Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment of the House last night I was indicating that if a community such as that of Mabopane East did not find themselves in a political vacuum and had real control over their own education and wished to establish an exclusive, multinational Black technikon, they ought to have the right to do so. As I indicated yesterday, it is obviously wrong for us to take decisions here in isolation on the way that those people should receive instruction and on the institutions that should be established in their communities.

†I shall let the matter rest there for the moment, however. I have to point out though that the Government has already spent some R6 million on the development of this particular technikon, and it is estimated that the technikon, when completed in 1990, will have cost a total of approximately R55 million. In these times of inflation it is evident that the latter amount is going to be much more than the present estimate. I should like therefore to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to allow such a precious and expensive gift to become yet another symbol of apartheid. If that should happen the whole effort would have been wasted. Something like that will amount to a terrible waste of R100 million.

I believe the Government has a good story to tell. It should, however, confine itself to the need for greater opportunities for technical education on a tertiary level. The Government must say that this is what it is prepared to spend in order to make that technikon accessible to as many people as possible. The Government should bear in mind that there is a considerable leeway to be made out in the field of technical education for Whites, but this is of course totally insignificant compared with the leeway still to be made up in the field of Black technical education. The Government should be conscious of the fact that it is dealing here with a technikon which will have to draw from potentially a very small pool of students.

If we look at the latest report of the department—that of 1979—we find there that at the level of secondary technical education in South Africa the enrolment figure was only 948—less than 1 000. This figure includes the numbers of students in the homelands as well. I am not going to argue that only students from institutions of secondary technical educations will go to technikons. That is definitely not the case. Students from ordinary secondary schools will also go to technikons. The one thing we have to concede though is that technikons will only be able to draw students from a very limited pool. Therefore any attempt to widen this scope should be welcomed. We in the NRP will support this Bill because, in the final analysis, students who are already enrolled at this technikon, as well as those who will still enrol, are after all entitled to the best the Government can offer them. It is not their fault that the policies of the Government are antiquated.

White students today can study at the institution of their choice. They can study at full-fledged technikons, where the right of admission, I have to admit, is also reserved. These White technikons do enjoy greater powers than the institutions for higher technical education enjoyed a few years ago. That is the situation as far as White education is concerned. While not pretending to be universities, White technikons are in a position today to compete with each other as institutions of tertiary education on a par with universities. That being so, the situation is also beneficial to the population as such, because technikons as institutions of higher education are made far more acceptable to the community. In this particular case I should not want any Black to feel that he is not in a position in which he can receive anything but the best of what is available. We should not punish the Blacks for the sins of the Government.

My sincere appeal to the hon. the Minister today is that, as a gesture of goodwill, he should allow the Mabopane East Technikon the right to enrol White students as well if they so wish. The hon. the Minister has the power to allow this. He has that power in terms of clause 12 of the Bill now under discussion. He can allow members of all other races to be enrolled at that technikon. Of course, I am not talking about a few token Whites. Of that, I believe, we have had quite enough. Tokenism will get us nowhere. I feel, however, that because clause 12 is couched in such wide terms, the enrolment can be controlled. I know that the hon. the Minister will say that he does not want to throw it open because, if he does so, the Whites will take over and that will defeat the object.

That is correct.

The hon. the Minister says that is quite right. Let me put this question to the hon. the Minister: How many Whites will go out to Mabopane East to enrol there as students? Let us be quite sensible about this. We must not see “gogga maak vir baba bang” around every corner. If we allow Whites to enrol, the position can still be controlled. In the legislation powers are given to the council and the Minister to control the number of students wishing to enrol. The Minister has the power to control that situation. We can do many things in a free and democratic country like South Africa. For instance, we could have a system where Blacks are given first preference. Why not? We have schools today which give preference to the children of parents living in the area or perhaps preference to the children of ex-pupils of that school, and the children of parents living outside the area have to take second place.

Although the hon. the Minister was very co-operative just now in telling me that I was quite right, I want him to consider the points I am putting to him very carefully. I do not want the hon. the Minister to say “never” to my plea. I say this because over the years I have seen the “nevers” of the past disappear into thin air. For instance, I can remember that on 6 August 1974 I made a plea for the abolition of petty apartheid in post offices. This was, of course, a plea that had been made by many hon. members many times before. However, in reply to my plea, the then hon. Minister said: “Never!” He said that as long as the NP was in power there would always be separation of the races in post offices. We know, Sir, what happened. On 6 August 1976, during the lifetime of that same Minister, we had the announcement that those symbols of petty apartheid were to be abolished. That is why I say that I do not want the hon. the Minister to reply “never”. I want to put this point to the hon. the Minister in all seriousness. I should like the hon. the Minister to get up here today and to tell us that he is prepared to permit that situation to obtain. After all, a White technikon has the right to accept students of all races with the permission of the Minister. That is the situation. Even though I do not agree with the whole question of having to apply for permits for this type of thing, if the hon. the Minister were to agree to this, I believe that South Africa would benefit from such a gesture on his part. I believe that South Africa would benefit far more from such a gesture than from all the money that is spent through the Department of Information to try to counteract the total onslaught against South Africa. I should also like to prove how such a step would benefit the Blacks themselves.

As I said a little while ago, we are dealing here with a factual situation and that is that the potential intake in this respect is very limited. It is one thing for the hon. the Minister to say in his speech that by a certain date certain of the departments will be fully operational and to list those departments. It is one thing to say that one has that number of departments available for study purposes. It is another thing entirely to make those departments viable. At an institution of this nature, numbers are required in order to make these departments viable. Within the technological discipline there is still great scope for diversification. It does not matter whether a student is a member of a particular race group. A person can only achieve this sort of academic self-realization if he has available to him a wide range of fields of study so as to meet his particular aptitude. The sooner that variety of study fields becomes available, the greater the variety of subjects, the more likelihood there is that Blacks will receive the opportunity to qualify for what it is they want to be. One of our main problems in the country today is not just a manpower problem. There is also the limited opportunity for people to become qualified in certain directions. We find that we cannot make the full use that we should be able to make of the investment that we have in human capital. One has to enable people to become qualified in accordance with their natural inclinations and aptitudes. When that happens, such people become an asset to the State, the country can be properly developed and productivity is increased.

In the end the whole country will benefit because of a system such as this. It is in that context that I say to the hon. the Minister that he can have his separate department, he can have the legal rider attached to the technikons to say that they are for Blacks only, if that would make him happy, but my plea to him is to show a bit of courage and wisdom to say that he will be prepared to use the discretionary powers that he has, to create the sort of situation I have just outlined. If he does that, it will be in the interest of South Africa—the Black people as well as all of us.

I wish to conclude by saying that he should do this. If he is prepared to do it, he will be striking a great blow for South Africa. When he replies to the debate he need merely indicate whether he is prepared to do so.

Mr. Speaker, it is of course with enthusiasm that we on this side of the House support this legislation. We support it because it has special significance for the Black man. We are dealing here with legislation which means important progress for the Black man, progress on the road to a better future, better training and better opportunities. We are dealing here with legislation which is able to ensure better planning and the better development of facilities for advanced technical education. For this reason this side of the House supports the Bill whole-heartedly and with enthusiasm, as I have said.

We see the Bill as a further step in making the Black people, in fact every other population group, aware that it is essential in the world in which we are living today, the world of technology, to enable those people as well to taste the almost inconceivable progress which has been made in the sphere of technology. We see the Bill as an essential prerequisite and instrument for establishing orderly bodies, technikons, which will provide opportunities for study in an advanced technological world.

That is why we expected the Opposition parties to give us their unqualified support in this effort, but what did we get? We find that the Opposition is using this legislation as well as an excuse for touting its political philosophy. Let us examine the PFP. When it comes to education matters it is forever trying to cram a philosophy of an “all embracing system”—a purely integrated education system—down our throats. What I cannot understand is its adopting such a course of action on the eve of the general election. I want to state categorically that the PFP is still going to pay dearly for its obsession. Through the hon. member prof. Nic Olivier, and for purely political motives, it is once again dragging its philosophy into the debate for the umpteenth time, a philosophy which has repeatedly been rejected by the voters of South Africa. In fact, its philosophy has not only been rejected by the voters, but also by those who think and feel as they do, for example by Dr. Motlana and company. The hon. member for Virginia made this very clear yesterday—and I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will also do so this afternoon when he replies to the debate. But we promise the Opposition parties that we shall go from platform to platform during the election campaign and strip their standpoints completely bare before the voters of South Africa. And the full nakedness of those standpoints means that they are the most anti-White parties that have ever existed in our country.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to education.

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather difficult to confine myself solely to education. Of course I shall abide by your ruling, but one feels compelled to react to points which have been dragged into the debate by Opposition members.

I shall afford the hon. the Minister an opportunity of reacting to the debate as a whole.

As I have said, the NP Government has once again brought a piece of legislation to this House from which it is clearly apparent that we wish to set a course for the Black people which will lead to better training in order to equip them for better employment opportunities which will assure them of an equitable position in the new world structure, particularly in the world of technology. Unfortunately, however, we are not receiving any support from our political opponents in this matter. This is regrettable, for if he does not support the Act, the Whites are passing up a wonderful political opportunity. It is in the interests of the whole of South Africa that we should avail ourselves in full of this opportunity of giving our wholehearted support to everything the Bill offers. There is no benefit to be derived from our qualifying our support by maintaining that the Government is still engaged in the implementation of ideological legislation. Such conduct is regrettable.

Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to refer briefly to the NRP, for it forms part of the Opposition. An old saying goes: “It is six of the one and half a dozen of the other”. And another old Dutch saying goes: “Zoo zongen de ouden, zoo piepen de jongen”. In the latest Afrikaans idiom we could say: “Zoo de PFP zongen, zoo ‘Pyper’ de jongen”. We are sorry that the NRP has allowed itself to become involved in the attitude adopted by the PFP. In Natal there is a fine example of what the Government is envisaging, viz. the M. L. Sultan Technikon for Indians, and I doubt that the Indians in Natal would be in favour of that technikon being thrown open to all races. The same applies to the Mangosuthu Technikon for Black people in Natal. Nor would those Black people be favourably disposed to the NRPs telling them whom they should admit to that technikon.

In my opinion the main thrust of this legislation is the opening up of further doors to education for the Black child. The Bill makes provision for advanced technical education for Blacks, and in this way the Government once again wishes to indicate to everyone who is interested that it is establishing educational systems, facilities and opportunities for the Black child which must not lag behind similar systems for the other population groups. By means of this legislation the Government is indicating its willingness to organize Black education in such a way that all the needs of the Black people are satisfied. Since the Government is with this legislation creating further opportunities for technical education or advanced training, it is, I think necessary to take cognisance of a current world trend to devote more attention to technical training and less to tertiary education. As far as the Black child is concerned we have very definitely taken cognisance of this trend and they on their part will also have to take more cognizance of it.

I think hon. members will agree with me that in the case of secondary and tertiary education, at universities in particular, more emphasis should be placed on basic research work, i.e. on the expansion of knowledge, while at technikons more emphasis is placed on the practical approach to techniques and technology. As with the Whites we find that many students who attend universities do not always have the aptitude for university training, but that they would fare far better if they were to receive training in a technical direction.

It is generally said today—and quite frequently too—that today’s youth are tomorrow’s leaders, and that the world of tomorrow and the future is the world of technology. We find the skills and ingenuity of the leading world powers best demonstrated in countries with the most advanced technology, and those countries are the USA, Russia, Japan and Germany. Dr. Grant, Managing Director of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation, recently said—

It is here where the Black man must make his contribution as well towards helping us to stay in the running. All of us know that the Black man is at a tremendous disadvantage in this sphere. We know that one of a country’s greatest assets is its people, and its trained people are its greatest asset. At present South Africa has a population of approximately 25 million people, of which the Whites comprise 18,5%, the Blacks 67,7%, the Coloureds 10,5% and the Asiatics 3,3%.

And the Chinese?

If one examines additional figures, one finds that the average Black child undergoes eight years of school training. The latest figures also indicate that in South Africa as a whole there is still a considerable percentage of illiteracy in the age group above 15 years. We also know that the Black man in South Africa comprises quite a large portion of that percentage. It is therefore clear to everyone who is interested that the education and training of non-Whites—and in particular the training of the Black child—is one of the most urgent, and of course one of the most difficult tasks we are facing at present. All available figures indicate that the existing technikons will not nearly be in a position to meet the shortage of technically qualified persons. Academics and experts point out that even if facilities for Black technical education were drastically expanded, there is unfortunately an apparent opposition to, and aversion for, technical education among Black people. If this is true it is a most unfortunate phenomenon and one wants to express the hope that since this legislation establishes the machinery for advanced technical education, the Black man will avail himself of the opportunity of equipping himself in a technical sphere to such an extent that he, too, will be able to make a very sound contribution to the progress of South Africa in general, but also that of his own people in particular. I think there are two important technikons, a para-medical school and a large number of commercial schools at present. We concede that these are completely inadequate. Despite these facts, however, there are clear signs that non-Whites in ever growing numbers are studying in technological and scientific directions.

I said earlier that the world of today and tomorrow is the world of technology. It is gratifying to be able to say that science and technology are occupying an increasingly important position in our present day world. That is why we on this side of the House are convinced that by bringing this legislation to the House, the hon. the Minister is taking a further step to demonstrate that better training and the establishment of better facilities, for the Black people too, are matters of concern to him. May the Black people in our country also see this step as a positive contribution on the part of the Government to establishing teaching opportunities for them as well as for the other population groups.

Mr. Speaker, right at the beginning of his speech the hon. member who has just resumed his seat tried to make a point to the effect that the hon. member Professor Olivier and the PFP in general were so obsessed with race that we found it difficult to discuss educational matters.

Quite right!

What I would have found funny if it was not so tragic, is that almost every Bill that is brought to the House concentrates of course on racial terms. It is the Government that is obsessed with race, not the PFP. We did not bring this legislation to the House. We did not say that it should be restricted to one group only. It is the Government, that hon. member and others like him who are obsessed with race. Therefore they do not argue from an educational point of view, but from an ideological and racial point of view.

I should like to point out, firstly, that we are on record as having said that we support the Bill now before the House.

Surely it is against your principles.

No, it is not against our principles to improve technical education in South Africa. That is the heart of this Bill, and we are glad that this legislation is before us.

Sir, only this morning I listened to a report on the radio that there is a shortage of Whites in 22 000 jobs which have been categorized as White jobs in the South African Railways and Harbours. These jobs are now being done by Blacks. The Railways inevitably have to earmark and retain them as so-called “White” jobs, but the man being interviewed was honest enough to say that there is no possibility of these jobs ever being done by Whites again. There simply are not enough White people to do these jobs. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Manpower Utilization have both stated repeatedly that in order to maintain a reasonable level of economic growth, South Africa simply has to have more skilled people. Therefore we welcome this Bill. It is obviously a further indication of the fundamental recognition that one’s economy cannot grow unless one has the human resources as well as the material and the capital. In recent months we have seen that economic growth has actually been held back in South Africa because we do not have enough people with the requisite skills. We are of course glad that at long last the Government has acknowledged what we have been trying to say for such a long time, and that is that there is a tragic wastage of human resources in South Africa and that it has been going on for generations. If this Bill is going to assist in stopping that, we are of course not only happy to support it, but we are actually delighted. It is clear that training at every level in South Africa is important and necessary. One area to which that applies is the upgrading and establishment of technikons throughout the country. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has come to the House and said: “We do not want to keep coming back and asking for permission. We want to state quite categorically that, wherever the State President decides, a technikon shall be established for Blacks.” I think that that is contained in clause 3. The fact that it is “for Blacks” brings us again to the “Catch-22” to which I shall return in a moment.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier stated very clearly that our only quarrel with this piece of legislation is that unfortunately it is limited to technikons for Blacks. It is clear, however, that the economy of South Africa is colour-blind, that the jobs that need to be filled are not Black jobs or White jobs but simply jobs that have to be done in order to keep the wheels of industry turning. We cannot therefore agree with the hon. the Minister and the Government when they decided to plan ahead, when they not only try to change what has happened in the past but actually try to plan ahead, on the basis of racial criteria. It simply makes no sense whatsoever. Enormous sums of money are involved. It means we are projecting, I suppose, 5, 10, 15 or 20 years into the future. We are now giving the State President the power to establish technikons, but they must be for Blacks. It just staggers the imagination. It does not make any sense at all.

The hon. member for Virginia and I have had many encounters across the floor of the House. We have also served together on Select Committees and, apart from his appalling understanding—or lack of understanding—of education, I quite like him. I think we understand each other and know where we differ. This was demonstrated again in his speech yesterday afternoon. I have taken the trouble to read his speech once again.

That is the kiss of death.

No, I like him. I just do not like his ideas.

Do not go too far.

It is all right. His nomination is quite safe. I would not dare praise him too much. If we look at that hon. member’s unrevised Hansard, we see that once again he has referred, as he has done on a number of occasions, to a Unesco report on the whole question of culture and education. This is very important, because it forms one of the basic foundation stones of the NP that one cannot have education separate from a cultural base. What amuses me is that the hon. member chooses to quote from a Unesco report. How on earth can he trust anything that comes from any agency of the United Nations? I am very surprised at that hon. member for quoting from a report of theirs after all they have done.

You believe them, do you not?

No, Sir, I do not believe them; not at all. I would never quote a document of theirs in support of educational policy. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he should reprimand his back-bencher and ask him how he dare quote from a UN-report. Since when has the UN been a yardstick by which we judge the NP’s policies? It is unheard of. I begin to think the hon. member for Virginia’s nomination is now in doubt. There is no way he can quote this kind of document.

To be a little more serious, I want to address a few words to that hon. member, to the hon. the Minister in particular and obviously also to the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Virginia quoted from the Unesco report “dat ’n mens nie onderwys en opvoeding van kultuur kan skei nie”. But that is exactly what the Government is doing. That is one of the reasons why there are so many problems in that party. That is exactly what they are departing from. Let me give an example. Only last year in this House legislation was introduced to make it possible for the once so-called tribal colleges to be open to all.

Under certain conditions.

Under certain conditions, yes, but at the University of Fort Hare, for example, it is quite possible for a Zulu to be admitted. In heaven’s name, let us be consistent. Does that hon. member now want to tell me that suddenly the Zulu has been transformed into a Xhosa, because one must not separate culture from education, whatever one does? How on earth can they allow that? But it is the Government that has brought this legislation to this House, and I challenge the hon. the Minister to explain that. Just now hon. members opposite said: “Hear, hear; that is right; we support Unesco and we love the United Nations.” Now suddenly they say: “Wait a minute.” Will somebody please explain this to me? [Interjections.] I would love to be persuaded. Let me give another example. I refer to the university here on the hill, the University of Cape Town. At least 10% of the people who attend that university happen to be Black, with the consent of the Government.

Are you against it?

I am for it. I have no problems with it, but according to the argument of that hon. member and according to the basic philosophy of the NP, it is a contradiction in terms, because according to them one cannot have education without a single cultural base. I just do not understand that. We are prepared to allow universities to be open.

You are verging on the ridiculous.

Oh so, that hurt you, not so? That hon. member, who is very good at dishing it out, is obviously getting very, very uncomfortable. He does not like the truth, and I do not blame him. He is not used to it where he comes from. So I am quite happy for him to be uncomfortable. The hon. member for Virginia not only trusts in the United Nations for his educational policy, something which I find very difficult to understand, but then he goes on to quote a certain R. N. Ruperti. Who might he be?

That shows how little you know about the subject.

Is he a good Afrikaner?

No.

Oh, I see! So it is not the basis of the Afrikaner’s educational policy, but you have to rely on these foreign cultures. How can you do that? It is unforgivable.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir. The hon. member has had his turn. The hon. member for Virginia quoted R. N. Ruperti as saying—

He quotes that with appreciation. He goes on to say in his speech that that does not only apply to pre-school, to primary and to high school, but also at university level, and therefore also on technikon level. But why on earth is the Government changing all the laws to enable Zulus, Xhosas, Tswanas and everybody else to go to the same universities? Why are they allowing all these Black and Coloured people to go to so-called White universities? It is unreal. I do not mind them doing that, but when they take as a base that education must be based on culture and then … [Interjections.] Well, I should like to hear some answers. Perhaps one of the hon. members opposite will tell me and put me right, because there is a fundamental flaw in the Government’s basic educational policy. Let me put it another way. May I ask the hon. the Minister, or that hon. member, whether there are plans within the Government to reverse the tide? Are they going to put the clock back? Is the Government going to decide that Fort Hare University, in the future, when there is another Prime Minister or another Minister, is going to be restricted to only one cultural group? I really do not understand it. What about Medunsa? It is open to all. The technikons are going to be open to all Blacks. Is culture then not important to Blacks?

Is culture not important to a Zulu? How on earth can one then have them all together? It is very bad. [Interjections.]

It is all a lot of nonsense.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister again whether he does not appreciate that there is such a thing as an urban culture, that it is an actual culture. Does he appreciate that the technical jobs for which people are trained arise from a culture which can actually unite many other cultures? That is why it is important, and that is of course why I agree with the Government’s policy of allowing people to go to the University of Cape Town, irrespective of their cultural background. Does the hon. the Minister not understand that one of the riches of education is the diversity of cultures when they come into contact with one another, and that that is part of education development? The hon. the Minister of Health is looking at me so strangely.

Today you are sounding just like Karl Marx again.

That is right. That might be. The hon. the Minister of Health went to the University of Cape Town. He was on their SRC. He was one of those horrible, rebellious students causing a lot of trouble. [Interjections.] Did that hurt his Afrikaans culture? Of course not. The University of Cape Town is basically an English-speaking university. Do not be shy. It is a good university. I believe the hon. the Minister of Health was even a cheer leader in his day. [Interjections.] English and Afrikaans. I can just see that hon. Minister on the field. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Of course. [Interjections.]

Can the hon. member tell me what one does at a technikon? Does one do more handwork or …

No, one reads Unesco books. [Interjections.]

No, I think the hon. member for Pinelands prefers to read the books of Marx and Marcuse. [Interjections.] What I want to know from him is whether people at technikons mainly do handwork.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear to me that the hon. member for Langlaagte does not realize …

You are not answering my question.

I am coming to it. The hon. member put his question to me the way he did and I shall answer it in the way I want to.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must listen now. I am doing this for his own education. The hon. member wants to know whether students do handwork at a technikon. Honestly … [Interjections.] No, they do not do that. Does the hon. member accept that?

They do a lot of handwork. [Interjections.]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte does not know the meaning of “technikon”. Therefore I think he should be sent to the United Nations in order to learn from Unesco. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte has made enough interjections now.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister, on a very serious note, that if one speaks to any top industrialist in South Africa, irrespective of whether he supports the Government or the PFP, in connection with on-the-job training, technical training, the need for skilled workers, he will say that it is imperative that wherever it is possible for them to be trained together, this should be done because they are going to be working together. But what the Government does not understand is that one cannot hold the tide back. The Government can try to do that, but it is like putting one’s finger into the little hole in the dike. Sooner or later the pressure becomes too great. This is already happening all over South Africa. Already we have people working side by side. They are learning to do that. There are on-the-job training schemes where Black and White, irrespective of their cultural background, are finding one another and are working together for the good of South Africa. Why on earth then does that hon. Minister try to hold back that which is inevitable? I am referring to the fact that we have to have joint opportunities for training as well as for working together. I was speaking only recently—last Monday to be exact—with a top industrialist who employs hundreds of thousands of workers. It is not who the hon. the Minister thinks it is! We were discussing the whole question of training and the Manpower 2000 plan as well as all the decisions that are being taken. He told me that what worried him very much indeed was the fact that over the years, and for good reason, Blacks had been suspicious of the kind of education that they were being given. They felt it to be inferior, even in regard to the examinations they had to write. We know, of course, that is not so.

And you are responsible!

Oh, no, not at all! The hon. the Minister gives me too much credit. Blacks can speak for themselves. They have said again and again that they want a different form of education. If we perpetuate this, Sir, do you know what is going to happen? We are going to have people coming out of one training institution that happens to be White and another training institution that happens to be Black, both offering the same facilities, the same opportunities and the same standards. I concede that fact to the hon. the Minister immediately. There is no doubt about it. However, once they are working side by side, there are bound to be some Whites who will say: These people must not be paid the same as we are paid and they should not be doing the work we are doing because they have not had the same training. Some Whites will say that. Then again, there will be some Blacks who will say: We cannot do these jobs because obviously we do not have the same training. Why do we not nip this sort of thing in the bud? We have this opportunity to establish technikons for training that will benefit South Africa rather than benefit the ideology of the National Party. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, since you have already granted approval that I should reply to the political arguments of hon. members opposite …

Actually, only to the arguments of the chief spokesman.

Yes, Sir, and the last speaker on that side advanced the same arguments. [Interjections.] In view of that it seems to me as if the stage is set for a situation in which I can forget about dealing only with the Bill throughout my speech. I say this in the light of the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite.

To begin with. I should like to say that the legislation which is before us today and which we are discussing, provides for the establishment of institutions, technikons for advanced technical education for Black people, to meet the needs of the Black people. A start has already been made in this regard at Mabopane East and I want to say that the facilities available there are among the best not only in South Africa but in the world. Better facilities than those available there do not exist. The staff appointed there can compare with the best in the world. The courses and the syllabuses offered there are second to none, and the same will go for the products of that technikon. All this is being done in terms of our policy as announced and expounded by the hon. the Prime Minister, namely that this Government is committed to establishing equal facilities and education for all population groups.

The hon. member for Pinelands had the opportunity this afternoon to discuss the wonderful subject of technical education which is at issue here today, but he did not say anything about it. He did not utter a word on the subject. [Interjections.] All he did was to discuss a matter which he is totally obsessed with. He came along here and spoke about integration. That is all he was able to do this afternoon. He discussed nothing else. I want to say to the hon. member that this is one of the areas in which the NP and that party have fundamentally different points of view as regards how South Africa is to be governed. I believe that to govern the country, in every sphere, there is not simply one single answer which is the best answer, which is the right answer and which will serve that country and serve it best. In the field of education too, there are different methods that may be adopted. For example, there is the method that we adopt. If one forgets politics and concerns oneself purely with the educational aspect in order to determine the right policy to be followed, one reaches the correct conclusion. It is not only we who say so; educationists here and elsewhere say so too. The hon. member referred to the UN. I believe that if the UN could have its way, it would prescribe to South Africa what that party advocates, because they know that that would result in chaos in South Africa. Educational facts throughout the world compel one to say what is educationally correct, and that is that every population group must be educated in its own milieu, its own language and its own cultural context. It is not only the UN that says this …

But you do not do that.

I am coming to that. The hon. member should contain himself.

… the OAU also says so. The Committee of 10 in Soweto appointed a commission of inquiry two years ago to advise the committee on this subject. I do not believe the Committee of 10 would have appointed Nationalists to carry out an investigation on their behalf. The report of the commission was submitted on the occasion of a conference arranged by the Committee of 10. What do we read about it in newspaper reports?—

I read further—

After all, that is this party’s policy. There are today 10 education departments in the original South Africa. Those Governments came into being on the basis of our policy, and where people are now calling for bodies to control their own education, I can say that this has already been done.

The Black man has a need for his own institutions, institutions which he knows are his, so that his culture will flourish there. He knows, too, that those institutions will be controlled by him. The technikons that will be established in terms of the Bill will have their own council. The majority on those councils will be Black people, that is to say, if their councils are not exclusively Black. In terms of our policy the staff are all going to be Black people. The technikons to be established will therefore meet the needs of the Black people. I say that from an educational point of view this is the right thing. What is more, it is what the people want, the Black as well as the White people. Because this is so, it is the right thing. Therefore our policy is the correct policy, because our policy is based on what the people want and on what is the right thing. The hon. members opposite are the exception. They are exceptions, because not all the people in South Africa believe this. Those exceptions believe what the hon. members believe. Those who know about the biology of life know that they are exceptions in life. The normal thing is for a ewe to rear her lamb, but one always finds a few ewes who reject their lambs. That is what you are: You are the rejecters, because you do not rear your lambs. [Interjections.] Hon. rejecters then.

Order! The hon. the Minister must address other hon. members as “hon. members”.

I have just pointed out who the exceptions are, but now the hon. members opposite maintain that their policy of the country must be geared to the exceptions, to the rejecters and not to the majority, who comprise those who nourish, develop and evolve their own world.

I do not have to be told that the fact that there are separate schools, separate universities and separate technikons is seized upon by people to sow unrest in South Africa. After all, you are an example of that; you do it too. [Interjections.] Yes, it is done.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister has suggested that I am one of those who was leading towards chaos … [Interjections.] I look upon that as a reflection. I assume he was referring to me although he did not use my name.

Order! I understood the hon. the Minister to say that the hon. member is also one of those who sow unrest in South Africa. The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

But he does it nevertheless.

That hon. member must stand up and withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member need not tell me that this fact is seized upon and used to incite people. However, I want to tell the hon. member here and now that if we were to implement his policy and do away with institutions for the various population groups, chaos would really occur in South Africa, because those who try to create unrest because there are separate institutions for the various national groups are not really succeeding in their aim. However, if we were to do the opposite, that would be in conflict with the wishes of the majority of all population groups, and then we should be setting the scene for chaos and rebellion in South Africa, because action of this nature would be objectionable to the majority. They would then have a justified grievance to rebel against. Those are the facts of the matter.

My department does not tell a Black child that he has to go to a Tswana, a Zulu or any other school. We build schools, and at the request of the parents, education takes place through a certain medium. The parents can choose which school they want to send their children to and they consistently choose to send their children to a school where education is offered in their mother tongue. This is a natural phenomenon.

Now, however, the hon. members come along and say that these technikons must not be established for Black people alone because they do not meet the specific needs of the various population groups. Surely, however, one has to start somewhere. After all, we did not start 10 universities for the various population groups simultaneously, one for each. Nor are we simultaneously making a start on 10 technikons for the 10 population groups. However, there are already four technikons. There is already a technikon in kwaZulu and one in Lebowa and they are meeting the needs of those peoples. Nor will the Mabopane Technikon be the last to be built. Many more are still to be established, and ultimately it will be utilized by the various population groups to meet their own needs.

I am speaking about Blacks.

I am speaking of no one else but the Black people. At the moment we have four universities for Blacks, but what happened when Transkei became independent? The very first thing they did was to establish the University of Transkei to meet their specific needs.

Not for Black people only.

The university was primarily for the people of Transkei. One of the first things the Government of Bophuthatswana did after independence was to establish its own university. Venda is making a start this year with a branch of the University of the North which will eventually develop into an autonomous university. It therefore appears as if each of the population groups wants its own educational institutions and will not rest before it gets it. What is more, the Government is going to help them to establish these institutions. The Opposition is not going to help them, after all. Indeed, the Opposition wants to wreck them because they have a different theory. The Opposition argues that an urbanized group of people has come into being, a group which is something different. The majority of representations received by my department are from people who come from urban areas, those areas of which the Opposition speaks. These people tell us: “Sir, we are Zulus, but in our school there is a Tswana teacher and we do not want him there. Rather give us a Zulu teacher.” Then there are also those who ask us to give them a Zulu, a Xhosa or some other school. They ask for schools for the various population groups. We are aware of that history, but the Opposition is not aware of it. Do hon. members not recall that when Britain anglicized our schools, we established the CNO schools? There is a profound need among the various peoples to have their own educational institutions. Practical experience shows us that the same desires, aspirations and needs are alive in the hearts of the Black peoples, and that is a fine thing.

We understand this and we are going to help them to achieve those aspirations so that they can have equal facilities, education equal to that of any person in the world. However, with the means envisaged by those hon. members they will never do it, because they say that the technikon of Mabopane East must be thrown open. However, if the White people flock there, who is going to control it, particularly since the Black people do not yet have many technicians? Surely it is going to land up in the hands of White people, and it would then be flooded by White people and as a result would not satisfy any of the needs of the Black man. Those hon. members asked that we throw the institution open, but I say that we shall not do so, because we want to meet the needs of those people. They intimated that due to this Bill only technikons for Black people would be built. Surely that is ridiculous. Surely they know that is not so.

Who said so?

Technikons are built for all the population groups.

I now come to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. He came closest to what we are in fact engaged in doing here. The hon. bishop—I mean the hon. member for Pinelands—quite forgot what we were dealing with. He asked whether due account was being taken of future needs. My reply that this is inherent in this legislation. The fact that in terms of clause 2 we are establishing a Co-ordinating Council is evidence of this, because this is a body which must advise the Minister on existing needs. This council is composed chiefly of employers, and it will be their task to determine what the needs are. They will have to determine this in advance. They will also have to determine the nature of the courses offered and advise the Minister in good time so that we can obtain the co-operation and direct participation of the employers, those people who deal with the practical side of affairs every day and know what the needs are. Accordingly, provision is made in the Bill itself for determination of needs. But we are going a step further and are in fact engaged in creating needs.

This brings me to the hon. member for Durban Central, who said that we had a small handful of people from whom we could draw future students. With the technical centres being established an important aim has been achieved. There is a degree of resistance to technical education among all people, and perhaps a little more so among the Black people. Through the technical centres that are being established, school children are being brought into contact with technical training while they are still at high school. They become acquainted with technical training. If they then achieve success in the technical training, the number of children who eventually enroll for technical training, increases. To tell the truth, the number of children who enroll for technical training has quadrupled, percentagewise, since the technical centres were established. In this way we are succeeding in acquainting the Black child with technical education and stimulating his interest therein so that this career is opened up to him.

The hon. member asks me how long it is going to take to complete this technikon. He also calculated the cost. The amount of R55 million he mentioned is an amount I should never have mentioned. It is a relative amount, because we are unable to make an accurate estimate. However, it is an estimate which takes into account all escalations. The hon. member then divided that by the amount budgeted this year, but in future the amount budgeted will be increased due to the escalation of costs, etc. The technikon will be completed far more rapidly than the hon. member calculated. The hon. member also asked where the technikons were to be built. When everything is taken into account, they will be built where they can function with the greatest efficiency. In other words, one must take into account where the people are and where the needs are. One must also take funds into account, and one must consider where one will be able to achieve the best results.

There is another point I did not mention a moment ago, a point of the utmost importance. That is that the fact that we are making specific provision for Black people here, arises out of a very important consideration. If we were to make use of the facilities that happen to become available from time to time at White institutions, if we were to be dependent upon that, then we should achieve nothing. Specific provision must be made for the needs of the Black people, since the numbers of Black people, in comparison with those of the other population groups, are overwhelming. If one were to throw open all White schools today to Black children, one would only be able to accommodate the Sub A children. That is how many Black Sub A pupils there are. In other words, if one were to rely on incidental vacancies at White institutions, only a minimal number of Black people would be trained. We are working with large numbers, and therefore specific provision must be made for the needs of the Black people, for otherwise there would never be facilities for them.

The hon. member also asked me why a member of the lecturing staff, but not a member of the council, served on the Coordinating Council. He also spoke about “the” technikon. However, he should not think in terms of only the one technikon. He must bear in mind that there are going to be technikons. This one is only the beginning. The Co-ordinating Council is for the most part comprised of employers, and they advise the Minister, not the technikon. They advise the Minister about national needs. For that reason all the technikons will never be able to serve on the Co-ordinating Council, because it is a small council which must comprise 14 to 15 members. This is not a large council that is being established. The members of the council are people from the world of trade and industry. They are busy people. Accordingly it is a streamlined council. One cannot have a representative of the council of every technikon on this coordinating council. However, if one were to seek out individuals to serve on this council, which is to advise the Minister as to which departments are to be established and where, and where technikons are to be built, there could be competition among the technikons. One technikon might feel that technikon A has a representative on the Coordinating Council and as a result obtains facilities whereas because technikon B does not have a representative on the council it does not have facilities. To eliminate that misunderstanding that could arise, we decided that it was unnecessary to afford the councils representation on the Co-ordinating Council. However, it is indeed necessary to appoint a member of staff with expert knowledge of the internal workings of the technikon to the board of the technikon in order to give the council the benefit of his know-how.

I now come to the next point advanced by the hon. member, namely that he cannot find anywhere in this Bill a provision corresponding to section 3 of Act No. 40 of 1967, namely the provision that the technikon can acquire immovable property. The answer is to be found in clause 4(1) of the Bill, which provides that the technikon is a juristic person. The law advisers say that a juristic person has the same rights and can do the same things as a natural person, apart from personal things such as marrying and dying. A juristic person cannot do that. However, it can purchase land and do all kinds of other things. The fact that it is said that the technikon is a juristic person means that it can do everything. In the subsections of clause 4 it is provided that it can do certain things with the approval of the Minister, for example letting and selling. The technikon can also purchase goods. This is inherent in the clause.

The hon. member also asked me why the council should have to have the approval of the Minister to appoint an acting director and to promote and transfer staff. The hon. member must recall that we are at present in the opening stages. At this stage the technikons are wholly financed by the State. When one makes a start there are as yet no students. Buildings have to be built and land has to be purchased. The State therefore provides all the finance. But, as the number of students increases and one exceeds a certain number, the revenue is such that one can cross to a different financing pattern, to a formula or whatever. At the other technikons in South Africa that stage of development has already been achieved. They only receive a subsidy and are themselves responsible for a certain part of the financing. This is calculated on a formula basis. We have not yet reached the stage at which we can operate on a formula basis in this case, because the numbers are still too small. For that reason the Bill was drafted with a view to present circumstances. If the circumstances change, then we can change the legislation accordingly. If the council were to appoint an acting director, that would involve a financial implication. A non-pensionable allowance would then have to be paid to cover the difference between the man’s salary and the salary of a director of a technikon. My department is responsible for that. Accordingly we have to take cognizance of it. This is not because we want to control the people, but simply to ensure that matters run smoothly and that we are able to meet our share of the obligations.

The hon. member also asked me why we wanted to keep an eye on syllabuses. We do not want to keep an eye on them. The fact is that the Co-ordinating Council will advise the Minister. The only reason why the provision to the effect that this must be done with the approval of the Minister has been inserted, is to ensure that the advice given to the Minister by the Co-ordinating Council is passed to the council so that they can take cognizance of it and then incorporate it in the syllabuses when they compile them. It is a widespread complaint on the part of the employers that the courses are too theoretical, and not practical enough. This measure was inserted to make it possible for the advice obtained from the employers to be duly brought to the attention of the councils of the technikons.

The hon. member also asked me why provision was made in clause 14(2) for the council to be able to tell a student where he should reside. This is a provision one finds in the statutes of all the universities. At the University of Stellenbosch, where the hon. member was a student, one finds in section 17(2) an equivalent provision. At the University of the Witwatersrand one finds it in section 20(2). Allow me to say why this provision is inserted. Under normal circumstances it is not even applied. At the technikon at Mabopane East, for example, boarding facilities are provided for 3 000 students. It is assumed that the others will be day students. It can occur that people around the technikon build boarding houses, with the result that the facilities of the technikon are not utilized. It can also happen that a student lives very far from the technikon so that he is unable to get to his practical classes on time and his training suffers as a result. In such circumstances the council will have the right to require that a student comes to live in the hostel.

The hon. member also put a question to me relating to the annual reports. He wanted to know why provision was not being made for the annual reports to be tabled in Parliament. I want to point out that the four universities which this department is concerned with do not table annual reports here either. The data relating to their activities is incorporated in the annual report of the department. The aim and the idea is that this should be done in the case of the technikons as well. Their data will also be incorporated in the annual report of the department so that one will have all the information together in one document and will not have to study a hundred different documents in order to form an overall picture of education.

Then, too, the hon. member also referred to the absence of donors in the councils. They can be appointed in terms of clause 8(h). Moreover, this will occur in future. At present, however, there are no donors. As soon as they come to the fore—and we hope this happens soon—we shall of course make appointments from among them.

I think that I have now dealt with the most important arguments advanced by the Opposition. It is true that, as the hon. member for Marico said, the hon. member for Durban Central advanced the same arguments as the hon. members of the official Opposition, except for one argument he advanced, namely that the technikons and the universities should have equal status. I agree with him in that regard. That is our point of departure as well.

I want to thank the hon. members for Virginia and Marico for their contributions. I also wish to thank the hon. members of the Opposition for their support of the Second Reading of the Bill and I wish to express the hope that this Bill will pave the way for the establishment of facilities which will be for the good of the people for whom it is intended, and also for South Africa as a whole.

Before putting the clauses, I wish to point out to hon. members that when Mr. Speaker vacates the Chair so that the Chairman of Committees may take his seat at the Table, hon. members must remain seated and not move about in the Chamber. The same applies when Mr. Speaker enters the House to take the Chair.

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

1. (i) shall be determined by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance; and
2. (ii) in the case of such a member who is in the full-time service of the State, shall be in accordance with the laws governing his conditions of service

Mr. Chairman, clause 3(1) states—

With regard to this subsection, I should like to move the following amendment—

I think I have motivated that sufficiently in my Second Reading speech, but let me say to the hon. the Minister that the point I was making, and which I now make again under this clause, is that if it is the policy of the Government to have separate institutions for every group, then of course they are not being consistent, because that does not exist any longer. It may well have been the practice in the past, but it is not so now. I do not believe it is going to be the practice in the future either. In fact, I think we are going to find that more and more people are going to have the opportunity of studying and training, in particular the latter, wherever they choose to be or wherever they are living in the area. If this is removed, it gives the State President the opportunity to erect technikons which will be open to all and not restricted only to Blacks. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, if he is not prepared to accept this amendment, he is saying to this House and to the people of South Africa that no technikon anywhere in South Africa is going to be open except to one particular group. That would be consistent. But I do not believe that is so and I would hope, therefore, that the hon. the Minister, having reflected on this, will accept the amendment which I have moved.

Order! I regret to say that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands, as it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, the reason the hon. the Minister advanced for the retention of the words “with the concurrence of the Minister” has not convinced me. Consequently, I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister evidently feels that he has compromised himself in consequence of the explanation he furnished during the Second Reading. Quite candidly, however, I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister should insist on his concurrence being necessary for the appointment of an acting director merely because there are financial implications involved. When it concerns the appointment of a director, I can appreciate that point of view, but in the case of the appointment of an acting director, a person who merely serves in a temporary capacity and who would, in any event, be appointed by the council, I cannot understand why the concurrence of the Minister is necessary. It baffles me. The explanation by the hon. the Minister in this regard has not convinced me at all.

Mr. Chairman, the explanation I furnished earlier is the real reason for this. I can also point out to the hon. member what happens in practice at our universities. The council of the university appoints the principal. The Minister does not interfere. The appointment is subject to the approval of the Minister, but the Minister does not meddle with the functions of the council. He does not dictate to the council, nor does he interfere with the decisions of the council. This is a similar case. However, since there are financial implications involved for which the Department of Education and Training is responsible, this is the right thing to do. This is the only way in which the department can be effectively consulted in the matter and care taken to ensure that mistakes do not occur. It is also being done so that the department can discharge its obligations effectively.

Mr. Chairman, I am referring to clause 8(1)(c) now, as I did during the Second Reading debate, but the hon. the Minister did not give specific attention to this matter in his reply. In this paragraph, provision is made for the appointment to the council of a technikon of—

Then these words follow—

If I may refer again to the comparative Act of 1967, it appears that in that Act it was provided that the local government institutions that desired representation, were subject to the concurrence of the Minister, but that the person designated by the local government institution to serve on the council was appointed by the local government institution itself. In other words, the concurrence of the Minister was not necessary. So it seems to me to be altogether incomprehensible why, in this particular case, the Minister has to approve not only of the local government institution, but also the person nominated by the government institution. It really does not make any sense. It seems to be a kind of Draconian action and that he wants to have complete control over the whole matter in all respects. Consequently, I should like to move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I wish to tell the hon. member that this motion of his is a sensible one. It is a motion that has a great deal of merit. Of course I consulted extensively in connection with this matter. The reason why it is worded that way in the Bill, is that at this stage there is only one technikon in existence. We know, however, how many local authorities there are in South Africa. In the first place it would be difficult to make a choice. One would have to select two from that large number without creating dissatisfaction among the others. When the Minister proceeds to select two local authorities he will, in the nature of things, ask them: “Who are the people whom you are going to nominate?” As I have said, the reason why it is worded in this way in the Bill is that there are so many local authorities and that so many of them are going to insist on having representation on the council. We felt therefore that it would probably be advisable to arrange it in this way at this stage so that the Minister should actually bear the onus as far as the appointments are concerned, although he will consult. I wish to tell the hon. member that I do not feel very strongly about the provision as it reads here. After much deliberation, however, we came to the conclusion that we should keep it this way in order to cause the least amount of discord, unpleasantness and dissatisfaction. I wish to tell the hon. member, however, that if he comes forward with this motion again in a few years’ time, as soon as the number of technikons has increased, we shall accept the motion, because I think the time will then be ripe and it will be easier to accept the proposal. The reason why the provision here differs from the one in Act 40 of 1967 is that in that case there were many technikons involved and in each case one with only a single local authority. In this case one is not dealing with only one local authority; one is dealing with many. It is purely for that reason that it is worded in this way here. I foresee, however, that in future this provision too will definitely have to be changed to bring it into line with the provisions of Act 40 of 1967.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the hon. the Minister, I did not ask him not to exercise the choice as regards the local government institution that has to have representation on the council.

I know exactly what the hon. member asked.

But the hon. the Minister did reply to me on that point. The hon. the Minister referred to the multiplicity of local government institutions. All I asked was that the discretion in respect of who are going to represent those relevant bodies which the hon. the Minister designates, those local government institutions, on the council, should rest with those bodies and not with the Minister. If I understood the hon. the Minister correctly, he replied to me on why, as a result of the multiplicity of local authorities, it was already difficult to select two. But that was not my point. My point is that when he has selected the two local government institutions, it seems to be self-evident that those bodies themselves should designate their representatives.

Mr. Chairman, in practice, of course, it is going to work this way. That body is going to nominate someone and we shall appoint him. It must be realized that there are problems. Take the PWV area as an example. How many local authorities in that area alone would have a valid claim to representation on the council of the Mabopane Technikon as long as it is the only technikon in that area? If two local authorities were now to be selected, surely the others would say: “Look, you have now selected those two, and what is more, those two local authorities may nominate their own people.” For that reason we decided to formulate it as it is contained in the legislation so that the Minister is also involved. In that way any problems that may arise among them can to a certain extent be prevented. The Minister will then have to take the blame, as has become customary.

We foresee, however, that as more technikons come into existence, it will be possible to give effect to the hon. member’s motion. Consideration was given to what the hon. member proposed, but after serious consideration we decided against it. I ask the hon. member rather to come forward with his motion on a later occasion, when the time for it is opportune.

Mr. Chairman, under these circumstances there is not much sense in insisting on the amendment. It seems to me as if the hon. the Minister and I are actually talking at cross purposes as far as this issue is concerned. I shall leave it at that now, because I do not think it would help to take the matter any further.

Next, I wish to express an objection to subsection (7). I wonder why it should be necessary for the hon. the Minister to give his approval to the rules made by the council. Those rules concern the meetings of the council. I think that that should be left to the council itself. The times and venues for meetings of the council are determined by the council itself, yet the Minister’s approval is necessary. The conduct of business, the quorum and the procedure are similarly determined by the council, but these, too, are subject to the approval of the Minister. Even the rules of the council have to be made subject to the approval of the Minister.

If the hon. the Minister has confidence in the council, surely he can leave those details to its discretion.

Mr. Chairman, the same reason that applied in the case of the other aspects raised by the hon. member, is applicable here. In this regard I am referring to the appointment of an acting director and the promotion of staff.

Surely the hon. member can accept that no Minister will dictate to a council when and how often it should meet. The only reason for this provision is that the State is initially 100% responsible for all finances. The provision is directed at the smooth functioning of financial control. There must be no shortage of funds. It must be borne in mind that the council will not consist only of public servants; other people will also serve on the council. There are directions on the fees that council members may receive per sitting day. The travelling expenses of council members also have to be paid. All this expenditure has to be budgeted for. Those are briefly the reasons underlying this provision.

In future, when the council will have its own funds, as is already the position at our universities and other technikons, and as its student body increases, the council will reach the position where it can operate according to a financial formula. When that stage is reached the council will be subsidized by the State in accordance with a formula, and then all these provisions will have to be removed from the legislation. At the moment they have merely been included in legislation in order to ensure that a situation will not arise where the council does not have sufficient funds to carry out its functions. In any event, the department must initially be kept fully informed.

Besides, the functions referred to are also functions that may be delegated. I do not believe it will be the function of the Minister or his officials to say when meetings should begin. The provision is purely intended to ensure that there will be sufficient funds. The council will be able to meet whenever it pleases.

Is the hon. member Prof. Olivier requesting the leave of the Committee to withdraw his amendment?

Yes, Sir.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, here, again, the issue is the syllabus. I listened attentively to the hon. the Minister. Certainly there is merit in his standpoint that the co-ordinating council can assist the hon. the Minister with advice, also on the contents of the syllabus. The same problems which the hon. the Minister referred to in connection with representation of the council or of a council on the co-ordinating body, also apply to the lecturing staff if they were to serve on the co-ordinating body. There is no difference.

There is a big difference.

No. Actually it is worse, because a lecturer actually represents only one particular discipline. He lectures in one particular subject and normally has no general background of the technikon as a member of the council has. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that there is more merit in having a member of the council represented in the co-ordinating body than to have a member of the lecturing staff on it. I know, however, that it will not help to move such an amendment. It is possible that the co-ordinating council may advise a technikon in other ways than through the Minister that they have certain proposals in connection with particular syllabuses. In the final definition the council of the technikon—which I assume is a responsible body, that knows all the details, that knows what facts are at its disposal and consequently knows whether it can accede to that request—must be the body with the competence to decide on those matters. I therefore wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not remove from the Bill the words in the clause that provide that the Minister’s concurrence is necessary as far as the contents of syllabuses are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I am so sorry that I cannot help the hon. member. Although I would very much like to help him, I cannot. The fact is that the council advises the Minister. Although there is only one technikon now, there will ultimately be many of them. All those councils cannot have a representative on the co-ordinating council, because not all the technikons offer the same courses and have the same departments. So the co-ordinating council advises the Minister, who then makes a recommendation on a certain syllabus. However there is nothing to prevent the council from speaking to members of the staff of that technikon and telling them what they think. But the advice of the council is conveyed to the Minister and at a certain stage the council may ask the Minister what has become of that advice. The only reason therefore is to ensure that the advice which the Minister receives, will be carried further and will receive the necessary attention. The Minister will refer it to the council, and when the syllabus has been finalized, the Minister will ask the technikon what attention they gave to this advice. In that way the Minister is able to report back to the co-ordinating council and to tell them what has become of their sound advice. That is the only reason for the measure, and I think the very last thing the Minister will want to do, will be to try to compile syllabuses. He has no desire whatsoever to do that. The object is merely to create a channel of communication for the employer’s practical advice, and at the same time the Minister can also ensure that it receives positive attention.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has not convinced me, because the same problem—to a greater extent even—also applies to representatives of the lecturing staff. However, I do appreciate the spirit in which the hon. the Minister gave his reply, and under these circumstances I reconcile myself to the provisions of the Bill, although I am doing so reluctantly.

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we have had a long and penetrating debate on this Bill, and I should like to repeat what I said on a previous occasion. Within the particular framework of the policy of the hon. the Minister and his Government, this is certainly a positive development which we welcome. We raised our objections in connection with certain views based on principle, objections which, I must say quite candidly, were not resolved by the hon. the Minister, for reasons which the hon. member for Pinelands indicated very clearly. It serves no purpose to cover that ground again at this stage. We have already stated our objection in principle to the approach fundamental to the aspect of separation of this measure.

If I remember correctly, the hon. the Minister made it abundantly clear that the consideration that will apply in connection with the location of technikons will be requirements of the economy and the community.

The more general requirements of the country.

If we use only that point of approach, one is more than justified in thinking in terms of the establishment of technikons where they can render the best service, and that is in our urban centres. It seems to me to be self-evident that where there is such a large concentration of people as in Soweto—to quote but one example—the obvious course would be to establish a technikon there. It is not only within the community, but it is also near the places where those people will be employed and where in-service training facilities exist. As the hon. the Minister knows, an immense financial burden is being placed on Black parents to send their children away to places where they must, as a matter of necessity, make use of boarding facilities. The hon. the Minister knows, and we know, that they are indeed the poorest section of our population. In that respect it is much less desirable that that section of the population should be saddled with this additional financial burden. I should like to state our standpoint in this regard very strongly here. It seems obvious to us that if the hon. the Minister is considering the establishment of further technikons, and also branches of technikons at Mobapane East, he should situate the facilities where there is the greatest existing concentration of the population.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his qualified support and also for the constructive ideas he has put forward. I regret that I was not able to accept the technical amendments he moved. Perhaps time will tell that I should have accepted some of them. If that happens we shall apologize to him for not having done so.

Sir, I believe we have given some serious reflection to this Bill and have come to the conclusion that it should be left just as it reads at the moment. As regards the differences in principle, I did not come here in the hope of being able to convince the hon. members. I proceeded from the standpoint that we disagree in principle and that those differences will continue to exist. But perhaps it is a good thing that we have stated our standpoints once again.

With regard to the final aspect which the hon. member raised, namely the location of technikons: I have told him my view is that the technikons should be located where they can render the best service. We have appointed a council, and I do not wish to anticipate the matter and state that a technikon should be established at a particular place. We instituted a council with the specific object of advising the Minister. I assume that since these people are mainly employers, they will take due cognizance of the interests of the country, and that their recommendations will take account of those aspects. The hon. member also said a technikon could have campuses elsewhere. It is in fact the intention, with such campuses, to take the training facilities to the people and not, in all cases, to bring the people to the central training facilities. It is an expensive undertaking. It is not only expensive for the parents; it is also an expensive undertaking for the State to establish hostels. Consequently, the intention is to take facilities to the people so that all of them can benefit.

Including the metropolitan areas?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sections 9, 9bis and 14 of the Magistrate’s Courts Act, 1944, contained references to the titles of Secretary of Justice and Deputy Secretary of Justice which, due to the rationalization of the Public Service, have become obsolete. As hon. members know, the Secretary for Justice has been replaced as departmental head by the “Director-General: Justice”. In addition, the title of Deputy Secretary has been replaced by that of “Director”. Although the references to the obsolete titles may, according to the State Law Advisers, be construed as references to the present titles, and an amendment of the law is therefore not entirely necessary in this respect, there is a problem due to the fact that the Act contains no reference to the posts “Deputy Director-General” and “Chief Director”. As far as section 9 of the Act is concerned, the unfortunate situation exists at present that I as Minister can delegate some of my powers to the Director-General and to a Director, but not to the Deputy Director-General or to the Chief Director, both of whom are senior to a Director, because nothing is said about this in the Act. Clause 1 of the Bill rectifies this matter. At the same time, this clause proposes to delete the references in section 9 to the Transkei and the Transkeian Constitution which became superfluous on the independence of that State, as well as the reference to the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South West Africa Act which is no longer appropriate due to the repeal of the Act in question by the Administrator General of South West Africa and the transfer of the administration of the Magistrate’s Courts Act to the Administrator-General of South West Africa.

The composition of the Regional Divisions Appointments Advisory Board is prescribed in section 9bis(2) of the Act.

In clause 2 of the Bill the replacement of the reference to the Secretary of Justice as chairman of the board and Deputy Secretary as vice-chairman by references to the Director-General and Deputy Director-General respectively, are proposed for reasons I have already mentioned. The reference in section 9bis(2)(d) to a Deputy Secretary as a member is being brought into line with the existing situation. Moreover, the replacement of the reference to chief magistrates by a reference to magistrates heading regional divisions is proposed in the light of a new dispensation in the magistrates’ division of the department, in terms of which presidents of regional courts are in charge of regional divisions. Deletion of the reference to Attorneys General is also proposed. Attorneys General are entrusted with the instituting of criminal proceedings in their areas and are therefore a party to every criminal case heard in a magistrate’s court. It is therefore perhaps better if they are not involved in the selection of candidates for regional magistracies. Indeed, they have not been appointed as members of the board for some time.

†An amendment similar to that contained in clause 1, and on similar grounds, is proposed by clause 3 of the Bill in respect of the delegation of the Minister’s powers to appoint messengers of the court in terms of section 14 of the Act.

When an emoluments attachment order is issued in terms of section 65J(1) of the Act compelling the employer of a judgment debtor to deduct certain amounts from emoluments accruing to that debtor, the employer is in terms of section 65J(10) entitled to compensation for his services. In terms of section 74I an emoluments attachment order may also be issued to enforce the provisions of an administration order. However, apparently due to an oversight no provision was made for compensation to the employer in such a case. This is now being done by clause 4. In the same clause the deletion of the words “and any reference therein to the relevant order referred to in section 65J(1)(a) or (b) shall be construed as a reference to the relevant administration order referred to in section 74(1)”, where they appear in section 74I(5)(b), is also proposed. These words are redundant because section 65J(4) to (8) does not contain any reference to such an order.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill as a whole is acceptable to us on this side of the House. In my opinion the only amendment of real importance is the last one to which the hon. the Minister referred, namely the amendment contained in clause 4. Moreover it is only an important amendment in the sense that it seeks to rectify a deficiency in the Act. As the hon. the Minister has already indicated, the situation was that the employer of an ordinary judgement debtor was entitled to claim commission for the work involved in deduction and payment of a part of the debtor’s salary, whereas the anomaly existed that the employer of a debtor under an administration order was not in the same position. It is clear that we are dealing here with some-thing which was certainly not intentionally omitted from the original legislation. Clause 4 now rectifies the matter.

In clause 2, as the hon. the Minister indicated, a very limited amendment is being effected with regard to the position of the Regional Divisions Appointments Advisory Board. The exclusion of the Attorney-General, as motivated by the hon. the Minister, is also acceptable on this side of the House. In fact we believe that it was not right that the Attorney-General should have had a say in that regard. For the rest the amendments relate to terminology.

The other amendments to the Bill are really aimed purely at replacing obsolete references, references to legislation which no longer applies and also references of a purely terminological nature. In the light of the nature of the legislation we have no problem with the amendment and take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Green Point have already discussed the basic content of the Bill and I do not wish to do the same thing. I want to thank the hon. member for Green Point for his and his party’s support of the Bill and add that, like the hon. member for Green Point, I believe that an improvement to the existing Act is effected by clause 2, in that the Attorney-General will not have a say in the designation of regional magistrates. It is true that, as the hon. the Minister put it, the Attorney General is necessarily intimately involved in all criminal proceedings and as such is in point of fact a party to criminal cases. I therefore believe that it is not fitting that he should have a say in the designation of regional magistrates.

It was also necessary to rectify the deficiency that is now being rectified by clause 4, namely that an employer deducting amounts from the salary of judgement debtor in terms of section 74(1) of the Act should also be entitled to compensation for his services, just like the employer deducting amounts in terms of section 65J(10) of the Act. I therefore believe that the Bill indeed represents an improvement on the existing Act and we therefore take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches have no objection to the Bill as a whole, particularly not to clauses 1, 3 and 4. But it is in relation to clause 2 that I should like to have a discussion with the hon. the Minister. The amendment of the constitution of the Regional Divisions’ Appointments Advisory Board seem to us to be anticipating, or perhaps a little pre-emptory of, the findings of the Hoexter Commission. As the hon. the Minister knows, the Hoexter Commission was appointed to investigate the constitution and functions of the various courts of our land, namely the magistrates’ courts, the regional divisions and the Supreme Court. I believe that the amendment that is now being made in terms of clause 2 cuts right across a whole series of recommendations that have been made to the Hoexter Commission and published in the Press. Much of this evidence has been given and reported in the Press and deals specifically with the method of appointment of judges and magistrates. I believe that we should not at this stage tamper with the Magistrates’ Courts Act, not until such time as finality is reached after the commission has made its final findings and after the Cabinet has made a decision in regard to the constitution of our courts. What is happening here is that a new terminology is being introduced by clause 2, terminology to which we have no real objection at all. But it is in relation specifically to the exclusion of Chief Magistrates as possible members of this advisory committee and the inclusion of magistrates heading regional divisions that we have an objection.

The legal profession has raised questions relating to judicial appointments right across the board; in other words judicial appointments not only to the magistracy but also judicial appointments to the Supreme Court. Fundamental to their argument is, firstly, that one should make sure when making an appointment that a court is established which will consist of a fearless and independent body of people, and that an atmosphere of confidence and trust should in that manner be created throughout the country, confidence and trust in those who hold such offices. Secondly, we should make sure that any new structure for the appointment of judicial officers should have the effect of expediting Justice; in other words, making it possible for matters to come before the courts and to be disposed of speedily. Furthermore, courts should also be made more accessible to the man in the street. There have been many suggestions in connection with the method of appointing magistrates and judges, suggestions in terms of which particularly people intimately connected with the legal process …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, it will benefit the hon. member for Mossel Bay to listen to me. Particularly people intimately connected with the legal process, it has been suggested, should be included amongst those appointed. The hon. member for Mossel Bay will agree with me that if we look at this from this point of view we will be able to accept that there will be people like him, people who have previously practised as attorneys, who will come on these boards and who will be able to give a considered opinion about whether the people who are going to be appointed to the Bench are the best people available. That is to my mind a very reasonable suggestion. There should be these sort of people on these advisory boards who should be given the power to appoint magistrates and judges. These should be people who are actually practising law and who have had a large and wide experience of the practise of law. Their experience will not be as narrow as that of some magistrates, particularly those who deal specifically with civil matters or those who deal specifically with criminal matters, people who are rather restricted in their operations in regard to the practise of law.

Then there have also been suggestions relating to the establishment of other courts, such as high courts, and also suggestions in connection with the abolition of our regional courts. We are not really in favour of these moves, however. I am just mentioning them in passing. What I do want to say, however, is this: Magistrates are in fact the broad base, the beginnings of our system of dispensing justice. Therefore it is vitally important that we should look at matters such as this advisory board, which is now going to be amended. We should look at it in order to see that the recommendations by the board are coming from people who really know what it is all about. According to last year’s annual report of the Department of Justice there are 326 magisterial offices in the country. There are of course many, many more magisterial appointments. Apparently, with the extension of our economy and with the extension of our country, even more magistrates’ courts will be opened all over the country. I am thinking, for instance, of a magistrates’ court at Mitchell’s Plain, as well as the one at Atlantis, which was also mentioned in that report.

The function of these magistrates’ courts is of vital importance. Unfortunately the post, of a magistrate, is in serious danger. There have been numerous complaints over the years about inadequate pay for magistrates. Service conditions are unacceptable. I have personal experience of magistrates who have complained to me about the fact that their pay, for instance, is less than that of a secondary-school principal teacher, and that therefore their status is usually affected by the amount of money which they earn. Somehow or other it becomes known what their salaries are. Particularly in small villages magistrates who in the past used to be held in the highest esteem are now merely considered part of the system. We believe that this should be changed drastically, and that a magistrate should be given additional status.

The hon. member should motivate his argument.

Yes, I shall do so. This is actually what transpires. The hon. the Minister has unfortunately not had experience of this. However, I have had experience of the fact that in the past magistrates in small villages used to be the first citizens of those villages because, in fact, they represented the Government. Nowadays, however, the magistrate does not. He is simply a person who is there to hear complaints from farmers, perhaps, and to deal with a thousand and one administrative matters. However, as I said before, the position is that, from a remuneration point of view, magistrates in small towns are in an inferior position to other people who do not hold as responsible a position in that sort of community. This is a dangerous situation, Sir. We shall not be able to attract people of the necessary stature to the profession and enable them to hold that rank or that position in the community unless we pay them well. In fact, Sir, in his report for last year, the Secretary for Justice who is now the Director-General of Justice indicated that the number of legal assistants from whose ranks magistrates are normally drawn after the usual procedures was decreasing. He said that the number of those people with legal training was decreasing. This is a serious situation, Sir, and we must watch it very carefully. What does worry me is that although we have not as yet received the latest report of the Director-General of Justice, we cannot see any real improvement developing despite the fact that in 1978 the then hon. Minister of Justice stated that particular attention was being given to the remuneration and conditions of service of magistrates. As far as we are concerned, what is required is not only that their remuneration and conditions of service be improved but also that their status should be improved.

I should like to say something more about this question of status. We believe that a magistrate who wields the enormous power —and I say this with great emphasis—of depriving a man of his liberty—and what is more important to a man than his freedom? —should be a man of exceptional quality. Unless we pay well and our conditions of service are excellent we are not going to obtain the services of people of exceptional quality.

Order! I have permitted the hon. member to make his point but what he is discussing now is beyond the scope of the Bill.

Yes, Sir.

The matter that I am dealing with here is the question of the appointments board and in this regard I should like to quote what was said by Mr. Justice Milne on the occasion of a speech he made which was reported in the September 1980 edition of De Rebus concerning the appointment of magistrates and their method of appointment. I should like the hon. the Minister to listen to this. This is what he said—

If one relates that statement to exactly what is happening in terms of this Bill, viz., that one’s peers are going to decide whether one is going to be appointed to a particular position or not, it makes a great deal of sense. Mr. Justice Milne goes on to say—

In other words, what he is suggesting here is that for the appointment of magistrates there should at least be judges of the Supreme Court serving as members of the appointments board. I believe that these suggestions are good ones and I understand that they have been submitted to the Hoexter Commission. I have to mention them here, however, because of the fact, as I said earlier on, that we appear to be doing something now that is anticipatory to the findings of the Hoexter Commission.

This is not the only person who has made representations in regard to the establishment of boards. There were also the recommendations made to the Hoexter Commission by the Transvaal Law Society when the past president, Mr. Van der Merwe, had the same idea. He said that attorneys were asking for an independent body to appoint all judicial officers including magistrates. What he meant was that the independent body should be independent of the department itself, if not in whole certainly in part. These were the recommendations that were made by the Transvaal Law Society in regard to the appointment of magistrates.

Order! The hon. member is now out of order.

Very well, Sir. I believe that what we are doing here is that we are not looking at the situation from a fresh point of view. What we are in fact doing is that we are just compounding something that has been going on for a long while now and has not really been satisfactory.

What I should like to talk about is the question of the deletion of the reference to “chief magistrate”. I happened to make enquiries about the situation of heads of a regional divisions and I found that the head of a regional division was on many occasions a man who sat completely divorced from sections of his divisions which operated over a very wide area. There are apparently seven regional divisions …

No, six.

I am sorry, but then I was misinformed by the hon. the Minister’s department. If he says six, then there are six.

Nevertheless they must be spread throughout the country very broadly if there are only six. I know for a fact that the regional courts which operate in the East London area are subject to a head of the regional division sitting in Port Elizabeth. My argument is that I believe that a chief magistrate who is dealing from day to day with the magistrates from whom the regional magistrates will be appointed, is a better man to be appointed to this board than the head of the regional division. The head of the regional division for instance in Port Elizabeth will not know what magistrates there are available for instance in East London should it be necessary to appoint a new regional magistrate to the East London regional court. The man who would know, would be the chief magistrate. Therefore I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister wishes to delete the reference to “chief magistrate” so that chief magistrates will in future not be able to hold appointments on the board because they are replaced with heads of regional divisions. I can find nothing in his introductory remarks to persuade me that the hon. the Minister has any valid reason for such an appointment. I personally believe that, if possible, we should go back to the status quo and that we should rather allow the Minister at this stage, if we have to, to appoint chief magistrates and officers of the department as members of the board.

Clause 3 deals, inter alia, with messengers of the court. I think that it is important for us to know, when the hon. the Minister gives these delegatory powers, what exactly are the criteria which are applied in regard to the appointment of messengers of the court. What are the criteria, for instance, when an application is made by somebody who is not a member of the Public Service? Does such an applicant for appointment as messenger of the court have to have certain legal qualifications? Does he have to have any sort of financial backing? Does he have to have some standing in the community? What are the criteria for the appointment of messengers? I believe that we should know so that we can look at the powers the hon. the Minister is asking for in regard to delegation. Other than that, we agree with clause 4; we can find no fault with it.

As far as the alterations are concerned which are consequential upon the redesignation of chief officers in the department, we have no fault to find with them. We shall therefore support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that I appreciate the support of the hon. members for Green Point and Mossel Bay as well as their brief, relevant analyses of the Bill.

†I must say that the hon. member for East London North took rather a long time to tell the House that he was supporting the Bill. [Interjections.] I would have appreciated his support even more had he refrained from deviating extensively from the Bill itself.

Unfortunately your Vote will not be discussed during this session, but I shall speak to you in August.

The hon. member is welcome. I do not propose to cut across any recommendation that the Hoexter Commission may see fit to make. As a matter of fact, if it deals with this area it will be attended to. However, I now have to bring the membership of the board into line with a situation that arose in April 1980 when the whole organization was reconstructed by the Commission for Administration. These regional courts were reorganized with a regional president at the head of each region and therefore it is merely a matter of bringing it into line. The hon. member will realize therefore that the appropriate person to deal with the appointment of any regional magistrate should of course be the senior magistrate of a region. Therefore I do not propose removing members presently serving on this board. I intend retaining them for the time being. My intention is not to bring about vast changes. Indeed, it is also possible that the present members may be appointed again. In other words, I do not foresee that we will have a vast change in policy. I am merely bringing the board into line with a situation that came into being in April last year. Does that satisfy the hon. member?

More or less.

I also want to deal briefly with the hon. member’s reference to the situation in the department and specifically with the status of a magistrate. I cannot agree more with the hon. member. I just want to say that it is my objective to strengthen the status or standing of judicial officers either on the Bench or sitting as magistrates and I hope the Hoexter Commission will strengthen me in this objective. I trust the hon. member is happy with my explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up the time of the House for long. The hon. the Minister has indicated rather broadly that he is very keen on improving the status of magistrates. However, this has been the statement of Ministers of Justice for some years now—that they are very keen on improving the status of magistrates, but we do not seem to be getting anywhere. However, in view of the fact that in terms of the Bill before the House this is hardly under discussion, I must say that I do not really have any objection to the hon. the Minister’s viewpoint. I believe it is to be welcomed and hope that he will bring about something that is real before we go much further so that we can see that there has in fact been an improvement in the status of magistrates.

Do you demand that to be done even before the end of the session?

We will be overjoyed if it could be brought about before the end of session.

In regard to the rationalization which the hon. the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech, I should like to say that I am pleased to hear that he will probably retain the board as it is presently constituted. I agree that it may well be that the heads of regional divisions could in fact be chief magistrates. The point I wanted to make in my Second Reading speech was that a Chief Magistrate, being more intimately concerned with administration and the control of magistrates in his jurisdiction, is a better man to do this than the heads of the regional division per se, and I do hope the hon. the Minister will bear this in mind. I certainly believe he will.

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

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister some questions and was very disappointed that he did not see his way clear to answering them during his reply to that debate. I am therefore going to put them to him again, because we are opposed to this clause as it stands. I asked, firstly, whether the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission agreed with the building of this line and the cement factory. I had no reply. I asked whether the Natal Provincial Administration had reacted to the plan to build this railway line and the cement factory. I received no answer. I should also like to know—because it is very much affected— whether the Natal Parks Board has been consulted. I am, in fact, horrified that the hon. the Minister did not even reassure me on a matter such as the pollution of the Umzimkulu River and the Umzimkulwana River. I was very disappointed indeed that the hon. the Minister did not find it necessary to reply to such matters of great moment, because, as I mentioned in the Second Reading debate, environmentalists and the people of Natal feel very strongly about this. They feel that one of South Africa’s premier beauty spots could well be ruined by this scheme. I also asked the hon. the Minister whether an environmental impact assessment had been done and received no answer. I expressed myself very lengthily on the subject of environmental impact assessments, because I believe that whenever one undertakes a project of this nature, it is necessary to have something like this done. I am told that the cement company concerned was quite prepared to pay for this assessment. On that basis I believe that this Bill is premature and has been brought before Parliament even though, as I understand it, none of these people have been consulted, or if they have been consulted, have not given their approval. None of these people have given their approval, and since they have not, I think the hon. the Minister is making a mistake in placing this Bill before Parliament. He did say, in his answer to the Second Reading debate, that he felt it was a necessary project. I must remind him that I also said that I believed that a project of this nature would be of benefit to the people in the area, that there is unemployment in the area and that it is necessary …

Must I withdraw the Bill and stop the line completely? Is that your proposal?

Yes, until such time as one is able to have all the facts. We do not at this stage know what the facts are. We do not know what sort of impact this is going to have on the environment as a whole in that area. In this day and age one cannot just build railway lines willy-nilly if one has objections from the people in the area. I am glad to see that the hon. member for South Coast is here, because this is a matter that is possibly going to lose him his seat in the next election.

You will be sorry after I have spoken.

The hon. member says I am going to be very sorry. Possibly what he was doing earlier was running around seeing whether he could get those people to agree to the building of the line. When I ask simple questions about this Bill, however, I get no answers. I believe that the hon. the Minister should give us those answers. I do not know what that hon. member is going to talk about. He is perhaps going to say that deals have been concluded with the town council, that the golf-course is going to be saved and all that sort of thing.

I am not interested in that. Beauty spots such as Oribi Gorge, the Umzimkulu basin and the valley there belong to the whole of South Africa. Therefore, before we make a decision, or are asked to make a decision, we should know every fact about the building of this line, and we do not at the moment.

You have all the facts.

That hon. frontbench member …

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, that hon. frontbench member regrettably …

You give me a pain in the neck sometimes.

… lacks the grey matter which will enable him to conduct a normal debate in this House. [Interjections.] I regret that the hon. member for Langlaagte is not here. His speech during the Second Reading debate did the hon. the Minister more harm than good. Unfortunately I am afraid he reflects an attitude which is all too prevalent amongst hon. members who sit in those benches. They do not care about the environment. They do not care at all. [Interjections.] They will mine in the Kruger National Park and destroy one of our premier beauty spots because they do not care.

[Inaudible.]

I would just like to say to the hon. the Minister that there are hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa of all political persuasions who do care and who are going to react very unfavourably if the hon. the Minister just steamrollers through, as he is doing at the moment. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he should carry out a public relations exercise to explain to the people of Natal and South Africa exactly what he is about, he would do himself a favour. This sort of measure should not be political.

Look who is talking!

The hon. the Minister never misses a political chance but he should realize that there are certain things which should be taken out of politics. What I will say of him is that there were many occasions when he did not, as Minister of Agriculture, make a political issue of agriculture.

You have had your Natal Stand.

The environment is for all of us, be we Nationalists, Progs, NRPs, Black or White. Does the hon. Minister not think that he owes it to those people to tell them why he is doing something like this and reassure them by saying that an environmental impact assessment has been done? If the hon. member for South Coast will tell me that an environmental impact assessment has been done and that all the people who have been complaining are now satisfied, I will withdraw my opposition to this Bill. However, as it stands, we have absolutely no alternative but to oppose it completely. When the hon. the Minister introduces a Bill of this nature, why does he not do the necessary homework beforehand? We have the report—and it was a good report—from the Railways and Harbours Board on the technical aspects of the building of this line. However, the hon. the Minister knew that there were strong objections to the line but he did not mention it. He did not say that he knew that people were upset about this line but that they need not worry and then gave his reasons for saying so. No reasons were forthcoming at all.

Sir, I am afraid that as it stands, we will oppose this clause and we will continue to oppose every part of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I shall reply fully to the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove during the Third Reading. We are dealing with the Committee Stage now and the issue here is an amendment. It is very clear to me that that hon. member is now trying to find himself a home in Natal, in Durban North in particular. He tried to deliver a political speech here which was not worthy either of this House or of himself. A very important matter is at issue here. It concerns my constituency; it concerns my people, and the hon. member is insulting the people in my constituency. I cannot allow my voters to be insulted and misled. [Interjections.] During the Third Reading of the Bill I shall prove that the hon. member for Orange Grove is talking through his hat. He does not know that part of the world and therefore he does not know what he is talking about. I warn him that he will hear more about this during the Third Reading.

The amendment that the hon. the Minister is moving, is a very sound one. I should like to thank him for having moved this amendment. During the Second Reading debate he also referred to the fact that I asked him to make this amendment.

At the same time I also want to thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North for having spoken on my behalf during the Second Reading debate. I can see from Hansard what happened. One hon. member on that side of the House was acting like a calf who had been deprived of milk for two days. The hon. member for Umhlanga shouted repeatedly: “Where is Van der Westhuyzen?” I want to ask him where the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is at the moment. It is very clear to me that the hon. member is discovering that his constituency no longer asks him to carry out important tasks there. At that stage my constituency had asked me to carry out important tasks in the constituency. However, it is clear to me that his constituency has already written him off. They do not ask him to carry out important tasks there any more.

That is very poor.

The hon. the Minister’s proposed amendment has a bearing on the agreement between the Natal Portland Cement Company and the Umtentweni Town Council. I have before me a letter that I should like to place on record. On 13 January this year the consulting engineers wrote to the Umtentweni Town Council as follows—

The Opposition asked for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. Therefore the NRP are going against their own policy of “local option”. That is to say, by doing so they are making out that the Umtentweni Town Council is not competent to judge whether the report by the consulting engineers is reliable or not. They are insulting my voters. This is what they are doing. They attacked my voters here. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that they are insulting my voters here by saying that they are not competent to judge on the basis of the report by the consulting engineers whether an alternative route is possible and that the Umtentweni Town Council is not competent to judge what is in the best interests of the South Coast area as a whole. The Opposition must tell me whether they insulted them or not. Do they want to allege that they have not insulted these people in the process?

What does the report say?

Nobody ever said that and if you think that, you are talking rubbish.

Then if this is not the case, I want to allege that the Opposition is calling into question the bona fides and the credibility of the Portland Cement Company. In other words, they want to allege that these people are carrying out an investigation, but in any event are going to do as they wish.

You are talking absolute rubbish.

The company is bending over backwards to carry out the investigation, but the Opposition says that this Bill must be referred to a Select Committee. By doing so therefore, they are alleging that the people on the spot there, who are best equipped to judge, are unable to do so. In the second place, they are calling into question the bona fides and the sincerity of the Portland Cement Company. Do you know, Sir, to whom they are administering a slap in the face in the process? This is a consortium of companies. It is money that comes from abroad. These are people who want to help our country and amongst other things they are also people who are creating employment in my constituency, a constituency that I am familiar with. I know what its needs are. These are people who are going to fulfil a need, because by the end of 1982 we will no longer have any cement in this country. I do not know whether there is perhaps a degree of jealousy. This really makes me angry. I do not know whether there is a degree of jealousy and whether they feel that these people, this international consortium, no longer has the confidence to invest in a constituency that is not represented by a member of the National Party. I do not know whether they want to close down the cement factory, but I really have the impression that this is what they are in the process of doing.

I do not want to take these arguments further. I just want to thank the hon. the Minister once again for making this amendment to the legislation. We shall discuss this further during the Third Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to use the simile that is used about a cornered rat, but this afternoon I have watched a little mouse in a corner. I witnessed a pathetic exhibition from a man who says among other things that I shouted repeatedly: Where is Van der Westhuyzen? Not once did I refer to “Van der Westhuyzen”. I referred to him as the hon. member for South Coast. Secondly, I just want to point out to that hon. member that the railway line we are discussing and were discussing at the Second Reading stage is not in my constituency. It is not in the hon. member for Amanzimtoti’s constituency; it is in his constituency and he is the man who was not here and could not be bothered to be here at Second Reading. I do not want to listen to a lot of trash from him about what he was doing. He was busy back in his “kiesafdeling” trying to get something sorted out for himself. The voters of South Coast will say goodbye to him on 29 April. He must please just forget about it, quietly wrap up his little railway line and go and hide himself under a bush. He is pathetic, to say the least.

I have listened with great interest to what has been said here. I shall also listen with great interest to what that hon. member has to say during the Third Reading debate, and I shall come back at him again if need be.

Following on the arguments that we have heard here today and following on what was said before, I sincerely believe—and I hope the hon. the Minister will listen to me—that our problem here has been a lack of communication. I say this in all sincerity to the hon. the Minister. I believe that what we have here is a situation where a great deal of this trouble and strife could have been avoided had this whole matter been handled in a slightly different manner. We have had a great deal of discussion about an environmental impact study and I think that had this been done in the earlier stages, if the attendant publicity had been given to such a study, if possibly this whole matter could have been aired to a greater extent in public, either through the media or whatever method the hon. the Minister might have found to air this whole matter, we would have found ourselves in a far happier position than that in which we find ourselves today. Regrettably, I must say that I think there has been mismanagement in the sense that the people, a vast lobby of people, feel that it is not a matter, as the hon. member for Orange Grove said, of its being “steamrollered”; they feel that they have been “railroaded” into a situation that they find unacceptable.

We concur that the amendment that has been introduced is an improvement. The fact that the hon. the Minister obviously believes that he can take the line, not from Umtentweni but from a point some four kilometres north of Umtentweni, is going to be a tremendous improvement in the situation. An examination has shown that this will mean an easier gradient on the line and it has also shown that although it will be more costly it will in the main be far more acceptable to everybody concerned. Let me restate our case. We believe, and we obviously do accept, that a railway line is going to have to be provided for an industry that is unfortunately in an area where the environment is a very, very tender and touchy subject. It is at the mouth, one might say, of the Oribi Gorge. It conjures up all sorts of things in the imagination of people. We accept that. With all that in mind, however, we do feel that at the bottom line—if I may use that terminology at the end of the day—the railway line is far more acceptable than a road motor transport system which, I think, is what they have there at the moment. That is the system of transport between what exists there today and Umtentweni. Road motor services are certainly not the answer to the needs of the area. A railway service is far preferable. We admit that. The reason why we oppose this measure, however, is because we do feel that the hon. the Minister should have put to everybody, all the people concerned, the facts of the case. It is still not yet too late to do that. The hon. member for South Coast as much as admitted it in his tirade here this afternoon. Let us have the facts of the case put to the people in that area. It can be done through the Port Shepstone Chamber of Commerce, through the local chamber of industries and through the media there. Let everybody know exactly what it is all about. Let their minds be put at rest. Let them appreciate the need for the railway line in that area. Let them know all these things. Let them know exactly what the effects of this railway line will be and what it is going to involve. That is the reason for our objection. I maintain that this has been badly handled. There has been a lack of communication between the hon. the Minister and the department on the one hand, and the people on the other hand. That is what it is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by referring to the hon. member for South Coast. I am delighted that the hon. member for South Coast, in a somewhat nonsensical speech, finally gave us an answer by telling us that an environmental impact assessment is going to be done. Surely this is a situation of the cart coming before the horse. Surely this should have been done before the hon. the Minister came to Parliament with this Bill. The hon. member for South Coast knows very well that we did not insult the people of Umtentweni or the local town board. He is trying to …

Ignore him. He is an idiot.

He is trying to …

Order! The hon. member for Umhlanga must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “idiot”.

The hon. member for South Coast is on the defensive.

Ignore him. He is a fool.

I can well understand this sort of development could be a very fine development for the good of South Africa. I said so at Second Reading, when the hon. member for South Coast did not even bother to be here. A technology which wrecks the environment, I must stress, is a technology we do not want. It is a technology not worth having. Development that ruins or wrecks the quality of life of people is development that we do not want. We want to be assured, before we undertake a development plan of this nature, firstly that all the people in the area want it and approve of it, and secondly that it will not wreck the environment. I do not believe this is too much to ask.

Mr. Chairman, with each piece of legislation in respect of soil conservation in South Africa I have experienced nothing but opposition from the Opposition in this House. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove wants to come here and tell me today that I have no time for the conservation of our soil. He is welcome to go and read Hansard if he wants to see how I was opposed when on one occasion I pleaed for four days in this House that this destruction of our soil had to be stopped and we had to vote on every clause of that particular Bill. I am referring to the debate at that time on the Bill on the subdivision of agricultural land.

What about the Kruger National Park? You wanted to allow mining operations in the Kruger National Park.

Today the hon. member for Orange Grove is holier than the holiest. Now he is accusing me of not being in favour of the conservation and protection of our soil.

He is the Ayatollah.

The hon. member maintains that I did not answer his question.

†I said that it was a contract between the S.A. Railways and the Natal Portland Cement Company. I give the hon. member for South Coast ten out of ten. He came to me and he told me that his constituents were unhappy because of the provisions of this clause. After having listened to him, I said to him: “Alter this clause.” The hon. member for Umhlanga has now told us that the line may be four kilometres longer. He said, however, that they wanted a railway line; they did not want a bus service.

Trucks, heavy duty vehicles.

Trucks. So the only alternative we now have is helicopters, according to the hon. member for Orange Grove.

*Sir, three Railway Commissioners went there and met all these people. They consulted everyone. They came back and drew a map which I have made available. It was quite a distance from Oribi Gorge. Now the hon. member comes here and says that everyone has to be satisfied. It is just not possible to satisfy everyone because there are people over whose land the railway line has to run. I asked the Opposition explicitly: “Do you want a cement factory?” They all replied in a chorus: “Yes, we want a cement factory.” Now you say that everyone has to be satisfied. How are we going to convey the cement then?

†The hon. member for Orange Grove’s words were: “The hon. member for South Coast is definitely going to lose his seat.” Is this not politically inspired? Are we talking politics or are we talking about a railway line? [Interjections.]

*If we are going to talk politics, if the Chairman will allow me to do so, then we are going to have sports, my friend! I am going to arrange a meeting on this issue in that constituency and I am going to quote to that meeting what has been said here and I am going to quote what the hon. member’s party has said with regard to soil conservation. I have not lost my tongue, have I? If there has to be a fight then I enjoy it. I am glad about this because I thought Railways was going to be a tranquil portfolio.

Calm down, man! The hon. the Minister is just like a puffed-up bullfrog. If he is not careful he will explode.

Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville just made it when the hon. member for Orange Grove … [Interjections.]

Order!

I say those hon. members should not rise and make sanctimonious speeches on the issue of soil conservation and then try to drag politics into it by saying that the hon. member is going to lose his seat.

No one protected Lorimer’s soil when Harry took it! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary to reply to all the nonsense that was spoken by those hon. members opposite. I say that they spoke a lot of nonsense. I wish I could be quoted on this. I replied to every point they raised. We are not going to pay the amount of R21 million. That has to be paid by the Natal Portland Cement Company. They are going to pay for the line. We are not going to tell them to alter the route. The hon. member for South Coast quoted from the letter from the Umtentweni Town Board and referred to the consultations that they are having with those people.

What about the Natal regional authority?

Must I go to those people and say: “You do not want a cement factory?” Am I correct? [Interjections.] Am I right? Must we stop this cement factory completely?

You must wait until you get permission. You must do what everybody else has to do. [Interjections.]

I ask the hon. member: “Must we stop this cement factory?”

I do not know and you should not know either. [Interjections.]

Order!

Two days ago all those hon. members said: “Do not stop the cement factory. We want that factory.” I told hon. members then that I was not here to argue with them about the matter. I said that I was here to ask for permission to build a railway line once the Natal Portland Cement Company had come to terms with the Umtentweni Town Board. What more can I do?

You have not had the reports yet. Why don’t you wait for the report?

Which reports must I wait for? [Interjections.] Sir, that does not help at all. We can argue as much as we like. The hon. member for Umhlanga came along and said: “The hon. member for South Coast could not be bothered to be here in this House to protect his constituents.” Do you not think that that is playing politics, Sir? On the same day I asked the Opposition—there were only a few of them …

You are the biggest political playboy ever!

There were only a few of them that day. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville was scared witless when he heard that the hon. member for Orange Grove wanted to oppose him in the election. He was not present in this House. Now he has his little seat and now I can see his gills so thrilled is he! [Interjections.]

You are the playgirl of the month!

Sir, I am not playing politics with the Railways and I shall therefore content myself with that.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to place on record that the hon. the Minister has not answered my question. I asked him whether or not the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission had given their consent in this regard. The hon. the Minister must realize that every development and every undertaking in the province of Natal has to go through channels before a decision is made on whether such development can go ahead. Just because the Railways and Parliament are above the normal channels the hon. the Minister wants to ride rough-shod over all of them, forget about them and go ahead.

Read my amendment.

I have read it and I listened to the hon. the Minister with interest. But I ask the hon. the Minister again whether it would not have been more intelligent to have done all this first before coming to Parliament and indicating that he is now going to go ahead with the project.

What will happen if the result of the environmental impact assessment is that this development is undesirable because it will destroy the environment? What will the hon. the Minister then do? Is he going to stop it? [Interjections.] That is what we would like an answer to.

Another question I put to the hon. the Minister was whether the Natal Provincial Administration approves of this development. There is no answer to that question. I have heard nothing at all about this because they have not been asked and they have not given their consent. The hon. the Minister thinks he can ride rough-shod over the people of Natal and the people of South Africa. He does not seem to care. I say again that of course we want development, but I do not have the facts at my disposal to arrive at a decision on this and that is why I moved that this legislation be referred to a Select Committee. The hon. the Minister obviously does not have the facts either.

He has not made an impact.

Certainly not here.

He is being a playboy.

Even at this late stage I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he think again and get the facts before him before we make a decision on this railway line.

Mr. Chairman, I should merely like to make the observation that I reacted to the hon. member for South Coast—as it is my right to do so. If anybody started playing politics it is he who tried to play politics with me. [Interjections.] However, when I addressed the hon. the Minister, I spoke to him in a quiet manner, I used moderate language and a quiet tone. But the way in which the hon. the Minister has replied in this instance does not warrant any respect from this side at all. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I admit that the hon. member for Umhlanga spoke to me in a quiet manner but what did he do to my colleague?

I cut him up, which was what he deserved.

Why should I cut him up? The hon. member for Orange Grove said that I did not take an intelligent decision. I agree. I made a stupid decision, but the hon. member for South Coast made a very intelligent decision by asking me to effect this amendment.

It is a pity that he was not here to tell us this.

If it was not for the hon. member for South Coast this amendment would not have been effected.

So you admit that you are stupid?

Yes, I do. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I said I would admit that I was stupid, but the hon. member must then admit that the hon. member for South Coast is very intelligent.

Say you are sorry and sit down. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of development in the country, but I am also in favour of the protection of our soil. On the other hand I should like to see the Natal Portland Cement Company being given an opportunity to reinvestigate the construction of this railway line. They can then decide whether they are prepared to bear the extra cost of the additional 4½kilometres of railway line and an additional tunnel. A golf course was also mentioned here, but only one little corner of it will be affected by this development. However, I am prepared to give interested parties an opportunity to discuss the matter again. I want to give Natal the opportunity to have employment opportunities created for hundreds of people in a cement factory. I want to give Natal the opportunity to be self-sufficient with regard to cement. The people there must also have houses, roofs over their heads. I want to give them that opportunity and for that reason I thank the hon. member for South Coast and the Commissioners who investigated this matter. I also thank the Railways Administration and everyone involved in this matter and everyone who held discussions. I am grateful for the advice I received …

But what about the Natal Provincial Administration?

Later on we can hold further discussions on the construction of this line.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, it is a great privilege for me to be a member of this hon. House. In the first place I want to convey my sincere gratitude and appreciation towards those who made it possible for me to become a member of the House. In the second place I want to testify that I was received here with a great deal of friendliness and with a generosity that was a pleasant surprise. I believe that my sojourn here, even though it may be of short duration, will be very pleasant. Of course, I cannot allege that the friendliness and courtesy that the hon. members of the Opposition have displayed towards me thus far, will continue. However, I hope that I will be able to maintain a good relationship with them, as far as possible.

It was my privilege to serve on the Natal Provincial Council together with other hon. members on this side of the House. I served on that council for six years. It was also my privilege to be a member of the Other Place for 15 years, and now it is my privilege to serve in this hon. House. That is why I should just like to attest to the fact that the time that one spends here will be fruitful and that we shall have the opportunity of getting to grips here with the challenges put to South Africa.

I am availing myself of this opportunity, viz. the discussion of clause 4 of the Bill, not because I want to make a long maiden speech, but rather because I should like to break the ice in order to contribute towards this debate on a later occasion, perhaps in a more meaningful way. It is true that a considerable number of accusations have been cast back and forth during this discussion, but in the nature of things I shall not take part in them. However, I want to say that for me personally, and I believe, for the province that I represent here too, this is a very important Bill. That is why we read with interest about the agreement that was made between the Railways Administration and the Portland Cement Company. In cases like this it is apparently not customary for the Railways Administration to finance and construct such guaranteed railway lines itself, on the one hand because there is a great deal of pressure brought to bear on the Railways Administration to provide further services with regard to existing railway lines and on the other hand due to the great pressure to extend railway lines through the rest of the country, particularly where this is more economical. Therefore, on the recommendation of the Railway Commissioners, the Railways Administration has entered into the agreement with regard to this railway line which is usually known as a guaranteed railway line. The aim is that the Railways— apparently this is the custom—will expropriate the property over which the line will pass, and that the Portland Cement Company, as the guarantor, will finance the line, build it according to the prescriptions of the Administration and after the completion of the negotiations, will hand over the line and the area on which it is built, to the Administration for the management thereof. In this case the Portland Cement Company will also have to carry the operating losses. I do not intend going into the fairly complicated formula according to which the operating losses will be calculated. All I want to say, is that it is an extremely favourable arrangement for the Railways Administration. That is why, on my part, I should like to tell those who were involved in the negotiations, including the company, that it is a fine piece of work and that the entire population of South Africa and the economy as a whole will benefit a great deal by it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member Mr. Klopper on his first contribution in the House. I consider him a special person with special gifts. He is very fond of a particular province, viz. Natal. He is also a person who is loyal towards anything he believes in. I believe that he will still make fine contributions here in the future, and I should like to congratulate him on behalf of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill is intended to amend several statutory provisions applicable to the Railways. The implications of the various clauses are set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, so I shall only refer briefly to the more important aspects.

Provision is made in the Bill, among other things, for substituting the word “employee” for the term “servant” where it occurs in various Railways Acts and regulations. This step was decided upon in response to representations by the staff associations. It is believed that the term “servant” is outdated and does not enhance the image of the railwayman. The terms “employee” will be used for all staff, and no distinction is being drawn between White, non-White and casual staff.

Furthermore, the Bill is intended to bring about certain changes in the disciplinary system of the Railways, arising from the recommendations of the departmental committee appointed at the request of the Federal Consultative Council of the S.A.R. and H. staff associations to investigate the disciplinary system. The proposed amendments provide, inter alia, for an amended procedure to be followed in retiring an employee on grounds of incompetence; for employees who are suspected of having committed certain disciplinary offences henceforth to be allowed to do other work temporarily while retaining their salaries; for the expunging of fines not exceeding R25 from the disciplinary record of an employee upon whom no recorded penalty is imposed within the next five years; and for additional rights of appeal for employees in specific cases. It is believed that the implementation of these recommendations, as well as certain other proposals that have been accepted in connection with the disciplinary system, will give a large measure of satisfaction to the staff.

†In terms of section 24A(1) of the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act, 1977, the Administration can, without prior approval of Parliament, make ex gratia payments not exceeding R10 000. The Bill provides for the amendment of this enactment to enable the General Manager of Railways to exercise these powers, thus placing the department on an equal footing with the Treasury, which is accorded similar powers in terms of section 31(1) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975. At the same time the discretionary powers conferred on the General Manager of Railways in terms of General Railway Regulation 266 and Harbour Regulation 172, which allow for the remission of revenue, are being incorporated into the Finances and Accounts Act and are being extended to apply to both the remission and refund of revenue in respect of all services of the Administration. The limit of R1 000 is raised to R10 000 in line with the proposed limit for ex gratia payments.

I wish to show the Opposition that I am only here to co-operate. They gave me notice of an amendment. I think it was the hon. member for Umhlanga who proposed the amendment. I referred it to the Auditor-General and he said that he agreed with it except that the R1 000 should be made R5 000. If they read my amendment, hon. members will see that I agree that it be referred to the Auditor-General as the hon. member’s amendment suggests. Therefore I am not always very difficult; as a matter of fact, I think I am very co-operative.

Other amendments relate to the application of the benefits provided for in the Railways and Harbours Pensions Amendment Act, 1941, to staff transferred from Iscor to the South African Railways; an increase in the rate of contributions by members of the Railways and Harbours Pension Fund with effect from 1 December 1979; the monthly interest rate at which the Level Crossings Elimination Fund is credited; and other incidental matters.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister presented this very technical Bill in a very chastened frame of mind, I thought. We almost had a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation. We suddenly had a very good hon. Minister while, not very long before that, we had quite an angry hon. Minister.

As I have said, this Bill is largely of a technical nature. We will be supporting it through all its stages. We approve of the amendment that appears on the Order Paper. We will also accept the qualification which the hon. the Minister has attached to that amendment.

Firstly, with regard to the removal of the word “servant”, which is going to be replaced by the word “employee”, we feel that in this day and age there is really no place at all for a word like “servant”. People who serve the community as employees of the S.A. Railways should no longer be given a nomenclature which now has come to mean something else. At one time people used to be proud of being servants, but times have changed and that word no longer has the pleasant connotation which it used to have in the old days.

The technicalities in connection with the transfer of pension benefits from Iscor to the S.A. Railways, because of the Sishen-Saldanha take-over, is something we approve of. We also do not complain about the stipulation in connection with the interest on the level-crossings fund. We also support the disciplinary code alterations, which come about in response to a request by the Federal Consultative Council of the SAR and H. Staff Association. All in all we have no quarrel with this Bill. I must point out that we specifically approve of the stipulation in the Bill on the question of ex gratia payments. Over a period of years the Select Committee has been singularly troubled with discussions on ex gratia payments of little importance, and we do not believe that it should be necessary for that sort of payments to come before Parliament for approval. These amendments have our approval. We will support this Bill through all its stages.

Even though the hon. the Minister has congratulated the last speaker, I should like to express the congratulations also of my party to the last speaker on the previous Bill, the hon. member Mr. Klopper, who made his maiden speech in this House today, although he is a man of tremendous experience both in the Natal Provincial Council and in the Other Place, which is no more. May it rest in peace. His speech gave us, I believe, an indication of the calibre of the man he is. He is obviously a good speaker and will, I am sure, make a very fine contribution in this House.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Orange Grove, we too will be supporting this measure. I must point out though that I find myself in a most unusual situation. The hon. the Minister, in his Second Reading speech, indicated that he would accept an amendment, and also amended that amendment. Furthermore the hon. member for Orange Grove indicated that he would support that amendment as amended. Yet I have not even had the opportunity of moving that amendment. This is quite an interesting situation in which I find myself now.

They all like you, Brian.

That is right. It is nice to be able to rise now and get a bite of the cherry. I think that we will indicate in due course that we are very happy with what the hon. the Minister has suggested.

I join the hon. member for Orange Grove in congratulating the hon. member Mr. Klopper with his maiden speech. He is a gentleman I have known for a number of years, a gentleman whom I admire tremendously. He was a very doughty member of the Natal Provincial Council. We all respect him. I know that all hon. members, irrespective of party affiliations, have always liked him and have always acknowledged that he is a person of great talent. We welcome him to this House and we congratulate him on his maiden speech here.

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss a few of the clauses. Clause 7(5) states that an employee who is retired on the ground of inefficiency shall be paid the benefits that would have been paid to him had he been retired from the service on the grounds of reorganization. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister how, in his opinion, this would affect the issue. How many people could be involved in such a situation and what percentage of employees would it affect? Does the hon. the Minister feel that it would place any strain on the pension fund?

Turning to clause 12, we note that the employee may now appeal to the General Manager if he is dissatisfied with the appeal board’s findings. This is something that we heartily endorse. We feel that this is a very good step because we are now reaching the situation where the aggrieved employee can go to the highest court, as it were, in the Administration. He now has access to the General Manager, at the top of the tree, and we therefore heartily endorse this.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with the Level Crossing Elimination Fund in his Second Reading speech. We feel that this has been far too long in coming, and we would like an indication from the hon. the Minister whether his officials can give us any guidelines as to how much they can expect to gain as a result of this amendment. What sort of gain do they hope to achieve? We should like some indication if the hon. the Minister is in a position to give it. If not, we would understand.

Clause 26 deals with ex gratia payments of less than R10 000. The General Manager is now empowered to approve these payments. With this we have no argument. However, we note that it does not require the matter to be dealt with in terms of section 7, and we also note that the words “and no important principle is involved” have been deleted. We are somewhat disturbed by that because we wonder why it should be necessary to delete those words. We would like the hon. the Minister to comment on this. Is it in line with what is being done by the Treasury? Are we merely following something that has been done in another measure, or is it specific to this Bill before us? We feel that it is very important, because the omission of those words could certainly have an effect on a case. We would also like to know why the terms of section 7 should not apply. Why should they be deleted?

In the Committee Stage we will be moving the amendment to clause 27 increasing the figure from R1 000 to R5 000, in line with the hon. the Minister’s suggestion. We are happy to accept that, and we do appreciate the hon. the Minister’s intimation that he would accept such amendment.

Other than these remarks we have no argument with this measure and feel it is worthy of support. It does much for both the employees and the Administration and it assists in the smooth running of the affairs of the S.A. Railways. We will therefore be supporting the Bill in its various stages and look forward to the acceptance of our amendment in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation which is before us at the moment is a source of pleasure to someone who for years was concerned with the kind of minor disciplinary action intended to discipline the staff according to the standards of those times.

In terms of clause 11, for example, a minor offence is no longer to be recorded if the person involved does not commit a similar offence within a prescribed period. I think this is reasonable, and in my opinion, this legislation can only be conducive to greater loyalty on the part of the Railway worker towards the Railways and the department. What is being achieved in this legislation today is merely the amelioration of the worker’s circumstances and the adjustment of situations in which he may find himself, but for which he often cannot be claimed. Over many years, disciplinary committees have been very strict. They are not less strict now, but the legislation now makes it clear that the worker concerned certainly enjoys the benefit of the doubt. If there is any doubt about whether he is really guilty, the worker will receive the benefit of the doubt. Minor offences are not to be recorded against him, but on condition that such offences are not repeated within a certain period. We convey our sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department and we believe that the Railway employees certainly deserve this concession.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members for Langlaagte and Orange Grove. They serve on the Select Committee concerned and are familiar with the problems. What we are dealing with here arose from the discussions which took place in the Select Committee.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga asked questions on various clauses but before I reply, I want to point out that we are now coming into line with what the Treasury is doing at the moment. The hon. member wanted to know what amount of money will be involved. At this stage I find it very difficult to state the exact amount. I can go into the matter and supply him with the correct answer at a later stage, but in the meantime I can give him the assurance that it is not a large amount. We have taken note of his questions and my officials will furnish a written reply containing the exact figures. It is no use my saying that it is not more than, say, R10 000 when later it may be found that the actual amount is larger. I should like to have the opportunity of replying to those questions in writing.

I thank the Opposition for their support.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to a matter raised by the hon. member for Umhlanga during the Second Reading debate. I am referring to the deletion of the words “and no important principle is involved”. This appears to us to need an explanation, because we do believe that if an important principle is involved, the Auditor-General should report the matter. I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s comment on that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member seems to be worried about the deletion of these words. It is all a matter of discretion, because one cannot have a hard and fast rule. A principle is, of course, always important, but in business one has to have certain variations, like certain political parties. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. the Minister is quite with us. What is happening here, is that the discretion is actually being removed. If the amount is less than R10 000, even if an important principle is involved, the Auditor-General does not have to report the matter. I believe, however, that he should have to report it.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is covered in my amendment to clause 27.

I think it helps.

If it does not help, we can rectify the matter.

Would the hon. the Minister accept an amendment which left “and no important principle is involved” in the legislation?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, removing those words would bring the situation exactly in line with the Exchequer and Audit Act, but if the hon. member wants them in, I am happy. I wanted to take them out to bring this legislation into line with the Exchequer and Audit Act, but this is a smarter under-taking than the Treasury; so we can retain these words.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister moves his amendment, I should just like to ask one question. In the explanatory memorandum it is stated that clause 27 owes its origins to the fact of the consolidation of Act 70 of 1957 and Act 73 of 1962 into a single Act to be known as The South African Transport Services Act. Because we have not yet seen the South African Transport Services Act, and do not even know whether it will appear before us during this session of Parliament, because the Act that was on the Order Paper has been withdrawn, I wonder if this clause is still necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I think that was necessary. I withdrew the Act because of a shortage of time and certain problems in the printing, etc. I think we should keep it like this. I shall be moving my amendment in accordance with the suggestions of the hon. member for Umhlanga. I do not think that the inclusion of this provision will really affect this legislation. We can then proceed with the consolidated measure next session, and I take it the hon. member for Orange Grove will be back next session.

I shall be back.

Let us co-operate then.

*If the hon. member co-operates with me, I shall go and make an election speech for him.

I will take you up on that.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should now like to move the amendment. It reads as follows—

We referred this amendment to the Treasury and to the legal advisers and they say this is the wording we should use.

Mr. Chairman, we are happy to accept the amendment. In the circumstances, I withdraw the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Whereas the proposed amendment merely seeks to empower the State President to make regulations relating to the establishment, management and control of a medical scheme for the South African Police to substitute the existing medical funds, I deem it advisable just to elucidate cursorily certain aspects of the proposed new medical scheme.

As hon. members probably know, members of the Force at present receive medical services at State expense as a condition of service, except specific additional services, in respect of which a member is accountable for one-seventh of the costs. However, all services rendered by the district surgeon are free.

In terms of the Health Act, 1977, personal health services were transferred to the various provincial administrations. Some services have already been transferred, whereas others are to be transferred at a date yet to be fixed. In effect, if taken to its logical conclusion, the transfer would mean that not only serving members and their dependents, but also retired members and their dependents and the dependents of members who have died would be dependent on the provincial hospitals for consultations, treatment, medicine, etc., something which could cause a disruption of hospital services in the larger centres.

After a thorough investigation and consultations, the alternative appeared to be a separate medical scheme for all members of the S.A. Police.

Such a recommendation was made and the Cabinet gave approval for a separate medical scheme to be created which makes provision at State expense for medical services as stipulated in the regulations for the S.A. Police, with the proviso that members pay one-tenth of the costs for medical services, calculated according to the statutory tariff and provided by persons registered with the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. The same applies to the dependants of serving White, Coloured and Asian members, to members who are on pension and their dependents and to the dependents of members who have died. An allowance approved by the Treasury is paid to the lawful dependents of serving Black members, and the allowances are continued after retirement.

Consequently the scheme will mean that members are afforded the choice of consulting any registered general practitioner of their own choice.

I should also like to add that after negotiations, the Public Service Medical Aid Association is to attend to the administration of the scheme.

The idea is for the scheme to come into operation on 1 April 1981, and the amendment now being submitted to this House is essential for the making of the regulations.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that the existing Medical Funds A and B of the Police are to lapse when the new scheme comes into operation. I believe that the envisaged scheme is a great improvement, and I am sure hon. members will support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. the Minister with interest. Clearly, this is a Bill that should receive the support of all members of the House, and it will receive the support of the official Opposition. As the hon. the Minister has told us, the Bill provides for the establishment of a medical aid scheme for members of the S.A. Police and their families. It also provides for similar services for retired members and their families. In general terms, it offers them the hope, in my view, of greater medical benefits than they have had in the past. It is true, of course, that in the present circumstances they in fact get medical attention which is totally free whereas in terms of the proposed scheme they are going to be responsible for paying one-tenth of the medical services they receive. This is something which can be looked at and debated about. In that sense they will be worse off, but I believe that the advantages of having a medical aid scheme will give the people concerned far greater independence in their choice of the medical advisers they consult. I believe that in the past the Police Force has had to deal with the District Surgeon, whereas in terms of this scheme the members will be able to choose their own medical advisers. I think that that is always a situation to be preferred. In that sense, therefore, there is clearly an advantage.

As the hon. the Minister has indicated, the scheme will apply to all members of the S.A. Police, members of all races. I think that in general terms one must see this as a scheme which will be to the benefit of the members of the S.A. Police and their dependents. I think it is high time that some consideration is given to the service conditions of the S.A. Police, which is in so many ways the poor relation of the Public Service in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has now come with a constructive move to give to the Police Force its own medical aid scheme and I hope that this will be the prelude to many other benefits being given to the Police Force, benefits such as realistic, decent, civilized service conditions and realistic salary scales. These improvements are greatly overdue. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to move forward with much greater success than he had last year when, having spoken of improved salary scales he was going to announce and having thus raised high expectations, he came with salary scales which were totally pitiful and out of all proportion to the needs of the Police.

We did very well last year.

I hope he is going to be more successful. He has come with this scheme and, in dealing with the real needs of the S.A. Police Force he will, I hope, introduce salary scales which will be totally realistic and not as unrealistic as those which apply at the present time.

However, I do not want to go into that matter. We are dealing with a medical aid scheme, a scheme for a section of our service which is desperately in need of better service conditions. We are all concerned and we realize and appreciate the important functions which the S.A. Police perform in South Africa. We believe that their service conditions and other conditions should be improved. As I say, I believe and I hope that this measure, a measure which in general terms is a great improvement on the situation in regard to the Police Force, will be a prelude to the improvement of conditions in the Police Force in other respects as well.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a modest measure before this House, one which really concerns a peaceful subject. However, it is not correct to intimate that the implications of this measure are modest, for in my opinion it concerns a very intimate matter as far as the members of the Force are concerned. At the same time it is something for which we are very grateful and that is why we thank the official Opposition that, through its chief spokesman, the hon. member for Musgrave, has supported this measure.

However, it is also not quite correct to say that we are dealing with a peaceful subject in peaceful times, for it is very clear that the political war clouds are gathering, and they are gathering over this modest measure as well. The temptation was particularly great for the hon. member for Musgrave to use this measure, too, to create sentiment in respect of a matter other than the measure about which we are debating here. Permit me to point out to the hon. member that this hon. Minister operates under NP colours and that he is striving, within the limits of his abilities, to serve the best interests of the S.A. Police. I consider that this measure bears testimony to the goodwill of the hon. the Minister in putting the interests of the police first.

The measure is, on the one hand, a demonstration of sound government, in the sense that it merely asks that the State President be afforded the opportunity to make regulations in terms of which the medical scheme in question is to be administered, and on the other hand, the interests of the S.A. Police are being put first, in that a long-felt need is being met, viz. a separate, autonomous medical scheme for the Force, a proud Force, a Force which plays an essential and important part in our country’s administration.

However, there is one matter to which I want to refer with reference to what the hon. member for Musgrave had to say, and that is the exceptionally commendable step which has been taken to make provision for members of the S.A. Police to be able to make a free, individual choice as to which medical practitioner they wish to consult in their need for medical assistance. I consider that commendable. The fact that members now have to make a contribution of a mere one-tenth to medical costs does not provide grounds for an argument that the members of the Force are now worse off than before. In certain circumstances they had in any event to make a contribution of one-seventh. When certain additional services were provided, they had in any event to make a contribution of one-seventh.

In short, I gladly support the measure on behalf of this side of the House and we congratulate the hon. the Minister on it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Police knows full well that every time he comes to this House with a measure that will improve the lot of the South African policeman he will have my wholehearted support and certainly also the support of my party. We do endorse and support this Bill, one might almost say, enthusiastically. We welcome it.

We are very, very pleased to note that retired policemen and their dependants are going to benefit as a result of the introduction of this medical aid scheme. We are also very gratified to note that the dependants of deceased members will benefit. After all, these are the people, usually in their advanced years, who are worried about their security. They are worried about where the next 10 cents will come from. Medical expenses removed from their worries is a tremendous burden lifted from their shoulders. As far as the question is concerned of the employee or the dependant being responsible for one-tenth of the costs, I sincerely believe that when one measures that against the benefits, those benefits far outweigh the nominal cost. I am sure that every policeman and everybody concerned will agree that the benefits are certainly a tremendous advantage against what will be a very small cost in most instances.

Mr. Speaker, to have one’s own doctor, I think, is not something that is very important to us as members of the male sex. I am sure, however, that one will find that any of our wives and families appreciate very, very much indeed to be able, in terms of a medical aid scheme, to go to the doctor of their choice. It is a tremendously important thing to a woman.

I appreciate that.

It really is very important. I know that we are discussing this here in respect of the Police. Nevertheless, this is something I should like to see in any medical aid fund or scheme or whatever. People should be entitled to go to the doctor of their own choice, as long as that doctor is a man of good standing in the profession. That is a most welcome provision, particularly again for the dependants, especially those in their advanced years. They feel it more often far more than others do.

This measure has our wholehearted support. We are very, very delighted to see that here is something that we can only look upon as an improvement in the conditions of employment of South African policemen. We shall be giving this measure our support through all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, it was really quite interesting to listen to the hon. member for Krugersdorp, particularly when he discussed what he described as the political war clouds which were hanging over us. [Interjections.] It is true that in this debate we may also be under those political war clouds.

Particularly you and Lorimer.

It is very clear that some of us are in actual fact disappointed as this is the only measure which is being introduced during this session by means of which the conditions of service of the policeman are in actual fact being improved. I must honestly say that I am very disappointed about this. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must not elaborate on that subject.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the legislation under discussion and the fact that what it embodies is not enough.

Order! The hon. member may discuss the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing the legislation.

The hon. member may discuss matters which are not contained in the legislation under discussion, during the debate on the Part Appropriation.

Mr. Speaker, I am now discussing the principle of the Bill.

The principle of the legislation concerns a medical aid scheme, and the hon. member may discuss that.

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing that. That is exactly what I am discussing. The principle contained in this Bill concerns only a medical aid scheme; nothing else.

What more do you want in it? [Interjections.]

There are many other things which ought to be done. Mr. Speaker, you will not permit me to discuss those other things. But there are other things. [Interjections.] It is necessary that it be mentioned that there are other things.

Rather tell us about Lord Lorimer. [Interjections.]

Hon. members also made much of the measure here, as though it were something which was so good for the policeman. Yes, in principle that is true, but what should also be mentioned is that the services which are available to the policeman are in actual fact supplied to him free of charge. He is not accountable for the cost. Only in the case of exceptional services does he have to pay a small portion. He enjoys the usual services without having to pay for them.

He goes to the district surgeon.

Yes, he goes to the district surgeon. Are those hon. members maintaining that they are not attacking the district surgeons? [Interjections.] I say that those people have rendered fine service, but now they are being attacked by the hon. member for Brakpan. The quality of the services that have been rendered, have been sound, and I do not think that the hon. the Minister can dispute that. It is a fact.

I want to give the hon. the Minister notice at this early stage of the fact that I am going to move an amendment during the Committee Stage which will once again make it possible to supply free services to the police, for as this piece of legislation reads at present, he will have to pay a portion himself in terms of regulations.

What does Helen say about that?

I shall move that the scheme be regulated in such a way that the policeman may enjoy certain services without having to pay for them, for he is in actual fact entitled to them and ought to enjoy them. [Interjections.]

Order!

It would really be a problem for many policemen to have to pay a tenth of their medical costs. It is of course more convenient for one to be able to have one’s own doctor and not to have to go to the district surgeon or to have to make use of certain hospitals only.

That is all I wanted to say.

That hon. member who is now making such a noise is opposed to policemen being given these rights. [Interjections.] That is the whole attitude of the NP. Policemen are struggling with small salaries, but those hon. members, who earn big salaries, sit there and laugh and are not interested. [Interjections.]

Order!

There is a further point I should like to raise in connection with this legislation. It is being said that there is no discrimination on the basis of race in this respect. Is this correct? Is this true?

Just go on with your speech.

The hon. the Minister does not want to reply. They say there is no discrimination, but let me quote the words of the hon. the Minister himself—

Whites, Coloureds and Asians are therefore covered, but why not Black members too? But he goes on—

Why is the Black man not dealt with in the same manner as the Whites, Coloureds and Asians? Why is there a difference here as well?

Because he is Black.

We want to know from the hon. the Minister why there is a difference. Furthermore, what are the allowances going to be? It is of the utmost importance that there should be no discrimination on the basis of colour in the Police Force. However, the hon. the Minister is again dragging something of this nature in by the back door. This is quite wrong. We support the legislation in principle, but we require an undertaking from the hon. the Minister that there is going to be no discrimination on the basis of colour in any respect as regards this matter.

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague the hon. member for Umhlanga I welcome very heartily the Bill before the House. I think it is something which will also be very much welcomed by the S.A. Police. I should like to agree heartily with my colleague that the 10% levy payable by the members is a very small price to pay for a comprehensive medical service …

For people earning a few hundred rand per month?

… and in fact is desirable because I believe that people who contribute towards their service appreciate it even more.

My colleague made the very important point that it was to be welcomed that the members of this scheme could go to the doctor of their choice. I believe that that is something that will be very much welcomed because the state of one’s health and one’s choice of doctor are very intimate matters.

There is one small question I should like to put. I hope it is not going to present a problem. I frame it as a question and I should appreciate the hon. the Minister’s comment on it. In clause 1, line 8, there is reference to “the provision of medicines”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention, with the clause phrased as it is, to establish through this medical aid scheme dispensaries for the provision of medicine to the members of the scheme, or whether it is his intention to allow members to go to the pharmacy of their choice with their prescriptions. That is my only question and I should appreciate an answer to that when the hon. the Minister replies to the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Speaker, as a medical man I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that this Bill is of tremendous importance. It may perhaps have a few weak spots, but I nevertheless believe that a medical scheme is meant to pay everything. Nevertheless, I agree that a contribution of 10% to medical costs is not tremendously high. However, the perfect medical fund pays for everything.

Tell that to Harry.

I am talking now. Keep quiet. [Interjections.]

Order!

I only wish to put questions to the hon. the Minister in respect of two points. It will be easy to reply to the first one, but I wish to make a point with it. Who is going to administer the medical fund?

I have already replied to that in my speech.

Yes, but I just wish to point out that at the moment there are more than 250 medical funds in our country. The hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions, who is present here, will confirm it. Each of those funds in turn is administered by a different group. All this contributes towards the cost and makes the services to patients cumbersome and more expensive. I therefore wish to request that, if it is at all possible, the medical funds for employees of the State in particular should fall under one umbrella body. I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is here as well. I hope that he is shortly going to introduce a similar Bill for Railway personnel, because I think it is just as necessary.

There is a final point I wish to make. As I understand it, medical schemes not only pay for treatment by doctors or for medicine, but also for treatment in a hospital. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if this includes private hospitals. If so, does it include all medical services, or are there medical services that are excluded? I am speaking from experience of which the House is perhaps not aware. Many medical schemes exclude certain types of medical treatment. In my own field, that of heart surgery, medical funds will pay for treatment provided it is given in a provincial hospital. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this medical fund will cover all medical treatment, including medical treatment in private hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing that one also finds in this House the opportunists you find outside. To be honest, I must say that I do not quite know why there are Whips on the Opposition side. The hon. member for Yeoville is the biggest opportunist this House has ever seen. He has never heard of Whips, or else he does not pay any attention to them. While he sits here listening to a Second Reading speech, he has a brainwave with which he can enter into a debate.

You are now telling untruths.

The hon. member is well aware of the arrangements made in respect of this debate, but he pays no attention to them.

I may not say that you are lying, but … [Interjections.]

He pays no attention to them. Why not? He does so because he wants to avail himself of every opportunity before the election to make an impression on the South African Police. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the S.A. Police has no time for people like him when they try to make an impression with this kind of opportunistic performance. All of a sudden he is terribly worried about the salaries and conditions of service of the S.A. Police. He wants to talk about it now and you, Mr. Speaker, have had to restrain him. It is just a false impression he is trying to create here, and he is wasting the time of the House with his opportunism. It has nothing to do with this Bill.

Did your Whips not tell you we had three speakers?

He now comes forward with brainwaves and even wants to move as an amendment that there should be a free medical service for all policemen, and that after we have been negotiating and struggling for more than a year to get this scheme formulated, after I had received the assistance of all my colleagues in the Cabinet and of their departments who, in the best of spirits, tried their best to get this scheme passed for the various departments involved, including the S.A. Police. Now, like a bolt from the blue, an amendment has to be moved calling for free medical services. I want to tell the hon. member right now that I will not accept such an amendment. Why did the hon. member move it? It is simply a brainwave to impress the S.A. Police, so that they will ask why they have to pay the contribution of one-tenth. Every member of the Force is proud to pay that one-tenth, because if he does not pay the one-tenth, if there were to be a free medical scheme, members of the Force would have to queue up at the out-patients section of a hospital to receive attention. Every man, woman and child of the S.A. Police will have to do it. That is, of course, what he wants.

That is not true.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.

Nonsense.

The hon. member does not know what the background to this measure is.

That is not true. You are telling one untruth after the other.

Order!

Why does the hon. member not take the trouble to come to my office to ascertain what the background to these things is so that I can inform him? However, he does not take the trouble. He does not know what the background to the one-tenth contribution is. For a little popularity and with a view to the election he now wants to propose things like this. Every policeman in South Africa agrees with me when I say that I cannot accept such an amendment, and I will tell the hon. member why not.

Go and ask them.

They had a free scheme, except that they had to pay one-seventh for specialist services. Then this new scheme was considered, and the problem during the consideration of this new scheme was that it was felt that the S.A. Police were today capable of paying their medical expenses. It is not like earlier years when it was a condition of service. Because they have to pay it, they must then make use of provincial services and then man, woman and child had to queue up at the out-patient sections at the hospitals for their medical services. That is the position, and that is what the hon. member for Yeoville wants again.

You are distorting the words of other people.

The S.A. Police say that they do not want it. They say they have their pride and that they can pay for some of their services.

You do not know what the truth is …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I will be glad if you would silence the hon. member.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw that sentence.

What sentence, Sir?

“You do not know what the truth is”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member also said “I may not say that you are lying”. He must withdraw that as well.

I withdraw it, Sir.