in a particular case.

The hon member for Soutpansberg had no problems with the increase in the amounts of money. He referred to the whole question of inflation and how it affects sentences. On various occasions recently we have considerably increased the fines that can be imposed, for example, with regard to the Trespass Act, something which has been necessitated by inflation, inter alia. The importance of the hon member’s contribution lies in the fact— apart from the fact that he said that his side of the House could not do anything about it—that inflation is something that has to be combated, and I cannot disagree with the hon member on that score. From a legal point of view, it is not satisfactory, in my opinion, that we have to come to Parliament to increase fines from time to time. From another point of view, it is desirable, however. It could happen that a law has not been reviewed and that a heavy fine therefore cannot be imposed in a particular situation, in other words, that the deterrent value of the fine has lost its potency completely. It could also happen that the Opposition does not wish to co-operate with regard to a particular matter, and that a misunderstanding arises amongst the public about why a fine has to be increased. Just as the Government perhaps does not have the opportunity to review all the legislation every year, the Opposition could also adopt a particular view which has an inhibiting effect on these matters. We are therefore all responsible for this together. However, I think that the hon member would agree with me that at some stage we will have to develop a system or mechanism in terms of which fines can be reviewed automatically. We are aware that there are certain mechanisms in other countries to bring this about, but is an open question as to how we should deal with this matter. We could conduct a debate about it sometime. Must we always do so by way of legislation, or should adjustments take place automatically? The Government has already adopted the standpoint that it does not support indexing as a solution to this. The question arises as to whether we should not recognize the concept of valorization as a part of monetary law to a degree, but by way of an inherent jurisdiction or a particular power to the court. On a completely different subject, why should a widow who has accepted a particular interest rate in her contract be bound to that? That is a civil law matter, however. For the same reason one could ask why a person is not punished with a fine the purpose of which is in fact deterrence. That is a matter about which we could argue. However, the fact remains that merely combating inflation is not the answer. The hon member must tell me whether he prefers us to return each year …

You advanced that as a reason for this in your Second Reading speech.

Yes, I did, but I am asking whether it is desirable to come back to Parliament each time to make adjustments. I am merely asking. I am asking whether it is desirable and correct to do so, or whether we should seek another mechanism. I say that it would definitely be worth looking at the contribution of the hon member again. I am not criticizing him. I am merely saying that it is a possible approach.

The hon member for King William’s Town also supported the Bill. I thank him and all the hon members for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

In terms of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act, No 16 of 1963, the heads of certain sections of Parliament are justices of the peace ex officio.

The re-organization of the staff of Parliament to meet the requirements of the new Constitution has resulted in changes in the designations and sections. The amending Bill makes provision for these changes.

Mr Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to welcome to the position of Director-General of Justice, Mr S S van der Merwe, who only a few days ago assumed his new office. Mr Van der Merwe has been in the Department of Justice for, I think, probably the better part of his working life, certainly a very long time. He spent a most distinguished and short time in the Department of Internal Affairs and has now been appointed the Director-General of the Department of Justice. I learnt to know him in the Department of Internal Affairs when I was involved with that portfolio and I received nothing but co-operation and helpfulness from him. I know that that sort of spirit is going to pertain in the future. I welcome him and wish him well. I think that one of the major assets in his career is the fact that he is the uncle of the hon member for Green Point who sits behind me, which gives us on this side of the House an “in” in any discussions we have with him.

As to the Bill, we support it.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in thanking the hon member for Sandton for his support. I also support his welcoming of Mr Van der Merwe.

As far as the Bill is concerned, there are obviously very good reasons for it, namely to adjust the Act to the re-organization of the staff of Parliament. For that reason I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, we also support the Bill. We have already welcomed Mr Van der Merwe, and do so again now.

Mr Speaker, it is my pleasure on behalf of my party also to welcome a member of one of the first families of South Africa to the position he now holds. We look forward to many happy years of association with him. We support the legislation.

Mr Speaker, I am very glad about the welcome the hon members gave Mr Van der Merwe. I welcomed him during the discussion of the Vote. I just want to give the hon member for Sandton the assurance that the Director-General is known as a very objective person.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

As is customary this Bill deals with sundry matters affecting the State Revenue Fund. Because the various clauses are explained in the explanatory memorandum, I do not think it is necessary to explain all the clauses in detail. I would however like to provide some further explanation of clause 16.

In clause 16(l)(a) provision is being made that an agreement may be entered into with Sasria—the South African Special Risks Insurance Association—to cover its policy-holders against consequential losses as well. Hon members will note that the words “to the extent determined by the Minister of Finance from time to time” are used. In this regard I should like it placed on record that “consequential losses” will not also include “loss of profits”. Only so-called “standing charges” will therefore be covered. It would be too clumsy to use this wording in the legislation, but I can give hon members the assurance that the Office of Financial Institutions and I will see to it that it is applied in this way administratively.

Clause 16(l)(b) is aimed at compelling insured persons to make use of Sasria coverage up to at least a certain amount. Administratively, by way of agreement, that amount will total R100 million.

†Mr Speaker, I should like to elaborate just briefly in this regard. Experience has shown that large potential clients or policy-holders of Sasria often bypass Sasria and take out cover elsewhere, invariably with big underwriters overseas. This severely prejudices Sasria, a relatively new insurance group operating in a highly competitive market. The proposal is now that such policy-holders should ensure with Sasria to an amount of at least R100 million, if the amount is as large as that, after which they may do business where they wish either with Sasria or elsewhere.

*If hon members require more information on any of the clauses the relevant Minister or I will gladly furnish further particulars in the Committee Stage.

Mr Speaker, I think that this is the last Bill the hon the Minister of Finance will be piloting through this House and that we should therefore give it an easy passage. I think we shall do that this evening, Sir, by supporting the Second Reading of this measure. However, that does not mean that we are in agreement with all the provisions of this Bill, but I shall put our objections quietly and gently so that we can maintain a pleasant atmosphere in regard to this measure.

I want to deal specifically with clause 1 of the Bill. Here we have an interesting situation. What is happening here is that we are now transferring an amount that is unknown to the Special Defence Account. That is a very unusual situation. An amount of R60 million is being transferred and it is well understood why that should happen. It is because of the particular circumstances. But to transfer an amount that is as yet unknown is rather strange and unusual, and I think it needs a little more explanation. Budgeting for the Special Defence Account is done in a manner that has our approval—in fact, we suggested it. This budgeting deals with certain commitments that may be incurred as opposed to actual expenditure in view of the difficulty that exists in specifically estimating what is required during a particular year as one does not know the degree of intensity of operations with which the Defence Force may be involved at that time. That is something we completely approve of, but to transfer an amount that is unknown is a rather strange situation. I think that we require an explanation for that.

In addition to that, the purpose of the Special Defence Account is a matter that we again want to highlight during this particular discussion. We originally understood that the concept of the Special Defence Account was to provide money in order to purchase equipment and not to provide for current expenditure; in other words, it was to provide a reserve from which a particular arm of the service could be re-equipped without it becoming obvious in the Estimates to anybody who peruses them that we were doing that. That has not been the case because a very substantial portion of the Special Defence Account I think has been used for current expenditure as opposed to being used to accumulate money in order to re-equip the services where needed. I should therefore like to ask that at the appropriate time the hon the Minister of Defence should enter this debate and indicate to us what he intends to do about the original purpose of the Special Defence Account. Does he intend to build it up so that there can be re-equipment, for instance of this Air Force? The hon the Minister knows that I have a very strong view about the re-equipment of the Air Force because the Air Force needs it. It needs fairly substantial sums of money to do that. One would hope that there would be adequate resources in the Special Defence Account in order to deal with that re-equipment, and that we would not find ourselves in a situation where we were using Special Defence Account moneys in order to deal with current expenditure.

The second point arises from clause 10, and that is the question of selling arms that belong to the SA Defence Force and then crediting those funds to the special Defence Account again and legitimizing them. I would have thought that a better way of doing this would be that the arms, where they were surplus to the SA Defence Force’s requirements, would be sold back to Armscor; that Armscor should then be the body that deals with the disposal of those surplus arms and that it should not be done directly by the SA Defence Force; in other words, if there are surplus arms that are available they should go to Armscor and Armscor should be the agent that disposes of them. All that we would then need, is an adjustment of the credits between Armscor and the Special Defence Account.

When we come to the question of selling arms, there are some questions that we really would like to direct to the hon the Minister of Defence. It is not so much that we want to know whom he is selling arms to; we just want to be sure that he is not selling arms to certain people. We have warned before that we would not like to see a situation where arms that were manufactured in South Africa or that were surplus in South Africa ended up being used against South Africa by reason of the lack of control over those arms as to their destination. That is a matter on which I believe the hon the Minister needs to address us. There are things in regard to the control of arms and the control of equipment with which we have dealt before, and the hon the Minister of Defence needs to assure us that there is the degree of control in respect of arms which we require in regard to their disposal either by way of sale or otherwise. I think the hon the Minister knows what I am talking about. In those circumstances we want specific assurances as to their destination, who gets those arms and how they are going to be used.

I now turn to the question of unauthorized expenditure which is dealt with in clause 2. I merely want to say that we support the ratification of this expenditure, particularly when one sees the situation which has arisen in regard to the immigration of people to South Africa. I am referring to people who are actually refugees. Bearing in mind my own emotional feeling about it, I think that one of the difficulties which exist in this world is that when people want to go somewhere, normally all the doors start closing. I am very happy to see that when people want to go somewhere and are forced to leave their own country, our doors are open to receive them. That is why I should like to give this my personal blessing because I think when it comes to the opening of doors to people who need to leave their country—this they do not do happily and gladly but are forced to do it—we in fact have provided an open-door policy to this end.

Are you talking about the Poles?

Yes, I am talking about the Poles. By the way, I am not only talking about the Poles. I should like to see the open-door policy, so that there is no misunderstanding, in respect of other refugees as well.

But this was for Poles.

Yes.

The next matter with which I should like to deal is the National Supplies Procurement Fund. Here again I am sorry that the hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism is not here, but then the hon the Deputy Minister is present. We are concerned about these funds, and we have expressed that concern before. We should like to know whether in fact there are adequate stocks, that the stocks are not allowed to become obsolete and we also want to be assured that there are no further abuses taking place in regard to this particular matter. There has been a history of this where some companies have used this merely in order to increase their stocks, where they have in turn then, the moment they receive these stocks, drawn the money out. That is not the reason why there should be a strategic stockpile situation. We want some assurances as to how this money is being used, whether the safeguards are applied which should be applied and we want to be absolutely certain that the abuses which did occur have been stamped out and will not occur again.

We have no problem in regard to the South African Inventions Development Corporation. One of my hon colleagues will deal with the Small Business Development Corporation, but let met say that it is a strange accounting procedure which is adopted here. I think it will need some explanation.

When it comes to the provisions in relation to gold mines assistance, I think it is actually appropriate that we discuss them today because today I think the rand is at its lowest ever in relation to the US dollar. The rand has reached an absolute nadir which in so far as the South African economy is concerned, is to my mind a disaster. It is a matter which must give everybody in South Africa who is concerned about the economy and the future of the country a great amount of concern. The relevance to these provisions is that there is no doubt that South Africa needs gold in order to get foreign exchange and needs gold in order to see to it that the balance of payments is in a better position than it is now.

Not only do we need gold in order to get foreign exchange, but I think it is also desirable to keep the mines going in order to keep the jobs because we need jobs perhaps as much as anything in South Africa. Whereas one does not want to subsidize mines in order that they should make a profit at the expense of the taxpayer—I do not believe in that—I believe that mines should be kept going in anticipation of an increase in the price of gold, in anticipation of better times so that when there are better times, these mines can again contribute in a meaningful fashion. However, once one allows a mine to close down it is almost impossible to reopen it. I therefore want to plead with the hon the Minister that at this very bad and difficult time in our economy, at a time when the rand is at its absolute nadir, we should take a positive attitude towards keeping the goldmines going for the future.

We have no problems with the amendments in regard to the Tender Board.

As regards clauses 11, 14 and 17, which deal with the TBVC countries, the hon the Leader of the Opposition has indicated before what our attitude is towards expenditure there. Our view is that finance which is provided should be project finance and that it should be channelled in a certain direction rather than going into a pool where it can be used for any purpose. We therefore believe that our assistance to other states should largely be project finance rather than finance of a general nature. This might be difficult because of certain commitments, but this should be the direction in which we should aim.

I want now to refer to the International Development Corporation. We see no problem in remaining part of this corporation and meeting our obligations, but I would like to know from the hon the Minister what Southern Africa has received from this fund. This fund is supposed to be for the so-called less developed nations, and I would like to know-which of the less developed nations in Southern Africa have received assistance from the International Development Corporation and what the extent of this assistance was

In his speech—it is referred to in the explanatory memorandum as well—the hon the Minister referred to clause 16. We have no problems as regards the extension of the provisions to deal with consequential loss. However, I would like to know from the hon the Minister whether clause 16(l)(b) can possibly be in accordance with his concept of a free market economy. It runs completely counter to it. According to this clause one must insure with Sasria and one must do so because certain people sometimes undercut one on low risk features but they do not want to do business on high risk features. This is what private enterprise and the market mechanism is supposed to be about. It is a strange approach to make it a criminal offence to belong to the free market. This is in fact what is happening here. It is not only being prohibited from a commercial point of view or being declared undesirable but one is actually making it a criminal offence to allow a free market mechanism to work.

The hon the Minister must forgive me if I say this but he is the one who said that I was a socialist. There cannot be anything more socialistic and anti-free market than this measure which is being introduced. The explanatory memorandum states:

whatever that may mean—

because foreign underwriters normally insist on fire insurance as well. That is what is happening in the business as a whole. If one goes into the short term insurance business, one is told that one will be given an A risk if one undertakes B as well. That is often how the market operates. I can understand that when Sasria has public support one would like to see the public encouraged to use it. However, to make it a criminal offence is something which is not desirable. I may point out that the wording of the clause does not make sense. In the proposed new subsection (1A) it is stated that it cannot be done, and I quote:

1. (i) the insurer is a registered insurer who has entered into an agreement contemplated in subsection (1); or
2. (ii) the insurer referred to in subsparagraph (i) has declared in writing that he is not prepared to assume such obligation …

I would have imagined that what the hon the Minister had in mind was that if the Sasria insurers are not prepared to take that risk then one can go elsewhere. In other words, it is not the party who is committing the offence who is the one declaring that he refuses to accept that obligation, but another party. With great respect, one has grave difficulty with that clause. I hope we will get some explanation for it.

Finally, may I say that we are indebted to the department for a detailed explanatory memorandum, for which we want to express our thanks.

Mr Speaker, as in the case of certain other financial measures, this Bill is known as a financial omnibus Bill which deals with and gives effect to several financial provisions.

In regard to the hon member for Yeoville’s remarks about the surplus that is being carried over to the Special Defence Account, I think one should really be grateful whenever there is a reasonable surplus available for transference to that account. When the State Revenue Account shows a surplus, and this is available for transfer to the Special Defence Account, one should accept the fact with gratitude and view it in that light.

After provision has been made for the R60 million that has been agreed upon, one hopes that what remains will be a reaonsable amount that can be employed to cover additional defence costs. Defence expenditure escalates each year. We are not yet in a position to be able to expect a reduction in Defence expenditure. Defence expenditure will continue to take a big chunk out of the funds of the Exchequer. As long as there are those demands on the Exchequer, they will have to be met. The willingness and goodwill on the part of the taxpayers remains a fine and positive attitude in this context. We should welcome it. Opposition to defence spending could have catastrophic consequences for South Africa. That is why one is grateful for any goodwill, on either side of the House, in regard to this spending. I want to express the hope that that goodwill will continue and that we, as in the past, will continue to transfer available reserves in the Revenue Account to the Special Defence Account.

In order to save time I now just want to refer to a few clauses, and not to each of the clauses in the Bill. Some clauses are perhaps of lesser importance than others. In order to save time I therefore just want to refer to a few of them.

Firstly I want to dwell for a moment on clauses 3 and 4. Clause 3 deals with the National Supplies Procurement Fund. Thus far this funding has been done by way of financing obtained from the Stabilization Fund. This involves an annual amount of approximately R2 billion. The appropriated amount of R1 925 million from the State Revenue Fund plus an additional amount of R75 million—hence a total of R2 billion—forthcoming from the State Revenue Account, is now considered to be working capital of the NSPF. This will only be supplemented from the State Revenue Account if there is a need for more than R2 billion.

Clause 4 makes provision for correcting the unfavourable loan to share capital ratio of the South African Inventions Development Corporation, which at the moment stands at approximately 16:1. The amount of R4,030 million, which has been provided since March 1977, is now being realized as share capital of this corporation, and in my opinion this is a very constructive and positive step because it improves the share capital to loan ratio.

Next I briefly want to dwell on clauses 6, 7 and 8, referring in this connection to the remark made by the hon member for Yeoville about the decrease of the Rand against the dollar. I think we are all concerned about the fact that the Rand-dollar ration is decreasing so rapidly. In my opinion, however, it is not a situation that we should get all hot and bothered about, because the position will correct itself. I believe that the present substantial strengthening of the dollar is a short-term manifestation and that the position of the Rand will shortly improve.

The principle being accepted in regard to the gold-mines is, in my view, a sound one, the principle being that in terms of the Gold Mines Assistance Act, 1968, the State will not grant greater assistance to marginal or assisted mines than the so-called break-even point demands. An assisted mine cannot receive so much assistance as to convert its operating loss into an operating profit. I do not think it is the State’s duty to keep a mine going and enable it to make a profit. The object of this assistance is merely to avoid mines having to close down. As soon as the gold price improves, those mines would again be in a position to proceed with production.

Clauses 8 and 10 chiefly involve corrections to existing practices in order to place the position beyond any doubt. The hon member for Yeoville had doubts about clause 9, but the authorization the Tender Board is now obtaining is purely formal authorization that already exists in practice, ie that of resiling from any contracts if the requirements are not met. If it appears necessary, a claim can be instituted for damages. It is an old, existing practice that the State Tender Board can resile from such a contract. This clause merely leaves no doubt about the fact that this can indeed be done.

In clause 10 the position in regard to an existing practice is also being placed beyond all doubt, the position being that when obsolete defence supplies are sold, the proceeds are to be paid into the Special Defence Account. The hon member for Yeoville had doubts about this, but in my view it is very sound practice to have the revenue from the sale of old supplies paid into the Special Defence Account. We must keep that fund sound and strong, and I therefore think it is sound practice for that money to be paid into that fund.

In regard to personal tax, which must now be paid by everyone in South Africa, clauses 12, 15, 18 and 20 deal with the repeal of the Black Taxation Act, which relates to those inhabitants of the TBVC countries living and working in South Africa. I just want to express a few thoughts about parity in regard to income tax paid by the respective population groups. Everyone is now contributing to State funds, whether by way of personal tax or by way of indirect taxation such as GST or customs and excise duties. This fact must be borne in mind, and it is a pity that there are still people in South Africa who contend that they alone contribute to State funds and are therefore the only ones who have any say as far as that is concerned. State revenue is not reserved for a specific group. There are people who believe that their specific population group is the only one with any claim to the spending of certain funds. There are unfortunately Whites who believe—and who say as much—that the Government is doing everything for the Blacks, which is a typical HNP argument. Unfortunately there are also blacks and other people of colour who lay claim to State spending but who dig in their heels when it comes to paying income tax. This resistance, when it comes to making a contribution to the Exchequer, we must now eradicate once and for all. I think that everyone in South Africa must accept that everyone contributes to the Exchequer and that all population groups can lay claim to a fair and reasonable apportionment of State funds.

I want to conclude with a reference to clause 13. This clause confirms once more the government’s willingness to meet its obligations in regard to international aid funds. It is common knowledge that the government has consistently met its obligations to the IMF and that it is held in very high esteem by that Fund. This clause is now authorizing the Minister to make a further contribution of $13,19 million to the International Development Association in a specific manner, ie in the same way in which contributions are made to the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The hon the Minister referred to Sasria. This association was called into being to make insurance available, in conjunction with the Government, against damage that might result from acts of violence. I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether it is also compulsory for statutory and semi-State institutions to take out insurance with Sasria. Are institutions such as Sasol and Escom, for example, compelled to take out insurance with Sasria?

This legislation deals with several matters, only a few of which I have dealt with, but I just want to emphasize that I should like to support the legislation as a whole.

We have already taken leave of the hon the Minister in the caucus group, where we all wished him everything of the best. On this occasion I again want to express the hope that he will have a very pleasant period of rest.

Mr Speaker, it is of course customary, at the end of a parliamentary session, to have a Bill such as this before us, a kind of omnibus measure. Quite a bit has already been said about the Bill, and I do not want to be guilty of repetition. Nor do I want to give the hon the Minister any more headaches this evening. The hon the Minister is already going to have a bad enough night’s sleep as a result of the collapse of the rand against the American dollar and the gold price. We are, of course, all concerned about that, and that is why I am saying that I do not want to give the hon the Minister any further headaches.

I want to start off by saying something about the first clause in the Bill. The annual amount that we in South Africa spend on defence, Armscor and so on, is a tremendously large one. The fact of the matter is that one can never exercise sufficient control over one’s supplies. I am terribly glad that the hon the Minister of Defence is here, because what I want to say, I want to say in his presence. One can never exercise sufficient control over one’s supplies. Not only does one need to check that everything is there, but one also has to check whether one’s supplies are still usable, or whether they have perhaps got so old that they should have been written off 10 years previously. Is the control over our supplies always such that when they have to be drawn from stores in specific circumstances, they are found to be usable? In regard to our defence this is, of course, of particular importance. In normal circumstances, when we are involved in training and other similar activities, there are no problems. If a crisis develops, however, for example as a result of war or an invasion, supplies must be drawn rapidly, and that is why control of our supplies is extremely important.

Nor can there ever, from a financial point of view, be sufficient control over our finances. Since large sums are involved in this Bill, I want to make a special request. I do not want to throw any stones. In any business, at any spot and at any time in South Africa, and throughout the world, one has to take a look at this aspect of control, and I would very much like us to have a look at this.

About certain clauses in the Bill I do not actually want to say anything. I have already said something about the gold mines. I just want to add one thing. As hon members will know, our gold mines are actually a vanishing asset. We shall not always have gold to export. The gold price decreasing, as it is, immediately affects our balance of payments. As I quoted on a previous occasion, in the past year we had a large deficit on our current account, but thanks to our gold sales our deficit was only a small one, I think R917 million, which for our country was actually a small amount. Gold saves us then. That is not, however, the case now. That is why I want to say that with this system we shall also have to look more closely at export promotion and similar aspects.

I am glad that certain provisions are being deleted in terms of this Bill. These relate, amongst other things, to the four independent Black states. I am referring, for example, to clauses 11, 14, 17 and 19. They serve to delete obsolete provisions. I want to ask whether there are not more aspects in our agreements with the Black states that are superfluous and can be deleted. I am just asking. That may be the case. If it is, it would be a good thing if this could be cleared up and got out of the way.

As far as Black taxation is concerned, I do not want to react to what the hon member for Gezina said. We can debate this issue on another occasion. The fact of the matter is, however, that the Blacks are now, together with the others, paying income tax. Can the hon the Minister inform us about whether any steps have been taken, apart from the steps already taken over the years, to ensure that taxes are properly collected so that we do not suffer losses in this regard?

Clause 16 relates to insurance, and I do not want to go into that any further. I am glad that I can agree to this Bill on behalf of my party. We support it.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Sunnyside for his support of this Bill. The hon member made a very friendly speech. He also told the hon the Minister that he undertook not to give him any headaches, and we appreciate that fact. I want to give the hon member for Sunnyside his due and say that I do not think that in the past two or three years he has ever, by way of his speeches, given the hon the Minister of Finance any headaches. I agree with the hon member for Sunnyside’s point about gold being a vanishing asset. I have not the least bit of doubt that the hon member for Sunnyside is correct about the fact that in our financial planning we shall, for the far distant future, increasingly have to try to break our ties with gold owing to the fact that it is indeed a vanishing asset.

I should very much like to associate myself with the tribute the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Gezina paid to the hon the Minister of Finance. There is a specific reason why I also want to associate myself with that tribute. The reason is that the hon the Minister of Finance, as a young boy, grew up in Agter-Paarl. He attended the Slot Primary School in Paarl, completing his school career at Paarl Boys High. He was also the dux pupil of the Paarl Hoërjongenskool, and I want to tell hon members in this House that Paarl is very proud to have him as one of its own. [Interjections.] I think there are very few people from that area with the national or international achievements to their credit that the hon the Minister of Finance can boast of. In this context I should like to pay tribute to the hon the Minister, on my own gehalf and on that of my constituency.

I just want to highlight one or two matters concerning this legislation. Firstly there is clause 2 in which reference is made to a recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I want to take this opportunity of extending my hearty congratulations to the hon member for Smithfield, who is unfortunately not here this evening, and to thank him for the lead he took as chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts during the past year. In that select committee we have, in recent years, had an example of what consensus politics could mean to South Africa in the future.

In regard to clauses 11, 14, 17 and 19, in which reference is made to the financing of the independent homelands, I just want to make the point that this is a transitional measure and that these clauses are, as far as I am concerned, a very good example of what we can expect, to a certain extent, in the future South African financial dispensation, although this will be on a slightly different basis. What is involved here is the devolution of responsibility and the fragmentation of financial control. Inevitably, however, what must go hand in hand with that is not only the apportionment or allocation, but also the control that is so essential.

In regard to clause 13 I also just want to point out that one is very grateful that South Africa, as a relatively young country, combining as it does elements of First-World and Third-World countries, can also make its contribution to the International Development Association.

Lastly I want to refer to clause 16 and the question of Sasria, to which the hon member for Yeoville also referred. I just want to point out that when Sasria was established it played an extremely important role, because it had to fill a void or vacuum at a stage when no one else was prepared to accept those responsibilities. For that reason I am in full agreement with the principle that Sasria should, to a certain extent, be given preferential treatment, with free competition at a subsequent stage.

Mr Speaker, at this late stage of the evening and at this late stage of the session and also as I believe this is the hon the Minister’s last Bill that he intends bringing before the House and in the spirit of consensus which we sincerely hope will be the spirit of the new Parliament, I should like to say that we in the NRP will be supporting this measure before the House. However, there are one or two points I should like to make and one or two clauses to which I should like to refer. I shall try to be very brief.

The first is clause 1. This concerns the Special Defence Fund, and I am pleased to see that the hon the Minister of Defence is here. The point I want to make is that we know that in the last Budget provision was made for R60 million to be voted towards the Special Defence Fund. We also know that it is estimated now that there is an under-expenditure of something like R200 million and subsection (l)(a) provides for the R60 million while subsection (l)(b) provides for the balance. We are in agreement with this, but the point I should like to make to the hon the Minister of Defence is that in the tight times in which we live, in the tight economic times in which we live, and also bearing in mind the fact that my party has a very proud record of supporting the defence of South Africa—I hope the hon the Minister will accept that—and also bearing in mind that we hope that conditions on our borders will ease somewhat because of the efforts of the hon the Minister of Defence, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and also of the hon the Minister the Prime Minister himself, we sincerely hope that the time will come when perhaps because of under-expenditure the hon the Minister of Defence will be able to hand back to the hon the Minister of Finance a bit of money, because I am quite sure that he will know where to spend it elsewhere because he is going to be hardpressed in the future to find funds.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, we agree with that because it was approved by the select committee.

The only comment that I want to make with regard to clause 3 is that I should like to take this opportunity of emphasizing the fact that just on R2 000 million of State money has been invested in the National Supplies Procurement Fund. This is an investment made by the State to ensure that there are essential supplies here and that they are available should those who wish to destroy South Africa succeed with some of their boycotts over a short period of time, so we must make sure that there is this investment to ensure that our future is assured.

As far as clause 4 is concerned, I believe that the conversion of R4,03 million of loan capital to share capital will place the South African Invention Development Corporation on a sounder financial basis, and we go along with that.

With regard to clause 5, I believe that the PFP, from what the hon member for Yeoville has had to say, will be having a second bite at the cherry and I believe that they are going to raise this particular clause again. However, I should like to say to the hon the Minister of Finance that we in the NRP find this clause rather difficult to understand, because what this clause intends doing is to reduce the capital value in book terms of the assets that were taken over by the Small Business Development Corporation from the Development and Finance Corporation and the Indian Industrial Development Corporation. The intention is to reduce the capital value of these assets from R63,39 million to R46, 201 million in order to show, in terms of the revenue which the Small Business Development Corporation will be receiving, that this revenue, based on the lower capital value, will show a return of something like 15% instead of the current 6%. What this really means is that the State is prepared to write off just over R17 million of the value of the assets being taken over by the Small Business Development Corporation. In other words, one could say that this really means that the assets which the Small Business Development Corporation took over were overvalued in the first place. In other words, the two previous development corporations to which I have referred had overcapitalized to the tune of R17 million. What concerns us is that by approving of this—and we are going to go along with it—in future this fact that there was overcapitalization will be hidden, and one has to question this, especially because these assets have been taken over by the Small Business Development Corporation, a body which has been set up to assist small businesses in the efficient and correct management of their businesses. If the Small Business Development Corporation is supposed to advise small businesses in the private sector on efficient management, one has to question their actions because the record shows that they have not been very wise themselves in the purchasing of these assets because they obviously have overcapitalized. I should like the hon the Minister to deal with this when he replies to the debate.

Clauses 6, 7 and 8 concern the Gold Mines Assistance Act, and quite a bit has been said in this regard. I agree with the hon members for Sunnyside and Paarl who said that gold was a diminishing asset. I think the hon member for Yeoville said that it was important for us to watch our gold mines because of their value as earners of foreign exchange and the fact that they created a lot of employment.

I believe the hon the Minister wants to make sure that the gold-mining industry does not make a profit out of State subsidies. I think that is what is intended in so far as these clauses are concerned. One must not forget that the formula which exists today was laid down in 1968 when I believe the price of gold was something like 35 dollars an ounce. Since then times have changed somewhat. We support these clauses especially in view of the fact, as I have said, they make sure that some companies do not make a profit out of a State subsidy.

This gives rise to the point I want to put to the hon the Minister. As he has done in this particular case, I sincerely hope that he, his successor and the department will investigate all State subsidies and assistance programmes to make sure that the State is not being taken for a ride on these assistance programmes because we know the private sector. They have the fire in the belly, and if they find a gap in any legislation, subsidy or assistance programme they will take it because they want the profit in their pocket. This means that the State has to be on its toes to make sure that these people do not take advantage of State subsidies.

In so far as clause 9 is concerned we think that the State Tender Board should continue as they have in the past. Here I refer to the provisions regarding inspection and testing when tenders are submitted. There is also the question of the Board resiling from the contract if the tenderer does not comply with the regulations or terms of the tender. The reason for this amendment, from what we read in the Explanatory Memorandum, is that the legality of this procedure, which the Board has followed in the past, has been questioned. I am pleased therefore, that this amendment will make it quite clear that the State Tender Board can carry on as it has in the past because it is in the best interest of the country.

Clauses 11, 14, 17 and 19 concern a redundant provision in regard to the financial assistance given to the TBVC countries during a period which extended for a number of years after the date of their independence. This period has now expired and it is logical that these provisions should be repealed.

Clauses 12, 15, 18 and 20 are the result of the measure we passed earlier this year when we enacted legislation to harmonize the income tax payable by all South African citizens, and these are just consequential amendments in that regard.

Finally I want to refer to clause 13 which brings the capital allocation to the International Development Association by South Africa into line with the provisions or conditions which exist for the allocation of funds to the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This I think is logical, and I should like to agree with what the hon member for Paarl said about it being a feather in South Africa’s cap that a country as young as South Africa should be able to make this type of contribution to an international development fund.

Having said that, I finally say that we support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Amanzimtoti gave a very good analysis of the Bill before the House. He put several questions to the hon the Minister and also give several opinions and interpretations.

I just want to refer to one clause, and that is clause 5. The hon member for Amanzimtoti put certain questions to the hon the Minister, but unfortunately I cannot quite agree with his reasoning. The hon member’s contention was that he did not know why the clause was being couched in its present terms. As far as the Small Business Development Corporation is concerned, it must always be borne in mind that one is not dealing with a purely business-orientated situation because of the existence of a grey area in which the development potential that is not tapped or exploited by private initiative must specially be stimulated by the Government. Efforts in this direction have already met with great success, and such efforts will also be made in future. That is the very reason why it is impossible, in this context, to look for a purely scientific-analytical, private-orientated profit motive. A purely clinical analysis can therefore never be made, in this context, as it is in the private sector. Because that is so, I have no problems with clause 5. Clause 5 embodies a realistic orientation towards the Small Business Development Corporation.

If one were to analyse this, one would note that after the over-capitalization— which the hon member mentioned—has been written off, it will no longer be necessary for the Government to subsidize rental income any further. Even if that were the only thing to be achieved, it would justify this legislation, and that is why I gladly support it. I believe that the hon the Minister will, in any event, give his own reply to the hon member on this question.

I now want to refer to clause 2. If we have had any opportunity, under the present dispensation, to gain experience of consensus politics, it has specifically been in the Select Committee on Public Accounts where valuable experience has been gained in this connection. At times the hon member for Yeoville plays to the gallery in the House. To use a golfing expression: “He putts for show and he drives for dough.” In the Select Committee on Public Accounts, however, the hon member makes positive contributions. If he can do so under the new dispensation, I think that consensus under that dispensation would have a chance of succeeding.

Just leave the new dispensation out of it and talk about finances.

I am specifically dealing with the hon member for Yeoville and not with the hon member for Langlaagte, because I first want to see whether his contribution will be a positive one. [Interjections.]

Clause 6, 7 and 8 relate to gold mines, and I want to agree that here we have problems. I do think, however, that in their statements about this, hon members must be careful. The gold price has always been an enigma. In the past the gold-mining industry has often been written off, but has then inexplicably pulled itself together once more and again become a positive factor in our country’s economy.

[Inaudible.]

Let me advise the hon member for Brakpan not to sell his gold now. There are, in any event, better days ahead for him in the gold-mining industry than in politics.

Clause 9 is an essential clause. Year after year we come along with legislation to correct matters with a view to the future, but then we still find ourselves, each year, having to correct situations that we initially regarded as being good or reasonable. And this is what is happening here in clause 9 in regard to a situation, which existed for years in regard to the State Tender Board, now being weighed down by certain shortcomings. Legal substance is now being given to this in this clause, and I should like to support it.

The same thing is also being done in clause 10, which provides for the elimination of a degree of doubt that existed.

An unhealthy state of affairs exists in the international insurance industry, particularly in the realm of reinsurance. As in many other fields in the international economic and financial sphere, South Africa is in the fortunate position of being regarded as being on a much sounder footing than many other countries. South Africa, for example, is regarded in a much more favourable light than Australia, a country very critical of the Republic. It is a well-known fact that Lloyds of London is not much interested in reinsurance in the Australian market, whilst the South African market is received with open arms. I therefore think it is only fitting and proper for us to correct matters as far as the Sasria question is concerned. I therefore welcome the relevant clause.

Sir, unfortunately I was absent last Wednesday when the hon the Minister of Finance announced his retirement. I would consequently like to take this opportunity of bidding him a personal farewell. It has been a pleasure to work with him in recent years. It was always a pleasure because we as a study group, and members of the NP, knew that the man at the financial helm knew what he was doing. That is why we could, with the utmost confidence, submit requests to him, and in the future we would also, with the utmost confidence, still like to do this. One day I sent him a note, after he had delivered his Budget speech, in which I wrote that Confucius’s standpoint was that: “The measure of man is man.” In that connection there are three categories: “If the measure of man is man, man is either good, excellent or ultimate.”

†According to the Budget which he presented to us on that particular occasion, and indeed on all other occasions, he was not only good or excellent, but he was the ultimate man. We thank him.

*He has had his good and his difficult years. He had years in which it was a pleasure to deliver a Budget, and he had more difficult years in which it was not all that easy. During the 10 years that we have been privileged to have had him as Minister of Finance, we knew at all times that our country’s finances were in good hands. He can therefore retire in the secure knowledge that according to the Beri evaluation, South Africa’s position has steadily improved during those 10 years. Our situation has improved year by year. Year after year we have experienced an improvement in terms of this evaluation by international bankers. If any of his successors can evidence the same degree of success, it will be an exceptional achievement. I think it must give him personal satisfaction to know that in spite of the international situation, with almost every country in a worse position, he leaves us with a situation in South Africa that is constantly improving. To him we say thank you very much, and goodbye.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I too should like to wish the hon the Minister a long and happy retirement. I think the difficulties that he has encountered in the Finance post are difficulties, that will have to be faced by any Minister of Finance in the present context. It is, I believe, an almost impossible job to be a good and successful Minister of Finance when economic considerations clash so frequently with political considerations and when obviously the weight of political considerations bears more heavily than the weight of economic considerations, I should like to come to the remarks made by the hon member for Amanzimtoti and the hon member for Vasco. I think the hon member for Amanzimtoti has put his case well, while I am afraid that the hon member for Vasco has merely glossed over the situation. The Small Business Development Corporation has loans and a share capital of R63 million. This is being reduced by R17 million in order to get fixed assets to a valuation where they can show a return of 15% per annum. I should like to know who actually thought of this bright idea. Things of this nature are happening far too regularly these days. The rest of the world is trying to find a situation in its commercial activities where it can measure itself. Some people try to measure themselves on turnover and increasingly they now measure themselves by return on capital employed because this is definable and specific. However, what do we do? We cook the books by merely changing the capital employed. While the rest of the world is trying to measure itself, we deliberately obscure the situation for everybody, turn our backs on it and then forget about it ourselves. This attitude is quite ridiculous. I would not have had any critisim if it was considered that these fixed assets that were taken over required revaluation. If anybody believes that these assets were unrealistically valued, then some sworn appraisers should be called in to revalue them on a correct market basis. One must, however, not adopt the attitude that because one lets something at R1 it must be worth R7, ie 15% return, because then you do away with all the milestones. One then does not know how far one is; one has no datum level and therefore no control over the situation and, as the hon member for Amanzimtoti said, the day after tomorrow one has forgotten about this. One should never take away the ability to measure people against what they are doing. Yet that is exactly what we are doing here.

One can guess the attitude of mind of those responsible for this Bill. In the explanatory memorandum, in the last paragraph dealing with clause 5, we read the following:

This is, however, no saving at all. The paragraph goes on:

What absolute nonsense! While the rest of the world has learnt not to print money and thus to create inflation, we have learnt how to destroy money to make our books look good.

That brings me to clauses 11, 14, 17 and 19 of the Bill. These repeal the Financial Arrangements Acts relating to the TBVC countries. In these Acts provision was made for the payment of certain amounts to those countries during the first year of their independence. We are now told that these Acts are to be repealed because they have become obsolete. An outsider could therefore conclude that our obligations to these alleged independent states have now been discharged.