Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to tell you and hon. members that it is an unusual step to oppose a motion for the introduction of a Bill. Consequently I wish to give hon. members of this House the assurance that we in this party are doing so after profound consideration and after we have had a serious look at the circumstances under which this Bill is being introduced. [Interjections.] What does the title of the Bill tell us? It tells us that this Bill deals with the granting of independence to Ciskei. I know that this is a limited debate and that we are unable to elaborate on the contents of the Bill, primarily because we do not have the Bill before us as yet. However, even in this early stage of the debate these two concepts—independence and Ciskei—deserve further elucidation.

What is Ciskei? Ciskei is an envisaged geographical territory approximately 830 000 ha in extent. I say that it is an envisaged geographical territory, because at this point in time 300 000 ha of land still has to be transferred to Ciskei.

The population of Ciskei is calculated at more or less 2,1 million people, of whom approximately one-third is living within the Ciskei territory itself and the rest outside that territory in the so-called common area. Those living outside Ciskei, are distributed among the various provinces more or less as follows: In the Cape Province there are 1,291 million; in the Transvaal, 102 000; in the Free State, 34 000 and in Natal, 6 000.

The distribution of the labourers among the population of Ciskei is such that 40% of the male population in Ciskei leave the territory to seek employment. More than 50% of the territory’s income is earned outside the territory. Therefore, the socioeconomic problems of this territory are typical of an underdeveloped territory, and consequently large-scale efforts will be called for in any event to deal with the problems in this regard.

†This is the territory to which this Government wishes to grant independence. Independence is, as we know, the corner-stone of the Government’s policy towards the Black population of South Africa. It is also the Government’s solution to the problem of co-existence between White and Black in South Africa. If we look at Ciskei against the background of this policy, we see that since August 1972 Ciskei has been a self-governing State in terms of proclamation R.187 of 1972. It has since then been governed by an executive of eight Ministers and an unicameral legislature of 55 members, known as the Ciskei Legislative Assembly. 60% of these members are chiefs, who hold their seats ex officio, while 40% of the members are elected. There were 474 237 registered voters in 1978, and the ruling Ciskei National Independence Party holds all 55 seats.

Proclamation R.252 of 1977 empowers the Government of Ciskei to order the detention of people whose political and other activities are seen as a threat to the peace. Banishments of individuals from and to Ciskei can take place and the Ciskei Government can also ban organizations which it regards undesirable. In other words, we have here a form of a very powerful one-party Government over people, more than two-thirds of whom do not actually live in the territory.

In considering giving independence to this territory one also has to consider the manner and the quality of independence of the three territories that have taken independence so far, e.g. Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. This is not the time and the place, however, to do so in detail now. We opposed the introduction of the particular Bill on those occasions as well, on basically three grounds. The first was the involuntary loss of South African citizenship or nationality by the people affected by such a step. Our second ground was the lack of economic potential and viability of the territories concerned, and our third ground was the lack of proper consultation with the people involved in the taking of independence.

Allow me to state immediately that, to a very large extent, our objections this time are based on the same grounds. I should like to deal firstly with the loss of citizenship. The South African Government, when granting independence to Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda, has retained the legal ability to expel from South Africa all their citizens. This is the nub of losing citizenship or nationality. The hon. the Prime Minister in the censure debate during this very session of Parliament again made it clear that independence in fact does mean the loss of citizenship.

Secondly, I should like to refer to the question of economic viability. Many surveys and reports attest to the impoverishment of Ciskei, as well as to its economic dependence on the Republic of South Africa. This can be illustrated in graphic detail on another occasion.

I come now to the third condition—the manner of consultation. It would appear that on the face of it, Ciskei independence differs from that of the others in one important respect, namely that a referendum was held. There is considerable confusion, however, about what the referendum in fact proved. We do know that Chief Lennox Sebe and his party held a meeting at Ntabakandoda, where they discussed the recommendations of the Quail Commission’s report, and these recommendations are quite clear. It sets out four conditions, which I do not want to repeat here. They are, however, very clear conditions, which Chief Lennox Sebe himself said would be used as guidelines for the drafting of a package deal in terms of which they would ask for their independence from the South African Government. That package deal was debated and discussed in the Ciskei Legislative Assembly on Tuesday, 27 May, after it had been placed before the South African Government. Then, between May and 5 October, representatives of the Governments of South Africa and Ciskei met and discussed the package deal.

Chief Lennox Sebe then went back to the people of Ciskei, those living in that area, and at Zwelitsha, on 5 October, he reported progress on what had transpired. I have read that speech, and I must be quite frank: I do not see anything in that speech that substantially confirms that the package deal had been met. In fact there was very little in it that persuaded one that the conditions of the package deal or the conditions of the Quail Commission had been met. Yet it was this package deal that formed the basis for the referendum and it was this package deal in terms of which the people would explain their commitment to the concept of independence. The referendum was not an unconditional approval of independence at all. In fact the Quail Commission report said, concerning the old formula for independence, and I quote—

That is why we have to enter into this debate not knowing what the nature of the agreement is between the Ciskei Government and the South African Government. We do not know whether a new deal has been arrived at. We do not know whether this is going to be a new kind of independence concerning citizenship, land issues, etc. We simply do not have that information. I say this in all seriousness to the hon. the Minister. I have gone to some trouble to find out by reading reports, newspaper reports, the Quail Commission report and the Ciskei Legislative Assembly debates, and I am still not persuaded that the kind of independence we are considering here substantially differs from the independence enjoyed by Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. We opposed the introduction of the relevant Bills on those occasions and we are going to do so in this case as well.

*Given the central position occupied by independence in terms of the policy of this Government, the important point is in fact that we have to ask ourselves the following question: Does the history of independence prove in any way that relations problems are alleviated or more effectively dealt with in the rest of South Africa? That is the test. This is obviously not so. I am not speaking of the fact that large-scale developments will have to take place; they will most probably take place. I am not speaking of the fact that money is being spent on the development of rural areas and neither am I speaking of the fact that more attention is to be given to the problems relating to education in those areas, because that will have to be done in any event, irrespective of whether or not independent States are being created. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, today for the fourth time, the introduction of a measure—a debate requested by the official Opposition—on the gaining of independence by a national State. I found it interesting to go back and look at the arguments that were raised by the Opposition over the years since 1976 as to why they opposed a Bill of this kind at the First Reading and why in general they were opposed to States gaining their independence and acquiring the status of National States. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition approached the matter from a slightly different angle today, but in the end he admitted that there were certain basic reasons why the official Opposition opposed legislation of this kind. We find the most recent reason given by the Opposition for this in col. 7653 of the Hansard of 4 June 1979. It was when we were discussing the independence of Venda at the First Reading of the Bill that the Opposition advanced certain reasons as to why they were opposed to Venda becoming independent. The first point concerned the state of development of the area, and the then hon. member for Musgrave was their chief spokesman. He said that what was involved was that we were granting independence to an underdeveloped territory, but today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that the territory need not necessarily be developed. The then hon. member for Musgrave said at the time that it should be developed as far as possible. In the second place the hon. member for Musgrave said that the infrastructure had to be able to develop and that it should comprise a viable geographic area so that it could be semi-autonomous. Then such a State could, in terms of their own policy, be accommodated within a federal or confederal context. This was the second reason advanced by the hon. member for Musgrave. The hon. member for Musgrave also said that if these areas really wanted independence in due course, that desire would be recognized. He also said that the PFP would like to see certain prerequisites for such a desire to be recognized. In the first place the hon. member explained how, by means of a special referendum, it would be determined whether the majority of the people who would be affected by it, wanted that kind of independence. In the second place he said the question of the boundaries had to be settled to the mutual satisfaction of both sides. In the third place there was the question of citizenship. Let us now consider the de facto situation as far as the Ciskei is concerned.

Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to water down the first three points raised by the hon. member for Musgrave because in the course of time we on this side of this House have succeeded in achieving many of the things which the hon. members on that side of the House used as arguments.

You listen to us, don’t you?

If my wife gives me good advice, then I also listen to her advice. What difference does it make? I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if, in the first place, he wants to deal with the question of the referendum today, if he wants to tell us that he questions the motives of the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly …

No.

No, wait a minute. The hon. Leader must listen carefully now. He said the Quail Commission report stated certain things. The Ciskeian leader held discussions with our Government in connection with the Quail Commission Report, but the hon. member does not know what was discussed between our Government and the Ciskeian Government.

No one knows that.

But if the hon. Leader had come and asked me, I may have told him. Now the hon. the Leader wants to tell us that the Ciskeian Government went back to the Ciskeian nation with something which the Ciskeian nation thought was the Quail Commission Report. This is not true. The Chief Minister of the Ciskei stated very explicitly: There are no conditions attached to independence. The question quite simply: Do we want independence or not? This is the issue the Ciskeian people voted on. They did not vote for or against package deal. The hon. the Leader cannot prove that they voted on the issue of a package deal.

I shall prove it to you.

The hon. member cannot prove that they voted for or against a package deal. The Ciskeian people voted on the question of whether they wanted to be independent. I want to tell the hon. Leader this. Today we must not, in the introduction to the major debate we are going to have on this matter—the independence of the Ciskei—question the integrity of the Ciskeian leaders. If we do that, we shall be doing the Ciskeian nation the greatest possible injustice. We can debate about other things, but we cannot doubt whether the Ciskeian nation was in earnest about gaining its independence. We cannot question the Ciskeian nation’s desire to resist the forces opposing Ciskeian nationalism. They have proved it. Today they are a bastion against the influences of the ANC. This has been proved. The Ciskeian leaders have acted with responsibility to lead these people to independence. In spite of setbacks and circumstances which made things very difficult for them, these people acted in a responsible way; in other words we must not place these Black leaders in the position where we in this White Parliament denigrate them in the present atmosphere of attacks on them by the ANC and other people. We should rather build up this Black community, for it is after all true that although we still differ a little on a few aspects, the requirements which were laid down by the official Opposition for other people to gain their independence are being complied with. We are as near to meeting the requirements as we can get. Why is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not prepared to admit that we are near to meeting the requirements? Then we on this side can say that we admit that there are still a few shortcomings.

We also know that it has been said in this House—the hon. the Prime Minister said it and it was also very explicitly stated when the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development’s Vote was being discussed—that before the Ciskei became independent, there would be clarity on the boundaries of the Ciskei. There would also be clarity on what the development potential would be offered to the Ciskei. There would also be clarity on the entire situation of citizenship. Surely these are all matters that have been cleared up. If we are now prepared to proceed with this legislation in our Parliament and the people of Ciskei are prepared to proceed with similar legislation in their Parliament, these matters have surely been cleared up. So we must not try to make political capital out of this matter.

As a territory the Ciskei is probably not without its shortcomings as far as development is concerned. I was the first to admit that attention ought to be given to development in the Ciskei. We must also remember that this year is a very symbolic year for the Ciskei, a year which the Ciskeian nation considers to be of special importance, because it was precisely 100 years ago that they were deprived of their freedom, and this year they want their freedom back—100 years after they were deprived of it.

The hon. members of the Opposition must give the Government credit for the fact that we are doing everything in our power … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt suggested at the outset of his speech that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had watered down our reasons for opposing this measure as opposed to the reasons which we advanced in respect of the independence of Venda three years ago. This, of course, is not so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his remarks this afternoon made it very clear that basically the same reasons obtained in regard to our opposition to this measure as obtained in regard to our opposition to the independence of Venda at First Reading stage. They were the question of citizenship, the question of the economic viability or non-viability of the territory concerned and the question of whether there had been proper and adequate consultation with the people concerned. These were reiterated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon.

It is already clear that what we are dealing with here, as has been indicated, is another small regional area of South Africa where only one-third of its population live inside the area itself and where the rights of citizenship in the Republic of South Africa of the remaining two-thirds of that population are being threatened by a measure of this kind. We are dealing also with an area which is in every sense an underdeveloped or impoverished area and which is in no way capable of surviving independently, from an economic point of view, of the Republic of South Africa. This is the part of South Africa which we are now being asked to make independent.

We see this Bill as clearly another move of the Government to dismember the body politic of South Africa by tearing it apart limb by limb. We see it as yet another move to excise another portion of South Africa from the control and the sovereignty of this Parliament and from the rest of the country. One must ask oneself why it is necessary for the Government to proceed with a measure of this kind which is devoid of all logic and of all reason when one really looks at the interests of South Africa as a whole. This is merely another move in the sordid piecemeal fragmentation of South Africa by the NP, because they are afraid to face up to the realities of the situation in this plural society of South Africa. They are afraid to face the fact that South Africa is a nation of 25 million people, and to accept the consequences of that fact. They are afraid to pull down the barriers that divide our people, to dismantle the laws that discriminate and cause hatred and friction among our people. They are afraid to abandon their belief in White “baasskap” over most of South Africa, and they are afraid even to contemplate the sharing of power with all sections of our population.

These are the real reasons why, in their desperation to reconcile their own outmoded desire to preserve the status quo of White supremacy over most of South Africa with the need to give some rights to Blacks, they resort to a policy of fragmentation, of giving away small sections of South Africa, however illogical and unreasonable that may be. This is merely a part of the enormous price that this country is being asked to pay for the dogma of Nationalist ideology.

Independence is apparently the cornerstone of Government policy—we know that—and this is supposed to be their solution to the co-existence problem in this country. But in reality it is the Government’s way of escaping the realities of the South African situation, and it enables them to siphon off hundreds of thousands of Black South Africans from the general South African community and with it to pretend that they are also siphoning off the responsibility that they have towards the people concerned.

The hon. member who preceded me had a good deal to say about the method of consultation and about referendum relating to the independence of Ciskei. There are a number of questions that one must pose in regard to the Ciskeian referendum. Firstly, I want to ask whether the Government is really concerned with what the people of these territories think or want. Does it really matter to them? [Interjections.] There is a great deal of talk about the referendum and about the “volkswil”, and the Government will claim that the Ciskei referendum showed that it is the “volkswil” that there should be independence for that territory. I want to say quite clearly that I do not believe that the Government cares a tinker’s cuss about the “volkswil” on issues of this kind. [Interjections.] I do not believe that it matters at all. It certainly did not matter in the case of Venda where, in the election preceding independence, the Opposition party had won the majority of the seats and had been opposed to the whole issue of independence. The Government took no notice of that. In other words, to use the idiom sought so unsuccessfully by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development in an earlier debate, I do not think this Government cares sweet Fanny Adams for the “volkswil” in this or any other instance.

The second question one asks about the referendum is what did the Ciskeians vote for in that referendum. According to the Chief Minister Lennox Sebe, it was for a package deal, no matter what the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt may say. There was an atmosphere of great expectations, very different from the deal concluded with Transkei and the other states. In fact, the Chief Minister is on record of having said that Ciskei independence was to be on a basis very different from the independence of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. In another statement quoted in The Argus of 5 December 1980, the Chief Minister referred again to the package deal and his understanding of it. He said that there was a conference agreement on the citizenship issue, and he said that in terms of this agreement Ciskeians would, firstly, not be treated as aliens in South Africa for purposes of employment; secondly, they would have residential rights in South Africa and, thirdly, the system of monitoring labour movement across the country’s borders would be simplified. He stated further that significant progress had been made on nearly all the recommendations of the Quail Commission, and he cited the most important of these. Inter alia, there would be a referendum and Ciskeians were to be given the option of retaining South African citizenship after independence. He said further that South Africa surrendered its power to deport Ciskeians who chose to retain South African citizenship, and that Ciskei would be given more territory and more equitable financial support. That, according to Chief Minister Sebe, was the essence of this package deal and that was what the Ciskeians voted for in the referendum.

I want to challenge the hon. the Minister to divulge his interpretation of the package deal with Ciskei. He must tell us in clear unequivocal terms in his reply to this debate what that package deal was and why there has been so much secrecy and confusion up to this point. [Interjections.]

I say this because the Chief Minister’s version of citizenship and other vital issues certainly does not relate to existing Government attitudes. The hon. the Minister must also tell us whether, in fact, the preconditions for an independent Ciskei differed from those which obtained in relation to Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. We need replies to these questions because the whole credibility of the Ciskeian referendum revolves around these issues.

The third issue relating to the referendum itself is that whilst it may have reflected a positive response to the package deal that those living within the Ciskei thought they were voting for, it did not very clearly reflect the response of the majority of Ciskeians living outside Ciskei. Time does not permit me to go into the figures, but we do know that there was a 59% poll, but the majority of that can be ascribed to the people living within Ciskei, because outside Ciskei itself the poll was very low indeed.

There is a fourth question one can ask in terms of the Government’s claim that the referendum was the issue that makes this all so very different. In this connection one must refer to the irony of the Quail Commission report which indicates that four out of ten of the minority of Ciskeians who expressed sympathy for the notion of independence did so for the totally negative reason that independence was “an escape from the rigors of life in a racially unequal society”. Certainly the impatience and dissatisfaction of the Ciskeians with having to live in an apartheid-ridden society has been a major factor in their decision. The Chief Minister, Minister Sebe, in a recent speech on 27 May in King William’s Town, said that his forefathers and those of Dr. Koornhof, the Minister of Co-operation and Development, lived happily together—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea indicated that the Opposition’s reason for opposing the introduction of this measure was, amongst others, that Ciskei was regarded as an impoverished area that could not survive independence, that it was this Government’s intention to dismember the body politic—in fact that it was busy with piecemeal dismantlement—and that they were afraid to face up to the realities of South Africa.

I shall be dealing with the economic situation a little later. I first want to deal with another aspect. Without any doubt it was power politics of the colonial era, before 1910, which made diverse peoples in South Africa into an artificial political unit, a “veelvoud van volkere”. [Interjections.] Similarly it was power politics that created artificial units in Europe in previous centuries. In this regard I refer to the Holy Roman Empire, the Greater Austrian Empire, etc. It was the spirit of the peoples’ national will that created a more cohesive unity of peoples, that ignored the artificial creations of power politics and instead united those people who belong together because of a sincere inner conviction that they did, in fact, belong together.

Like that multi-coloured tie of yours.

The seething will and the enthusiasm of nationalism were also expressed in the motto of Dr. D. F. Malan when he said: “Bring bymekaar wat uit innerlike oortuiging bymekaar hoort.”

†This is not negative nationalism, nor need it be divisive nationalism. I believe that one can best contribute to positive community development by being true to oneself and by being oneself. I therefore also believe that the Ciskeians can make a better contribution to a happier and more positive development of the family of nations of Southern Africa by being true to themselves, by being Ciskeians with an independent political status. [Interjections.] They are, of course, not in themselves economically independent any more than Lesotho, Zimbabwe or for that matter the Republic of South Africa or Britain is. None of these is purely and simply an independent unit in itself. They depend on trading partners. In cooperation with neighbouring States, however, Ciskei is economically viable, and in the same way as the 10 member States of the European Economic Community have become an economic power by co-operating, so the Southern African States can, by economical operation, compliment one another and also become an even greater economic power by establishing a sound foundation for political stability based on a confederation of sovereign and politically independent States that can co-operate voluntarily on a formal basis to promote the mutual interests of all the people and nations of Southern Africa. The hon. member for Berea went on to say that we were merely intent on dismembering the body politic of Southern Africa and that we were pursuing a policy of piecemeal dismantlement. I should like to know whether, in their opposition to this particular issue, they had any interest whatsoever in the intention of the Ciskei people. The hon. member for Berea asked us: “Is the Government really concerned?” He said that as far as he was concerned, the Government could not care a tinker’s cuss. I wish to say categorically that the PFP could not care a tinker’s cuss about what the people of Ciskei had indicated. They are, in fact, only interested in promoting their own negative politics, their politics of a single South African situation and the colonial mentality which has pervaded the PFP in their thinking all along.

*I would go as far as to say that perhaps it is justified that I should put a few questions to the official Opposition. Ciskei did not consider it necessary to take up arms against its guardian, the RSA. Is that perhaps why the PFP is so implacably opposed to the request by Ciskei to be granted independence? Ciskei is no breeding ground for the ANC. On the contrary, the Government of Ciskei has taken strong action against the ANC terrorists. Is this perhaps the reason why the present Ciskeian Government is in disfavour with the PFP? It is unlikely that Ciskei would have to accommodate thousands of Cubans, Russians and East Germans to protect the Government of Ciskei against its own citizens. Is this why the PFP thinks that Ciskei is not worthy of being granted an independent status? Does the PFP begrudge Lesotho its independent status? I do not think so. Why then, does the PFP discriminate against Ciskei? Is it because in 1982 they will still be cooperating with South Africa or is it because they will not be a member of the UN and will not necessarily take part in an artificial hate campaign against the RSA? We are concerning ourselves here with a strategic set-up in Southern Africa to establish political and economic stability in Southern Africa. Because Ciskei is prepared to accept independent status for its own citizens, to accept national independence, to co-operate with the citizenry of Southern Africa, because it does not fit in with the PFP’s whole scheme of things, they are opposed to the independence of Ciskei, and they are so strongly opposed to it that they are prepared to proclaim their strongest form of opposition to this measure at its introduction. It is a pity that the PFP has such a negative attitude towards the set-up of the strategic extension of stability and steadfastness in Southern Africa. We believe that the artificial situation which was created by British politics of the previous century, when colonialization was still acceptable in those circumstances, is no longer appropriate to the present circumstances. We believe that a new set-up has to be born.

The PFP has accepted that the Westminster system does not offer a solution and that the solution fies in voluntary co-operation between equals in status. There can only be equals in status if each of these nations is indeed prepared to walk the path of sovereign independence and to co-operate on a voluntary basis as equals in status. On that basis we can co-operate. If there are some of them who do not want to accept equality in status, that is their own choice, but we believe that in this country stability has to be based on proper understanding of willing co-operation on a basis of goodwill. We are convinced that this course we have chosen is the right one. In any case, it is based on the voluntary choice of the people concerned. According to my information more than 60% of the citizens of Ciskei participated in the referendum and of those who participated 98% expressed themselves in favour, not of a package deal with unknown conditions, but of the concept of political sovereignty, political independence in the consortium of States which will co-operate on a basis of friendship here in Southern Africa. It is for this reason that I cannot but reject the PFP’s views with contempt and support the introduction of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to motivate the decision of this party in supporting the motion before the House. [Interjections.] We opposed a similar measure, one of four, in 1979 and in that instance we gave three specific reasons for our opposition. Prior to that our predecessors, the United Party, had supported the introduction of the Status of the Transkei Bill and the Status of Bophuthatswana Bill. However, in the case of the Venda Bill of 1979 there were three reasons why we opposed it. One of those was mentioned by the hon. member for Berea. It was that the Government of Venda at the time had lost an election to its Opposition, irrespective of the views of that Opposition, and was not fully representative of the people. Secondly, there was a Select Committee of this House sitting at that very moment seeking a new constitution for South Africa. Thirdly, we called for a moratorium on granting independence on the grounds that Venda had not had a fair choice between independence and an inadequate and unacceptable status quo. The hon. member for Mooi River at the time gave the views of this party when he said that we offer (Hansard, 4 June 1979, col. 7661)—

He continued to detail it. This was fully in terms of the aims and principles of this party which state specifically that we stand for existing and future autonomous and independent units to be linked in a confederal system. That was the situation.

With the motion before the House we face a very different situation. We had, first of all, the Quail Commission, to which reference has been made and before which—I wish to emphasize this-—the NRP was the only political party to give evidence and to set out its views on constitutional development.

No. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister negotiated … [Interjections.] Then we share that honour.

There were at least five of us too.

Well, I see there were lots of other people too. [Interjections.] I repeat that we, officially, as a political party, and pot as individuals, gave evidence before that commission.

You said you were the only ones.

Secondly, there were negotiations, which led to the “package deal” to which reference has already been made here. There is adequate evidence of this. I quote from the Rand Daily Mail—

In other reports reference is made to the same and to two other points. The Rev. Xcaba, for instance, referred to “oorhoofse nasionaliteit” and also to “no removals from the Republic without consultation”.

Here was a package deal, and we want to see what has happened to that package deal. Therefore we are prepared to await the presentation of the measure to this House, to listen to the debate, and to see the treaties which entrench the conditions of that package deal. If those treaties and the debate prove that these undertakings on which Ciskei opted by way of a referendum to take independence have not been honoured, we will … [Interjections.] of course oppose the measure. We believe that if these conditions have been met it will produce a very different situation. The fact that there has been a referendum is what makes this Bill different in the present circumstances. We in the NRP will be particularly interested to learn about the pre-conditions and to see the exact shape of the confederation to which reference has been made by Ciskei, and by this hon. Minister, who sees it as a new dimension in South African constitutional development, etc. We want to see what that is going to look like. Unlike the official Opposition we are not blindly going to oppose the introduction of the Bill. We are going to await the opportunity of gauging and testing and examining the various items of the constitutional package deal.

I am surprised at the noise coming from the official Opposition. [Interjections.] I should actually not be surprised. I have heard a lot of that before.

In 1976, when the Status of Transkei Bill was introduced here, the then Leader of the Progressive Reform Party, now the hon. member for Sea Point, said (Hansard, 25 May 1976, col. 7496)—

I might also refer to what was said today by the now hon. Leader of the Opposition, who then followed him. There was no reference made to economic viability in the reasons mentioned by the hon. member for Sea Point in his speech on 25 May 1976 here in the House. The hon. member for Sea Point dealt with the Government’s vision of the future, with the fragmentation of the country, and ended by saying—

This time there has been a package deal. It is a package deal which offers a confederation, and a referendum has already been held. Therefore an option has been offered and a referendum has also followed that.

In the case of Bophuthatswana, the hon. member for Sea Point, again—as the then Leader of the official Opposition—talked of a referendum and of citizenship. He then said that his party believed it could in certain circumstances lead to the establishment of independent States. He said, however, that he thought he should make it quite clear on what conditions they would accept the principle of independent States carved out of South Africa. He then said that it had been stated quite clearly in one of the 14 principles of the so-called Marais Committee.

I am glad that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is here, because in the same debate the present hon. member Mr. Olivier summed up his feeling on this issue. I quote from Hansard, col. 6993, where he said—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this is an important matter which is being discussed in this House today, and for more than one reason. In the first place it is important because it involves a nation which wants to become independent. It is also important as a result of what has already happened in this House this afternoon and the fact that the hon. member for Durban Point and his party are not opposing the introduction of this measure. On behalf of this side of the House I immediately wish to express our appreciation for this and I wish to give the hon. member the assurance that the Ciskeian people also appreciate this. It will surely not go unnoticed by them, just as it will not go unnoticed by the rest of the Republic of South Africa. There is a third reason why this afternoon’s events in this House are important, and that is that they prove that the official Opposition never learns. This is the fourth time they have opposed the introduction of measures to grant nations their freedom. Today the 155th member joined the UN. It is a very small island called the Hebrides. What is the economic viability of the Hebrides? What is the economic viability of a multitude of countries in Africa? However, they are independent; they are free, and this is acceptable to the official Opposition. However, when it comes to a South African Black nation it is all wrong. The official Opposition adopts the most paternalistic attitude imaginable to this matter. The fact that they never learn is simply incomprehensible. By adopting this kind of attitude they reveal themselves to be suppressors and dictators of those nations’ nations that know what they want. [Interjections.] Surely that is true and that is how they see it. Certain hon. members of the official Opposition were almost arrested in the Ciskei. [Interjections.] The revolution of Africa over the past 15 years or so was concerned with one thing only and that was “uhuru”, i.e. freedom, the freedom of nations and in most cases there were bloody revolutions to achieve this. No one on that side of the House will deny that it was reform. During the past 15 years or so Africa has been in a process of reform. If this happens in Africa, in the Hebrides or anywhere else, that process of reform is acceptable and the freedom of those nations is acceptable, but if it happens in South Africa and a Black nation is involved, then it is completely unacceptable to the official Opposition.

It is very interesting to look at what the hon. members of the official Opposition’s arguments were in previous debates of this nature. I shall quote from what the hon. member for Houghton had to say—it is interesting to note that she did not speak in this debate today—in the Hansard of 1977, col. 6982. She asked—

And now the hon. member knows—and that is why I think she is being clever by not speaking in this debate—that her entire argument was based on that issue. That hon. member is not so stupid that she does not know that 60% of the people of the Ciskei voted on this matter …

For what?

… and we must also remember under what difficult conditions they did vote.

Are you going to give them what they voted for?

Many of them live outside the Ciskei, as was mentioned here by one of the hon. members. But in spite of that, 60% of the Ciskeians voted and 98,5% of the people who did vote, voted in favour of independence for the Ciskei. The hon. member knows that. It is therefore an expression of the will of the people of the Ciskei who decided that they wanted to be independent. This fact is completely ignored and disregarded by hon. members opposite.

Let us continue our argument with the Opposition on this matter. Is it part of the democratic process that while those hon. members opposite do not know precisely what is stated in the Bill, they are nevertheless opposing it in this way at the First Reading.

We know you!

Surely that is an undemocratic process. It is liberalism in its ugliest shape. [Interjections.] They do not even have the tolerance to allow the introduction of a measure enabling the emancipation, the independence of a nation to be discussed in the highest assembly chamber in this country. If one then says that they are acting paternalistically, that they are suppressing these Black nations and that they are standing in the way of this emancipatory process, surely it is true. What irks me most is that I have sat and listened to hon. members opposite and it seems to me as if they never read the newspapers. Do they not read newspapers either? At the moment the Ciskei is being subjected to all kinds of elements that are trying to cause independence to miscarry there. Have they not read that terrorists are active in that territory? Did they not read that people were wounded and that people died? This Ciskeian nation has an elected leader, a very respectable man, and this is the disrespect those hon. members show this man.

The hon. the Minister did not tell us what is contained in the legislation.

But that will happen during the Second Reading debate. We cannot furnish all these particulars here while the introduction of this measure is being opposed. Sir, what is happening here is that those hon. members have the temerity to bump their heads against the same pole four times running like a donkey. [Interjections.] They never learn. I watched the old United Party disintegrate in this House. Why? Because they never learned. I now see the same thing happening to the PFP. Of course the Opposition must be given a hiding if they act in this way in this House. The lives of many people are at stake here with this matter. Surely we are not joking here. This matter is concerned with a nation which wants its independence. They are asking for their independence and then those hon. members behave in this way towards them! I am now speaking on behalf of Dr. Sebe and on behalf of the Xhosa nation. If those hon. members opposite are not proud of them, we are. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not realize that by adopting this attitude to the introduction of such an important Bill they are strengthening the hand of the subversive elements, the terrorists and the ANC? [Interjections.] Do they not realize this? Surely it is extremely irresponsible. We are negotiating with the Ciskei to arrive at an agreement with them. Surely we did not say that the Ciskei must become independent. I have walked with them every step of the way. What did the Ciskei do? They appointed the Quail Commission. They appointed international persons to that commission, for example Dr. Rotberg of America …

And my spy!

… and Sir Arthur Snelling. [Interjections.] This commission considered the entire matter. There was a representative from the Ciskei on the commission too. I must point out that few commission reports have been read and are still being read as widely in university circles and other circles overseas as the Quail Commission report.

After all this these things had happened, the Ciskei came to us and as befit courteous, decent people we sat around a conference table and talked. They told us what the package deal was they wanted to discuss with us. What does that package deal entail? In the first place it was concerned with the consolidation of land; in the second place, the elimination of hurtful discrimination; in the third place, citizenship; in the fourth place, the establishment of a confederation; in the fifth place, resettlement aid; and, in the sixth place, financial aid.

I wish to point out at this early stage—we can discuss it in detail during the course of the Second Reading debate—that the Government and the Ciskei were in complete agreement on these points and because an agreement was reached on these points the Ciskeian Government went to its people and held a referendum. That is why the outcome of the referendum is also an indication of the express will of the people that they should now like to have their independence. [Time expired.]

Question put, Upon which the House divided:

Since the last new member made his maiden speech yesterday, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate all new members on their maiden speeches and to wish them a successful parliamentary career.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon and evening we went farming: this afternoon we are going fishing.

The marine industry has only very recently—during the course of last year—been placed under the Department of Agriculture. At the outset I wish to say that my department and I consider this additional responsibility to be a great challenge that we are faced with, and we accept it as such. I think it is right that the marine industry should, together with agriculture, fall under one department because marine industry is primarily concerned with the provision of food for human consumption. It is a very important source of protein for human consumption, but also a very important source of protein for animals, and here I am referring in particular to fishmeal. The living marine resources of South Africa are renewable natural resources that have been entrusted to us. In the same way that our soil, our veld and our water, are renewable natural resources, these living marine resources are also renewable natural resources. The marine industry is of great economic importance to us in South Africa and large investments have been made in that industry. At present the total investment at replacement value is approximately R550 million, and in addition 23 000 people are employed in the marine industry.

I have already said that our living marine resources are renewable natural resources that have been entrusted to us. Bearing this in mind I should like to quote what the Psalmist said in Psalm 8. In the fourth verse he asks: “What is man …?” and then goes on to say—

The key words here are “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands”.

We have sinned grievously in South West Africa, haven’t we?

Therefore the question we must ask ourselves is this: How should we utilize and conserve these fish of the sea, these living marine resources?

In the first place I want to say that a renewable natural resource is a natural asset for any country and does not belong to one generation only, but must be utilized in such a way by every generation that that resource is not depleted or permanently harmed, but can be carried over to the next generation as a good, useful and usable asset and can make a contribution to the national welfare of all future generations. Our natural, living marine resources should be viewed and exploited from this particular angle. This is also the angle from which my department and I myself view the other natural resources of South Africa, namely that the principles of optimum utilization should apply and that in the same way as we strive for optimum utilization of the soil, we should also strive for optimum utilization of our living marine resources in South Africa. If this is not done, future generations will hold it as a crime against the generation that in its time destroyed a natural resource. Our natural resources do not belong to one generation only, but are a national asset that also belongs to future generations. Our natural living marine resources are just like our veld and our soil. If we overgraze our veld, and do not give the veld sufficient time to recover and remain dormant, if we over-utilize it, it will deteriorate and eventually be destroyed, and the soil itself will eventually be destroyed if it is over-utilized and over-exploited. In the same way that the correct number of animals must be kept on every unit of veld must be maintained, so that the veld can be utilized and maintained to the optimum and can remain an asset forever, we must also use our living marine resources to the optimum so that these resources can be maintained, can remain productive and can be bequeathed as a national resource to future generations.

That is a completely new approach.

It is my policy, and also the policy of my department. We consider this resource to be a natural renewable resource, and we are going to control and utilize this resource according to these guidelines.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Bryanston who is making these interjections should bear in mind that in the past we did not have a 200 km economic zone, and for this reason the control of marine resources was not easy. We were robbed by foreign vessels. However, we now have the 200 km economic zone and more effective control is now possible.

There is not a person in this country who is not aware that in the past our marine resources were over-exploited and were in danger. Fortunately agricultural scientists of the department have developed the necessary expertise over the years in respect of the conservation of natural resources such as soil, veld and water. For this reason the accumulated expertise can now be used to ensure the optimum utilization of the living marine resources of South Africa. We are very much in earnest about putting a stop to the deterioration in the marine resources and in the course of time making it a viable resource again, to the benefit of the fishing community and the country as a whole. To achieve this will require discipline and sacrifices, and also that people will have to make sacrifices. These sacrifices will have to be made in the short and medium term, so that this resource can be allowed to recover and so that the natural production capacity of the resource can be increased again and this can bring prosperity for everyone. This is the crux of our policy.

Since this division was transferred to our department, we have received the report on the conservation and utilization of the living marine resources from the commission. We have tabled it and studied it. On the basis of that report we prepared a White Paper which is at present being processed. We hope to be able to table it during the present session. In that White Paper the Government’s standpoint on the report and certain recommendations in it are spelt out very clearly.

I consider research into our marine industry as fundamental to the sound utilization of these resources. We shall continue to stimulate research in this connection. For this reason a research ship, the Africana, which is one of the most modern vessels of its kind in the entire world and which cost R25 million, will be commissioned this year to do research along our coastline.

In order to ensure that the department and I myself receive the best advice and that we can make use of the best expertise available, we have reconstituted the Fisheries Advisory Council and in addition to people with a great deal of experience of marine resources and their exploitation as well as other people in the industry, we have appointed uncommitted scientists from our universities, from the CSIR and from the provincial Departments of Nature Conservation and the chairman of the Commission of Inquiry into the Marine Industry, Mr. Treurnicht, to the Fisheries Advisory Council.

I also deem it to be of real importance that there is the closest liaison and cooperation between my department, the Fisheries Advisory Council and the marine industry. The attempts I have thus far made to involve the industry itself more closely in the conservation and the exploitation of the resources, were received with great enthusiasm by the industry. For example the rock lobster industry has already made a great contribution during the past rock lobster season to organize the catches on a voluntary basis—and that is very important—and to the advantage of the entire resource along the West Coast. It gives me pleasure to state that I am meeting with a positive attitude from everyone involved in the conservation and utilization of our marine resources. I am convinced that with the friendly co-operation I have experienced, the marine industry can again be made into a viable industry which will benefit everyone involved in it.

This is all I have to say on this subject for the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour.

Order! The hon. member cannot request the privilege of the half hour again.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask how many half-hours have been granted under this Vote?

The arrangement is that it may not be granted to the same member twice in the discussion of the same Vote.

Thank you, Sir. I am particularly pleased to hear that the new Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has such a very positive approach to the optimum utilization of our marine resources and that he has already taken certain steps to protect these resources for the benefit of interested parties and also for future generations. He has referred to the new ship the Africana which will be used to help in the implementation of his policy, especially as regards deep sea fishing. I myself am quite concerned about the exploitation of our deep sea resources by foreigners in our fishing waters. I believe that thus far it has been quite impossible to ensure that those fishing vessels operate within the laws laid down. I even suspect that some of our so-called friends, who have been given permission by way of certain concessions to catch fish in our territorial waters, may also occasionally abuse this privilege. For this reason I am pleased to hear that the hon. the Minister has already taken steps with the aid of this new vessel, to ensure that we can now do something about this.

I believe that every hon. member here today agrees that in the past our marine resources were almost totally overexploited. In some cases, I believe, some of our fishing resources, especially as regards certain species of fish, have already been irreparably harmed, while other species are under such tremendous pressure that if the pressure does not decrease even those resources will be destroyed. Nevertheless it is true that this situation has not developed overnight. In the past, when our fishing resources were still relatively sound, warnings were issued against the savage and selfish destruction which was taking place. Such warnings were also heard in this House. As early as 1966 my favourite hon. member in this House, the hon. member for Simonstown, spotlighted this industry in his maiden speech. [Interjections.] When I say that the hon. member for Simonstown is my favourite MP, I mean this only in so far as the industry is concerned. However, I can assure hon. members that in this field he is undoubtedly an expert. I quote from what the hon. member for Simonstown said here in this House on 14 August 1966 (Hansard, part 17, col. 1362)—

Later on in the same speech he said—

As far back as fifteen years ago the hon. member for Simonstown pointed out this danger.

In the following year, 1967, he again pointed out in a private motion the dangers threatening to destroy the resource. I shall not take up the time of this House by quoting from that speech of his as well. However, when one re-reads what he said, it is clear that the hon. member for Simonstown was already on the right path as regards this matter.

Other hon. members also issued warnings in this connection. In this regard I wish to refer to what Senator Van Zyl had to say about the same matter on 16 February 1968 (Senate Hansard, 1968, col. 303)—

Later in the same speech he has the following to say (col. 304)—

He then goes on to point out the problems that had been created. He also refers to the fishing industry in California and says—

We therefore see that when the commission was appointed in March 1979 there was already strong pressure for such an investigation. There were already strong indications that our fishing resources were in danger. When the commission met under the chairmanship of Mr. Treurnicht, to whom I wish to convey my thanks for the way in which he performed his task, it was decided that it would serve no purpose to refer to past matters. We in the commission were aware that allegations had in fact been made concerning malpractices involving quota allocations, but the commission felt it was a matter of such urgency to make recommendations which would save the industry, that we did not bother too much about the past. We looked ahead. The urgency with which we worked on the report gave me the impression that it would be dealt with very speedily and positively. In June 1980 the report was rounded off, and a year and three months later we find that only a few of the recommendations have been implemented in practice. The rest of the recommendations are still completely in the air at this stage. I am a little disappointed and concerned that it has taken so long to implement the recommendations in practice. I realize that in the meanwhile there has been a change of Ministers and that in point of fact, four Ministers have held the portfolio which had to deal with this matter. But it has still taken too long for action to be taken on the report.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to finish his speech.

I thank the hon. member for Standerton. Of the 107 recommendations made thus far, only three have been implemented. We should very much like to know what other recommendations are still to be implemented, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us an indication of this today.

No matter how good the hon. the Minister’s plans may be, if those plans do not have the manpower to implement them, we are really not going to achieve much. At present, for example, there are six boats to patrol the entire coastline, from Walvis Bay to the Mozambican border. Of these, only the Custos is a deep-sea boat. These boats, and a few ski-boats, simply cannot undertake all the inspection services. Moreover I understand that about half the boats on average, are not in working order at any given time. In any case, not one of those boats has the muscle to enforce orders it has given which are disregarded. The inspectors we have are supposed to patrol that same long coastline and to do their work there. Of the 50 or so posts I understand only three-quarters are filled. The work of a fishing inspector is demanding and sometimes also dangerous. He has to work long hours as well. He is frequently on duty 24 hours a day and seven days a week. If one considers the salaries paid to these inspectors one becomes convinced that we shall not fill those posts. The starting salary of an ordinary inspector is R3 582 per annum and his maximum salary is R5 940 per annum. A senior inspector’s salary begins at R5 190 and his maximum notch is R7 650. A first-class inspector’s salary begins at R7 650 and his maximum salary is R9 450, while the salary of a chief inspector begins at R9 090 and his maximum is R11 430. Those men are expected to undertake work which is by no means easy. I predict that unless those salary scales are adjusted we are not going to get the men to implement the policy of this new hon. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. It is because we do not have the manpower and the boat power that the contraband trade in rock-lobster and abalone has reached alarming proportions nowadays. I suspect that the number of hotels and restaurants offering abalone who obtained that abalone legally, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Prove it.

I am making an allegation. I cannot prove it. This is the experience I have had. The rock-lobster industry is just as oppressed and it would not surprise me in the least if as much as 50% of the rock-lobster quota is taken illegally. We must not think that this illegal rock-lobster is only sold here in the Cape. The illegal rock-lobster is transported as far as Pretoria and Johannesburg, and in a very modern and sophisticated way. It is packed neatly in dry ice and it can keep for weeks. For this reason I welcome the fact that the public is now once more being allowed to remove a few rock-lobster with or without the use of a small fishing boat. At least this has solved the problem that local inhabitants can remove a few rock-lobster for themselves in their area, and I do not believe that this way of removing rock-lobster can harm the resource to any extent. What is disappointing is that the proposal that 25% of the quota be marketed locally has apparently not been dealt with, and I should like the hon. the Minister to give specific attention to this matter. The whole purpose of this recommendation was to stop the smuggling of rock-lobster by making rock-lobster available to the public at reasonable prices and in packaging they can afford.

It was also proposed that rock-lobster be made available to the public in the Cape at certain places along the West Coast. There was a reason for this too. The reason was to help create a rock-lobster tourist industry in the Western Cape area which could perhaps be compared with the wine route. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister—he will understand the art of doing this—will give attention to this matter.

The commission also recommended that if 25% of the quota cannot be sold locally, that portion be deducted from the quota. This is therefore really a way to bring pressure to bear on the local marketers of rock-lobster to play their part locally. I should also like to hear what the hon. the Minister’s reaction is to this recommendation.

I now come to what I consider the most important recommendation. I refer to the recommendation that the West Coast be divided into zones to prevent all the catches being concentrated in those areas where rock-lobsters are still reasonably plentiful. The hon. the Minister referred to this earlier this afternoon and I think he implied that the rock-lobster industry is prepared to implement this recommendation voluntarily to a certain extent. I still feel that it is necessary to make regulations so that we can ensure that the pressure on Dassen Island, for example, never becomes as great as it was in the past, because if that were to happen, that resource could be totally destroyed. This would be to the disadvantage of the community as a whole.

I now come to the question of the False Bay and Walker Bay area in connection with which the commission also made recommendations. Today both these areas are very popular fishing areas for tourists and local fishermen. It is also true that from time to time the fish in both these bays are all caught by the big purse-seine fishermen. While the commission was carrying out its task, there was a process of investigation underway and some of the members of the commission thought …

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

I only need three minutes to complete my speech.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Sir, I thank the hon. Whip.

It was felt that we should perhaps be given the opportunity to complete the investigation. I hear this has in fact been done, but I do not know exactly what the outcome of this has been. I wish to recommend that unless there is a specific reason why this cannot be done—and in that case the hon. the Minister must please explain this to me—False Bay should be completely closed so that it will be an area which can be used by the local community and tourists for recreation and fishing purposes. The large commercial undertakings must be complete barred from the area.

The last point I wish to make is that I do not believe that Walker Bay must be treated in the same way. In the Gansbaai area are certain factories and vested interests. I recommend that only those fishermen be given the right to fish in the bay and that it be closed to all other purse-seine fishermen.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to thank the hon. member for Wynberg for the kind things he said about me, although I should fear the Greeks when they bear gifts. In the second place I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his first speech in his new post. It was a constructive speech and I wish him every success, but my sympathy, too, with the new portfolio he has to handle.

During the past 16 years there have been three commissions of inquiry into the South African fishing industry. The first commission’s inquiry only really dealt with South West Africa and was known as the A. H. Du Plessis Commission. After that, in 1968, the C. G. Du Plessis Commission was appointed to investigate all facets of the South African fishing industry. That commission was so shocked by what they found, that they issued three interim reports. The first report dealt with the rock-lobster industry and it was found that there had been over-fishing of rock-lobster. The second report dealt with the inefficiency of research, and the third report dealt with the exploitation of the pelagic fish resources of both South Africa and South West Africa, which were also over-fished.

The third commission of inquiry was the Treurnicht Commission, which issued a report in June last year. The Du Plessis Commission tended to emphasize the development or utilization of marine resources, while in the case of the Treurnicht Commission the emphasis was on conservation.

The South African coastline is about 3 000 km long and extends from the mouth of the Orange River to Mozambique. Only since 1977 have we had an exclusive fishery zone along the coast of the Republic. Since then a limited number of foreign vessels are catching allocated quotas in the exclusive fishing zone of 200 miles along our coast under licence. We are responsible for the patrolling of that vast area. South Africa’s share in world fishing is 500 000 metric tons and I therefore believe that our fishing industry is a very important source of food for our country.

Moreover, I say without fear of contradiction that all South Africans admire the technological advances made by the South African fishing industry since the war years. However, it should not be forgotten that concession holders obtained their permits or concessions free of charge from the State, and that those who bought concessions from existing participants did so with their eyes open. Over the past 40 years a fish concession was indeed a concession to mint money!

A great deal of evidence was submitted to the Treurnicht Commission which indicated that the exploitation and availability of certain types of fish play a very important role in our coastal towns and that tourism is worth hundreds of millions of rand for South Africa.

In addition to the evidence we received from angling resorts in certain areas, inter alia, Hermanus and False Bay, where there has been a drop in the fishing resources, the commission itself also came to the conclusion that there are very few of South Africa’s primary marine resources that are not being over-fished. In the second place, the commission encountered a lack of sound scientific knowledge in respect of most of the branches of marine resources. They found that a statement by the Du Plessis Commission 10 years ago is today still applicable, namely—

As regards inspection services, the Treurnicht Commission accepted evidence pointing to the indisputable fact that the present inspection services of the Sea Fisheries Institute cannot perform their task properly. In the first place, the institute has too small a staff, of only about 53. In the second place there are not enough patrol boats to do their work properly, and thirdly, these officials of the institute are paid poor salaries.

Over and above the lack of proper research and the ineffectiveness of the existing inspection services, the commission also found that the present fishing set-up is totally unsatisfactory. Criticism is levelled at the fact that no official fisheries office exists in Cape Town where decisions can be taken. Everything has to be referred to Pretoria. Every section of the industry has pleaded for the establishment of an office here in Cape Town with greater authority than that of the Inspector of Sea Fisheries. I wish to bring this plea to the attention of the hon. the Minister this afternoon and ask that it be given very serious consideration. Strong criticism was also expressed by all parties about the ineffective composition of the Fisheries Advisory Council, as well as the Boat Limitation Committee. I therefore welcome the fact this afternoon that the advisory council was reconstituted recently.

†I think that this council, which today includes a greater number of objective members like scientists, the Director of Nature Conservation and the chairman of the CSIR, will be in a far better position to play a constructive role in future fishing dispensations.

In evidence before the commission it was clear that every single one of our marine resources—all the established marine resources—are over-exploited and under considerable threat. Both the crayfish and the perlemoen industries are in real danger, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister today to give very careful consideration to the position of the crayfish industry. For example, over 60% of the west coast crayfish quotas are in the hands of one group. Today that group is owned by a huge milling company and by an insurance group. Many of the remaining 35% of the quota holders will be put out of business or else will be swallowed up by this enormous group if there are to be overall quota cuts. I therefore want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to cut back the larger quotas of those quota holders who have for years taken millions of rands out of the fishing industry. Let them now make a sacrifice on a differential basis, instead of benefiting from the fact that there has been over-exploitation, by being put in the position of being able to buy out the smaller man if his quotas are cut.

There is another way of dealing with this matter, and that is by way of a measure recommended by the commission. We recommended that there should be zoning of the west coast. The west coast, we said, should be divided into three zones, and only boats registered in a particular zone should catch in that zone. There is, however, yet another method, and that is to put a quota limit on the amount of crayfish that can be caught, in a number of carefully defined zones, by boats registered anywhere. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister, however, that this latter method benefits the large concession holders at the expense of the small quota holders.

In the case of perlemoen, prices that are paid to the diver must be raised. Even if the quotas of perlemoen concession holders are cut—as I believe they should be—because of the vast profits that are made in the perlemoen industry, I believe the wages the divers get per kilogram of perlemoen caught should be raised. Do hon. members know that divers get something like 95 cents to R1 per kilo, whilst the factories get R15 to R25 per kilo, in export prices?

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chief Whip. The five concession holders in the perlemoen industry export their perlemoen and get between R15 and R25 per ton for their exported products in the Far East. So if there has to be a cut-back in the perlemoen industry, let there be a cut-back, but the divers must be protected. The question of prices to be paid to both the private crayfish boat owners and the perlemoen divers must be looked at very carefully indeed, otherwise the small man is going to suffer whilst the large quota holder does not suffer anything like as much.

I also want to appeal to the hon. the Minister for protection for the small crayfish communities along the west coast. I am thinking in particular of the communities of Kommetjie and Elandsbaai. Those communities have always used bakkies and ring nets to catch crayfish, but what is happening today? The large concession holders poach on the traditional catching grounds with huge traps, called “fuike” in Afrikaans. These huge traps are put as close ashore as the seaweed beds, and the poor little man, in particular the Coloured man, who used to catch with his bakkie and his ring net, is being forced out of business because the crayfish resource is simply being wiped out by these huge traps. Those crayfish communities have a right to protection from the large quota-holders for whom crayfish catching is only a sideline. It is not a “living” for the large concession holder, but for the small community it is. I also think that the public’s right to catch five crayfish per day in inshore crayfish beds around our coast in terms of an announcement made by the hon. the Minister shortly after he took office, should also be protected from the enormous traps of the big industries.

I want to make a further appeal to the hon. the Minister in connection with the availability of fish. As far as trawl fish is concerned, we recommended 25% of the crayfish quota and 50% of the perlemoen quota be sold on the local market. The public of South Africa must also be allowed to share in the largesse of the fishing industry. Do not let the big concession-holders be the only ones to have benefited, but let them now also make a contribution in times of hardship as at present.

In conclusion, I should like to say something about False Bay. False Bay is the largest bay along the South African coast. For years and years conservation societies, angling clubs, and all the local authorities concerned have asked that the bay must be closed to the activities of purse-seine netters from elsewhere. Sir, let there at least be one small area like False Bay and some small crayfish communities, where the small people and the public of South Africa can be protected against privileged quota-holders in each of those industries. I know it is sometimes difficult to “reserve” areas and to say they should be for the exclusive use of particular communities. Our coastline is, however, very long. Our fishing industry has enjoyed the benefit of exclusive quotas and exclusive concessions for many, many years. At a time when our marine resources are depleted, let them also think of the public and the small man along the South African coast and let him also be protected by the hon. the Minister. I know the hon. the Minister is a humane man with a sense of fairplay, and I also know that he will think of the small man because the wealthy quota-holder has benefited so substantially for such a long time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to start by also congratulating the hon. the Minister on his new portfolio. I am particularly pleased that for the first time fisheries is taking a special place in the debates in the House as a section of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I was also particularly pleased to hear that the hon. the Minister, in his opening speech, took a very positive approach to fisheries and also to the commission’s report. I should like to tell him that this report may appear to be a rather thin document. However, as one will find when one reads the introductory chapter, it is the result of probably one of the most intense periods of deliberation that a commission of this sort has ever experienced. The chairman at the time insisted that we should come up with a report as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister may be interested to know that there were 111 separate memorandums put forward on the subject, that there were some 58 organizations and eight individuals who gave oral evidence, which totalled some 138 witnesses who appeared before the commission, and that the oral evidence alone represented 20 type-written volumes totalling some 2 000 pages. I give these statistics just to indicate to the hon. the Minister the importance of this commission’s work. I believe it is far more important than this particular document may appear to make it.

In the 10 minutes I have at my disposal I cannot go into many of the findings of the commission. I cannot discuss them all. Two hon. members who sat on the commission with me have mentioned some of them. But there are two important issues which were raised as a result of this commission. The first was, as the hon. member for Simon’s Town has already said, that the commission found that there was serious over-fishing in just about every one of our fisheries in South Africa. It says in the report that an uncontrolled fishery is a poor fishery. The fact that there was not sufficient control over the fishing, as the commission found, has resulted in our South African fisheries being poor fisheries. That raises the second major consideration put forward by the commission, namely the need to overhaul the entire management structure of the industry. That is why I am so pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has already accepted the commission’s recommendation with regard to the advisory council. I am very pleased that he has seen fit to go along with that. I urge the hon. the Minister to consider this report as an urgent report because we are dealing here with a natural resource which is in danger of being permanently harmed unless the exploitation of it is brought under correct control as soon as possible.

The management of the industry concerns many parties. It concerns those who have vested interests, such as the concession-holders, it concerns the department and its staff and many others. The one thing that is worrying me, as I have already intimated, is that, although this report was signed in June last year, only now, fifteen months later, has it come before Parliament. I hope that the delay has not resulted in more harm having been done to the industry.

Consider first of all the over-fishing. I have not been able to follow the recent happenings in the deep-sea trawling industry, but I heard on the radio just the other day that an additional quota of 2 000 tons has just been allocated. On page 12 of the report the commission says—

I do not know whether the additional quota of 2 000 tons is in excess of the quota we set. I mention this to the hon. the Minister in the hope that he will be able to reassure me that his department have not gone against what the commission recommended. Both hon. members who spoke before me referred to the need for greater control in the rock lobster industry and I urge the hon. the Minister to ensure that over-fishing of this fishery does not continue.

The other aspect is that relating to those who are involved in the industry and the vested interests within the industry. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is aware that there are many people who have a greater or lesser stake in the industry. There are, for instance, the boat-owners. These include not only the owners of huge trawlers but also the owners of small dinghies who have a stake in the industry. The hon. member for Simonstown has appealed to the hon. the Minister to ensure that these people are given a chance when it comes to the future reorganization of the industry. There are also the factory owners, and the concession holders, those who have concessions to catch fish, whether it be pelagic fish, crayfish, perlemoen or whatever. Then there are also those who have concessions to pack the fish, those who have concessions to collect seaweed on our sea-shores, as well as those divers who have concessions to dive for a variety of shell-fish.

The commission found that under the present dispensation there was great uncertainty in regard to the future of these people, who had in many instances made big investments, not only in cash, but also in years of labour, in an attempt to develop the marine resources of South Africa.

I quote as an example, the seaweed industry, the industry that has to do with the harvesting and processing of seaweed. If one studies the memorandum which came before the commission we find, for instance, that one concession holder, viz. South African Sea Resources (Pty) Ltd, involves a man who had experimented and worked for something like ten years developing this resource, and who was ready to invest, who had people ready to invest their money in a processing factory. This factory was going to cost him a considerable amount of money, but he and his financiers were hesitant to proceed with the project because his existing concession which guaranteed him the right to collect seaweed was valid for a very limited period.

This person who gave evidence appealed for a 25-year concession in order to enable concession-holders to write off the costs of their factories over a reasonable period of time. This would also ensure that the resultant product could be put on the market at a reasonable price.

I put these points to the hon. the Minister in order to indicate to him that there is a degree of urgency, and if we delay the decisions on the recommendations made by the commission, we may find that certain people will get hurt in the process.

One will also find, on page 35 of the report, that the commission clearly indicated how it recommended concessions should be granted to various people. As I say, the question I should like to have answered, is that if whether the delay has resulted in any of these people’s being hurt in the process.

Finally, I have two special appeals I should like to lodge with the hon. the Minister. The first one concerns the rights of those involved in the industry. I believe that there are basically two broad groups of people who are involved in the fishing industry. The first group are those who catch or harvest the product, namely the boat-owners. These people, in many cases, are small businessmen. The hon. member for Simonstown has referred to the dinghy owners who catch crayfish. I am referring firstly then to the catchers or the boat owners. Secondly, there are those who pack or process marine products. This group conducts to a large extent, very extensive and capital intensive operations. I believe that the rights of these two groups of people have to be clearly identified and clearly established in terms of the law.

I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister and his department to give special consideration to my submissions in this regard, as they appear in paragraph 54, on page 8 of the report. I believe both these groups can and should be protected.

The second appeal I should like to make concerns the Natal fisheries. The hon. the Minister will find reference to that on page 56 of the report. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that since 1896 the Natal Administration has had the control over the inter-tidal waters along its coastline. If the hon. the Minister would read the recommendations of the commission on page 47, he would find that the commission states that the control of the inter-tidal waters should vest in the Sea Fisheries Institute. However, I appeal to him to give particular consideration to the view which I recorded in paragraph 289(1). [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was a great privilege for me to be a member of the Treurnicht Commission of Inquiry into Certain Aspects of the Conservation and Utilization of the Living Marine Resources of the Republic of South Africa, not only because certain branches of the fishing industry are of particular importance to my constituency, but also because it was a very interesting and pleasant experience for me personally to be a member of that commission.

On this occasion I should consequently like to pay tribute to Mr. N. F. Treurnicht, who acted as chairman of that commission. I wish to thank him for the exceptional guidance he gave the commission. I also wish to express my appreciation for the fact that some of the recommendations of the commission have already been accepted and implemented. I am referring for example to the recommendation of the commission that the fishing industry should be placed under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, as it is now known. Along with this, my appreciation goes to the Minister for the attitude with which he accepted this addition to his department, for the seriousness with which he approached the fishing aspect of this department from the outset and for the correct way in which he acted throughout. I make so bold as to say that if he continues in this way, he stands a good chance of building a monument for himself in the form of a sound fishing industry for the Republic of South Africa.

The commission gained the strong impression that in the past, things had not gone well in the fishing industry in South Africa. There had been over-exploitation of certain fishing resources, discrepancies in respect of concessions allocated, deficiencies in respect of research and inadequate control over the industry. And so I could continue. The commission was convinced that this unsatisfactory state of affairs had to a large extent been caused by the fact that in the past everything had to a great extent been done on an ad hoc basis, and that there had been no fixed norms and guidelines when concessions were granted, quotas had been decided, and so on. For this reason the commission laid down certain norms and guidelines which, in its opinion, had to be complied with and adhered to when any concessions were allocated. I do not have the time to discuss these norms in depth now, but I should just like to refer to a few of them.

As a first norm the commission recommended the optimum conservation and utilization of the resource concerned, with particular reference to expertise, and/or the level and quality of the research which an applicant has at its disposal in respect of a specific branch of the industry and the standard of what has been achieved by the applicant, i.e. when one is dealing with an applicant who is already engaged in the industry and has already shown that he can maintain a specific standard, preference should be given to that applicant. Along with this there is the efficiency of the catches and the processing and packing of the marine resource concerned and the percentage of the product handled by the applicant which is marketed for human consumption. The commission felt that an exploiter of a marine resource making that resource available for human consumption should receive preferential consideration over an exploiter exploiting it for other purposes.

A further norm is the stability of the industry as a whole as well as that of the various branches involved. It is a fact that one will have to adopt a careful approach to this industry so as not to affect its stability. Therefore when changes are introduced, the stability of the industry must always be maintained otherwise one will be throwing the baby out with the bath water. A third norm is that of maintaining healthy competition and preventing monopolistic conditions. It is unfortunately a fact that in certain branches of the fishing industry monopolies have to a large extent been formed already. I do not expect that those monopolies which already exist should now be broken up. However, I do think that we all agree that it is not desirable that this formation of monopolies should continue, and that measures should be adopted to prevent or at least limit the further formation of similar monopolies. There are other norms as well which should apply, viz. the geographic location of an applicant’s undertaking, how it fits in with the national physical planning, the contribution which it makes to the socio-economic infrastructure of a specific area or community and whether it involves optimum rationalization in respect of transport and promotes the saving of fuel.

The commission and I are very aware of the fact that to state these norms as I have just done, is one thing. However, to quantify and to apply these norms is an entirely different matter. Consequently the commission had no illusions whatsoever about the problems involved in applying these norms in practice, but what is important is that the Department and the industry should commit themselves to accepting these norms as guidelines; in other words, that there should at least be an attempt to act within the limits of these norms and guidelines when it comes to the allocation of concessions.

When I speak of concessions there is another matter I wish to emphasize on this occasion and that is that a concession from the State is in fact a concession. It is not a right. One can argue about this academically but the fact remains that when a Minister grants a concession it must be a concession which can be withdrawn or amended by the Minister at any time. In practice it happens all too often …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to enable the hon. member to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Chief Whip, Sir. In practice it happens all too often that a Government concession is considered by the holder of the concession to be an asset with which he then starts speculating. One finds that people who have no real direct interest in the industry concerned get concessions. That person sees that concession merely as negotiable assets which can be disposed of as quickly as possible at a large profit. This is an unhealthy state of affairs. It does not further the interests of the industry and for this reason I think it must be made very clear to concession holders that the concession they receive from the State is a concession which they hold as a concession which can be withdrawn or amended at any time by the Minister.

In the few minutes I still have at my disposal I wish to refer to the inshore trawling industry along the south-east coast line of the Cape. The inshore trawling industry is a mixed industry with two basic components, viz. the hake component and the sole component. Both these resources are subject to quota control.

In the case of hake there was until recently a quota of 5 000 tons within which the inshore trawling industry had to operate. The quota has now been increased to 7 000 tons and I wish to express my appreciation for this concession. However, I am still convinced that the resource can bear a further concession. I therefore wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister for the quota to be increased to 10 000 tons. I believe that that is within the maximum maintainable yield of the resource and that it would serve as an important and essential booster to the inshore trawling industry, which has battled in the past, if the hake quota were increased to 10 000 tons per annum.

As I have already said, it is a mixed industry. It would be of no avail to increase only the quota of the hake component if the quota of the sole component is not also increased. The sole quota has been fixed at 700 tons for the past few years, but it happens every year that by June, July or August the sole quota has already been filled. Representations are then addressed and concessions are made, and eventually the annual sole catches are in the vicinity of 1 000 tons.

I wish to ask the hon. the Minister once again—the commission also recommended this—that a realistic quota should be fixed at the beginning of the year so that it will not be necessary to appeal for a further concession from the Minister in the middle of the year. Once a realistic allocation has been made, this ought to enable the industry to operate throughout the year.

I wish to ask the hon. the Minister once again to protect the inshore trawling industry against deep-sea trawlers. The inshore trawling industry operates within certain limits, viz. to within a depth of 60 fathoms and approximately 12 nautical miles from the coast. However, the 60 fathom and 12 nautical mile limits do not always coincide, with the result that the deep-sea trawlers trawl within this area. In this way they disturb the sole resource which is of cardinal importance to the inshore trawling industry. I wish to support the commission’s recommendation in this connection, viz. that a nautical area within the 12 nautical mile limit or the 60 fathom limit, whichever is the most restrictive to the deep-sea trawlers, should be designated as an area within which only the inshore trawlers are entitled to operate.

On the same basis I also wish to ask that the line fishermen in their turn be protected against the trawlers, because the line fishermen also find that trawlers operate in the same area in which they are entitled to fish.

The number of line fish caught in the trawling nets is not all that is involved, but the fact of the matter is that the trawlers drive away the line fish with their activities, to the detriment of the line fishing industry. The line fishing industry is in terms of rands and cents, and in comparison with other branches of the overall fishing industry, a small and insignificant subdivision. For the people engaged in it, however, it is just as important as any other branch is to the largest fishing company. Many of those people are dependent for their livelihood on the line fish they catch. I therefore repeat that the fine fishing industry is just as important to them as it would have been if millions of rands worth of fish were involved. In addition there is also the interests of visitors and tourists which must be taken into account, and I trust that the hon. the Minister will also give this matter his sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I too want to fall in with the hon. members who paid tribute to the chairman of this commission, and I want to refer in particular to the secretary, Mr. J. P. Matthews, who spent so much time on ensuring that the proceedings of the commission ran smoothly. I am also grateful that the hon. the Minister opened the debate today with elevated thoughts, one could almost say with lyrical language. I believe that we are all grateful that apart from all its assets, our country also has valuable fish and other marine resources at its disposal.

If one wants to evaluate the extent of the fishing industry, it is important to note that our fishermen landed no less than 580 314 metric tons of fish during 1980 and that the landing value thereof amounted to the enormous sum of R250 million. If we include other products such as seaweed, oysters, Natal crayfish, shrimps and so on which also contributed a considerable income, we find that the harvest for 1980 amounted to approximately R257 500 000.

Apart from this facet, of course, there is also another division of the industry which is carried out on land, i.e. the preservation, processing, packaging and marketing which in itself is an enormous industry and in which, as the hon. the Minister also pointed out, thousands of people are employed. The best example of this is the factories along the West Coast where more than a thousand people are employed daily in one or more factories. Therefore, this industry is an enormous one and that is why it is important for it to be maintained.

If one wants to have yet another perspective on it, we could possibly compare it to a few of our agricultural sectors. Whilst the wheat industry produced a gross sum of R301 million during 1979-’80; the citrus industry, R121 million; the wool industry R190 million; and the mohair industry R36.4 million to the farmers concerned, the achievements of the fishermen of South Africa, are comparable with these very important sectors in our agricultural industry.

Furthermore, we must take note of the fact that the fishermen are entirely dependent for their livelihood and that of their children, on the resources of fish. With a view to this, this report consists of two components. On the one hand, it is an attempt to bring about a better dispensation for those involved in the fishing industry, but on the other hand it is always subject to the important requirement that the fish resources may never be depleted or destroyed. Where they have already been depleted, measures are being suggested for restoring such resources.

However, there are also problems in many sectors of this industry. I do not, however, want to conduct a detailed discussion of the recommendations contained in the report of the commission here. I also want to say at once that I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister has decided to publish a White Paper regarding the whole matter so that we can see which recommendations have been accepted. As I know the hon. the Minister—I know how thoroughly this task was tackled—the bulk of the recommendations will be accepted. However, as I said, there are serious problems that must be combatted. I do not want to go into the finer details on this occasion. Although I come from a part of the world where this industry is rather limited, I think that I will nevertheless be permitted simply to refer to the industry in the Eastern Cape waters, i.e. the waters near Port Elizabeth and vicinity, where we are faced with a few problems.

As I have already said, the fishing industry in that area is not a large one, but three of the trawlers operating there do belong to people from our city, whilst the other six belong to a Cape Town company. Of course, the quotas are restricted, and in 1980 the full quota had already been caught by 22 October, whilst the full quota for this year had been caught by 5 August. Therefore, after the full quotas have been caught, the fishermen are without work. The hon. the Minister has already announced, however, that he is urgently investigating the matter, and as I know him, I also know that he will deal with this problem with a great deal of compassion.

However, there are other problems in this regard as well. Although they are the fish resources of the Eastern Cape, the Cape Town trawlers also fish there, and often fish has to be transported from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth in order to provide for the city’s requirements. It is an unnecessary process and gives rise to increased costs.

Reference has already been made to the third problem that I should like to raise. I want to say at once that the fishermen in my area are aware of the fact that no State—and this applies to South Africa too—can live in isolation and then expect to flourish. They realize that limited contractual commitments must bé made with other powers from time to time. Therefore, no matter what one may do or say, foreign ships will enter our waters from time to time. However, the fishermen tell me that the activities of the foreign ships in our territorial waters are of such a nature that it appears that their activities are uncontrolled and unrestricted. In the nature of things, this gives rise to dissatisfaction and frustration. Recommendations in this regard appear in the report, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give very urgent attention to this. The fishermen maintain that between 35 and 40 foreign trawlers have already been noticed in those territorial waters. If it continues in this way, the fishing resources will obviously be dealt a blow from which they may not recover.

As regards the recommendations, I should just like to refer the hon. the Minister to paragraph 2(1) on page 53 of the report where reference is made to the hake quota. The hon. member who spoke before me, referred to it too. In terms of that recommendation, the problem in connection with the hake quota in Eastern Cape waters—and in other areas too—can be solved.

In conclusion I just want to say that I am quite confident that in due course legislation will probably be submitted in order to give substance to the recommendations in this report, so that our fishing industry and fish resources, which is one of our largest heritages, can be conserved for our children’s children.

Mr. Chairman, in the very limited time at my disposal I want to try to furnish replies in general only. For the rest, I shall ask my department to investigate the requests of hon. members that dealt with more detailed subjects, and to furnish them with written replies.

First of all I want to say thank you very much for the congratulations which various hon. members have addressed to me on my appointment to this post. I appreciate their good wishes. One hon. member hit the nail on the head when he conveyed his sympathy to me at the same time. It was the hon. member for Simonstown. I am not a fisherman by nature. I once had a neighbour who, when I asked him whether he ever went fishing, said that he did not because his wife allowed him to drink at home. Therefore, I have not yet been a fisherman, but I really have developed a particular interest in this very interesting, very complicated industry.

What about the trout at Lydenburg?

Yes, unfortunately they are excluded from sea fisheries, and do not fall under our control.

The hon. member for Wynberg expressed his concern about the exploitation of our resources by foreign powers. The hon. member repeated warnings and quoted various people who have issued warnings in the past. Then the hon. member criticized me and my department to some extent and said: “Look, this report was submitted as early as in June 1980, and in the interim only a few of the recommendations of the report have been implemented”. He feels that we have been too slow in reacting to it. I just want to point out to the hon. member that when the Sea Fisheries Division was transferred to the Department of Agriculture—in the course of last year—only one official from the Department of Industries moved over to my department. Therefore, the top structure of the department has to study an entirely new industry from the very beginning and amongst other things, to study a report with 118 drastic recommendations. A great deal of consultation had to take place. I accept full responsibility for the fact that a White Paper has not yet been published, because I was not prepared to take decisions on an ad hoc basis which may on the long term be to the detriment of the industry. My department and I have studied the report, and I can tell the hon. member that a draft White Paper has already been drawn up in which each one of the recommendations are dealt with. Some recommendations merit further investigation, and I am therefore not prepared to make hasty decisions on an ad hoc basis, particularly not when the livelihood of people and the continued existence of a very sensitive, very valuable resource, which is in the national interest and is an asset to the country, is at stake. That is why I shall rather go about it slowly in order to ensure that mistakes are restricted to the minimum.

The hon. member raised the question of patrol boats and said that there were not enough boats and not enough inspectors. We took a serious look at all the recommendations of the commission in this regard and have already raised the issue of inspectors with the Commission for Administration. We realize that exercising control is a very important facet of the industry, and that is why we are taking a serious look at the question of inspectors. However, the hon. member must concede that we are also bound to the salary structures that are already in existence and it is because we have taken this into account that we have made representations to the commission.

As regards the question concerning the local marketing of 25% of the amount of crayfish that is caught in order to combat smuggling, I want to say that this is also one of the recommendations of the commission to which we are giving serious attention. Hon. members have asked for fresh fish to be released locally by the industry and that the industry should make crayfish available along the West Coast. We do not have an unsympathetic attitude towards any of those recommendations. However, nor do I think that we should enforce them upon the industry. We should first see whether we cannot obtain the voluntary co-operation of the industry. Then, when it is convenient and feasible, we can gradually develop it. In that way it may possibly be implemented more easily.

The hon. member also raised the question of zones. I want to make the point that this is a very drastic recommendation. The hon. member for Simonstown and other hon. members referred to it too. We gave very serious consideration to the question of zoning, and our standpoint more or less amounts to the fact that we have to implement a quota per zone without that quota being linked to a specific company or boat. We shall determine a quota per area and implement it in this way instead of restricting the catches to individual quotas.

The hon. member for Simonstown also submitted a request with regard to Walker Bay and False Bay. I want to tell him that this is a matter to which I am giving my serious consideration at the moment. Without binding myself or my department at all, I can tell him that I shall give my very serious consideration to that matter.

The hon. member referred here to the A. H. du Plessis Commission, the G. G. du Plessis Commission and the Treurnicht Commission. It seems to me that there are too many Du Plessis in the industry, because now they have a Minister with that surname too. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my very hearty thanks to all the hon. members who served on the Treurnicht Commission, for the sacrifices and the contributions they made with regard to the industry. In a short space of time they submitted a very good report, and I really want to congratulate them on it and thank them for the service which they rendered to the industry.

The hon. member for Simonstown said we have a lack of scientific knowledge in connection with the resource. I agree with the hon. member that research in this industry is an absolute priority. We can only make the correct decisions, decisions that are to the benefit of the resource, if we have the necessary information in that regard. There is only one way of obtaining it, and this is through research. That is why research is a priority.

The hon. member also raised the question of the inspection service. I have already reacted to this. He also asked for a higher authority in Cape Town at the Sea Fisheries Institute. Pending further approval, I have already decided in principle that a chief director will be singled out to give exclusive attention to the fishing industry.

I am pleased that hon. members have welcomed the change in the composition of the Fisheries Advisory Board. It is one of the recommendations of the commission to which we have already reacted.

Various hon. members have also raised the issue of the small man in the industry. In agriculture we have economic units and hon. members are well aware of my standpoint with regard to the smaller farmer in agriculture. They know that I have a great deal of sympathy for him. That is why I want to say that in future I shall also look very sympathetically at the smaller man in the fishing industry, taking into account what is fair and right for all those involved in the industry.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also made a very positive contribution here. Of course, he too was a member of the Treurnicht Commission of Inquiry. The hon. member thanked me for the change in the composition of the Fisheries Advisory Council and he also referred to a recommendation, on page 52 of the commission’s report, with regard to coastal trawl fishery. As far as the hake quota is concerned, I can tell the hon. member that it was increased from 5 000 metric tons to 7 000 metric tons. If I remember correctly, I announced this the week before last. It is in fact the same matter about which the hon. member for Mossel Bay made a representation. It appears to me that the two hon. gentlemen are entirely in agreement with regard to that matter.

Then the question of seaweed was also raised here, as well as the collection concessions, etc. It was also stated here that we should encourage the domestic processing of seaweed and that we should also allow the concessions to cover longer periods. Now I can tell hon. members that my thoughts are moving in that direction. I am thinking of making a concession, or the extension of a concession, subject to the holder thereof making active efforts for the local processing of the seaweed in his area, otherwise he will forfeit his concession. This may serve as a stimulus for the provision of further employment opportunities.

Then the hon. member for Amanzimtoti also referred to the big and small man in the fishing industry. I have already reacted to this. The hon. member referred to the inter-tidal zone, and also made a special request in that regard for Natal. All I can tell the hon. member is that we have asked for the commentary of the Natal Provincial Administration in connection with the recommendations of the commission in this regard. At the moment we have not yet received that commentary, but as soon as the Natal Provincial Administration reacts to it, we can review that aspect once again and give attention to the request that the hon. member made here.

Then I want to thank the hon. member for Mossel Bay for his contribution. He too was a member of the commission and also made a special contribution there. I note here that he and the hon. member for Simon’s Town often upheld minority standpoints. However, their standpoints were strong, and I respect someone who feels strongly about a matter. The hon. member for Mossel Bay said that in the past action was often taken on an ad hoc basis. This is the reason why—as I told the hon. member for Wynberg—we did not want to react to this report on a haphazard, ad hoc basis. We preferred to make a thorough study of the report, and that is why we have also published a White Paper, which may give some guidelines to the industry, and which leaves no doubt about the policy and the standpoint which the Government will maintain in this regard. The hon. member asked for the recommendation regarding the general guidelines, as recommended by the commission, to be accepted by the Government. In general, I cannot actually find any fault with the general guidelines that have been laid down. With a few provisos one can therefore accept it in general.

Then the hon. member also referred to the hake quota, which has been increased from 5 000 tons to 7 000 tons. I am delighted that we were able to assist the hon. member’s people in that regard. Now I just want to tell the hon. member that as far as the sole quota is concerned, the institute was not prepared to recommend that it be increased to more than 900 tons.

The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the importance of the fishing industry as a provider of employment. He also referred to the important contribution which the marine industry is making towards the national economy, on the basis of the fact that it is a source of food for the entire nation. The hon. member stated that the report actually has two components, viz. on the one hand a better dispensation for the participants in the industry and on the other hand that the resources should not be depleted. I think that at times one would need the wisdom of Solomon if one wanted to see both these objectives being fulfilled, since they may often be conflicting. I think the fundamental premise in the industry should be that the resource should not suffer at all costs because then the future of the industry would be doomed.

I now come to the quotas of foreign powers. There are a few powers that have quotas here in our waters, but I want to state very clearly that the quotas of those powers have been granted in the national interest. We always ask the powers concerned to co-operate, and we do have their cooperation. I do not think that we should actually debate that issue much further.

I want to conclude by thanking all the members who participated in this debate, for their contributions. As I said, where some members raised points to which I have not reacted, some of those points will be answered by the department. I think many of the requests that were made here, will actually be answered when the White Paper is laid on the table, which will take place during the present session.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Africa Limited, a private insurance organization, was registered as a company in 1956 for the purpose of giving South African exporters insurance coverage against the commerical and political risks which might cause our exporters not to receive payment from abroad for goods delivered or services rendered.

Like any other insurance company, the corporation is assisted by various private financial institutions acting as re-insurers for the commercial insurance obligations of the corporation. Because no private business institution could be found which would be willing or able to act as re-insurer for the insurance coverage provided by the corporation against damage caused by foreign political factors, the Government, by means of the Export Credit Re-insurance Act, No. 78 of 1957, created machinery in terms of which the State could act as the official re-insurer for all the political risks insured by the corporation, as well as for that portion of the commercial risks which cannot be placed with the private re-insurers of the corporation. As in the case of the export credit schemes of the other industrial countries, the Act is intended to promote South African exports of consumer and capital goods, thereby rendering a service to our export community. For this reason, it is not the purpose of the Export Credit Re-insurance Act to give aid or assistance to other countries, by delivering goods and/or rendering services, or to finance development projects on a subsidized basis in foreign countries.

†The South African export credit reinsurance scheme has worked well ever since its inception in 1958. Over the years certain adjustments had to be made to the scheme in order to bring it into line with new developments and circumstances in international trade.

Again we have arrived at such a point in time where it has become necessary to provide insurance coverage for South African private investments in other countries and the proposed amending Bill is presented with this purpose in mind.

The purpose of the investment guarantees now to be added to the existing services of the export credit re-insurance scheme is to allow South African companies to commit themselves to foreign investments in the knowledge that they will be protected by insurance against such political actions as confiscation and/or nationalization without reasonable reparation payment. Conditions such as war, insurrection and other occurrences outside South Africa may also result in a loss of control over such investments.

*The proposed legislation does not provide insurance against normal commercial developments which may lead to unprofitability or insolvency.

The investments to be insured will have to comply with all existing exchange control regulations and applications in this connection will require the specific approval of the S.A. Reserve Bank in particular.

The investment guarantees that are involved here are not applicable to private transactions such as the purchase of a holiday cottage, nor to the so-called portfolio investments involving the purchase of listed shares in an existing foreign undertaking.

The purpose of the investment guarantees is to support a South African investor who wishes, through his investment, to establish a commercial or industrial project in another country, or to use his specialized knowledge and expertise for exploiting the potential of that country, or to use a foreign industry or commercial bank as a starting point for promoting his own personal activities within the Republic.

†As already indicated, an investment guarantee will not provide insurance coverage against unprofitability but will act as cover against political actions in the country in which the investment has been made which may result in the investment being neutralized or destroyed.

The investment guarantees will therefore provide insurance coverage against the following risks—

1. (i) Direct or indirect expropriation, nationalization or confiscation through State regulations or interference prohibiting the profitable operation of business without immediate and sufficient compensation;
2. (ii) the neutralization or impeding of opportunities for the transfer of profits to the Republic;
3. (iii) damage to the investment through war, riots, revolution, etc.

*The proposed legislation is intended, therefore, to expand the existing Export Credit Re-insurance Act, No. 78 of 1959, to provide for insurance coverage against foreign investment risks as well.

The insurance will be offered against payment of an annual premium, and the term to be covered by it will extend over a period of up to and including 15 years.

In clause 1, section 1 of the principal Act is amended by the insertion of a few obvious definitions.

Clause 2 of the Bill is intended to make provision in the re-insurance agreement with the Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation for the provision of investment insurance. Paragraphs (i) to (v) of section 2 of the principal Act are therefore being amplified and suitably rearranged for the provision of investment guarantees.

†Clause 3 of the Bill is aimed at the amendment of any references in the principal Act to the “Export Credit Re-insurance Fund” to that of the “Re-insurance Fund for Export Credit and Foreign Investments”.

Likewise, the designation of the “Secretary for Commerce and Industries” is being changed to “Director-General of Industries, Commerce and Tourism”.

Section 5 of the principal Act is also amended by the substitution in subsection (3) for the title “Public Debt Commissioners Act, 1911 (Act No. 18 of 1911)” of the title of the Act presently in operation.

The purpose of clause 4 of the Bill is to amend the title to that of the “Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism”.

*In clause 5 of the Bill, the designation is being changed into the “Export Credit and Foreign Investments Re-insurance Act, 1957”.

The Bill, after it has been passed, will be known as the “Export Credit Re-insurance Amendment Act, 1981”.

In the long title of the principal Act, the idea of investment is emphasized by the insertion of the word “investment”.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the hon. the Minister is at the present moment involved in an important by-election. For him it will have to be a case of third time lucky, otherwise we might be deprived of his services in the House.

Why do you not contest it?

We are going to do very much better.

Are you going to help the HNP?

Because we know that the hon. the Minister in secret …

Were it not for dreams, you would not have existed.

… really supports our principles and policies, we shall encourage our PFP supporters to vote for him in that by-election.

There is no such thing in Piketberg!

We shall make it widely known that we encourage them to vote for him, and we hope that the hon. the Minister will appreciate our efforts on his behalf. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister will obviously like to get back to Piketberg, but unfortunately we are going to oppose this legislation and he will therefore have to stay around for a little while.

The reasons why we are opposing the legislation is that as it stands at the moment and as the hon. the Minister has in fact explained it, the legislation is making provision for the re-insurance by the Government of insurance on investments in countries outside the Republic of South Africa. We asked questions of members of his department and of the hon. the Minister in order to clarify what nature of investment and in which countries these investments are visualized. The answers we were given did not allay our fears that there was something unsatisfactory about the provision which is being made here.

In his speech the hon. the Minister says that it is in order to re-insure investments where such investments may be endangered by political activity, by nationalization, by steps taken by the host countries not to allow dividends and payments to be made in the Republic of South Africa and so forth. The impression we gain is that the Government, although they are not prepared at this stage to tell us what kind of investment and in which countries they visualize these investments, are really thinking of investments in countries which are politically unstable.

Where do you get that from.

It is perfectly clear from what the hon. the Minister has stud, because he speaks about losses that can be suffered by South African investors as a result of political activities.

The question which arises and which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister very specifically is to what sort of investment he is referring to and in what countries he is visualizing such investments may take place.

It is not the Government who is going to invest; it is the private sector.

There have been investments made by the Government via the private sector, via the Department of Information and via a number of very sinister other organizations. One never knows what might be happening behind the scenes when an investment is made in some of the Central African and other countries. I think the hon. the Minister knows that there was once an investment in a hotel in one of the Central African countries. That was not an appreciably successful investment. We also know that the Government have been involved in many other investments. They even bought a newspaper in the USA one way or another. [Interjections.] They have made investments in a large number of people overseas who expressed views sympathetic to the Government, and this has cost the country a great deal of money. We are therefore always concerned and vigilant when this Government becomes involved in the process of making any sort of investment or becomes involved in the process of reinsuring such investments. Quite seriously, Sir, we think that the hon. the Minister owes the House an explanation. It is his responsibility to tell us what countries he is thinking of. Is he for instance thinking of the independent homelands in South Africa as one group of countries? Is it that the Government is finding that very few South African investors are prepared to invest in the homelands because of the political risks involved? Is this another effort that the Government is embarking upon in an effort to attempt to persuade South African investors to invest their money in these homelands? That is, I think, a question that the hon. the Minister should answer. There are also different kinds of investments, because the hon. the Minister is now presenting certain amendments to the House, and one of these makes the thing far more suspect than it was before. Clause 1(b) of the Bill reads—

The hon. the Minister is now clarifying this, and that actually makes it worse. He said—

That is an explanation that we previously got from his department, but the hon. the Minister has now added “all the economic developments in the country where the investment is made”. I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us of the countries where he believes investments will be made in order to advance the economic development of those countries, and whether at this early stage he foresees the possibility of those investments going sour as a result of the political instability of the countries concerned.

We shall deal with the separate clauses of the Bill in the Committee Stage, and also with the amendments proposed by the Minister. In fact, we may move some amendments ourselves, depending on the answers that we get to our questions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston is not quite sure what the Bill is all about. If he believes that this legislation implies that the State is making these investments, he is wrong. It surprises me that the hon. member did not do his homework, for if he had read the report of the Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation, he would have seen that the insured turn-over of this company over the past year amounted to R2 828 million, only R17 million of which was paid out in premiums. The report of the chairman mentions the fact that there are risk countries, and in that respect I agree with the hon. member, but it is surprizing that the USA should have been one of those risk countries. I should like to quote from this report—

I believe the hon. member should have made a better study of the matter and should not have been eager only to oppose it. In more than one way, I think, the measure which is before us today is symbolic of the pioneering spirit of the people of South Africa. When the 1957 legislation was submitted to this House by way of a motion by the then member for Bellville-Parow, Mr. Jan Haak, it enjoyed the unanimous support of the House. Even the Opposition moved an amendment at that time which was also supported by the House. Those were still the good old days when we had a constructive Opposition.

When one reads the speeches made in that debate, one understands why the present hon. Prime Minister, who was already a member of this House at that time, has so much confidence in the people of South Africa. Reading those speeches, one understands why the hon. the Prime Minister formulated the slogan: “Forward in faith and courage!” After all, he was associated over a long period with the Jan Haaks who led South Africa with faith and courage. Those were people who were prepared to perform acts of faith for South Africa in the field of commerce, industry and exports. One is grateful to be able to build today on the foundations which were so firmly laid. [Interjections.] That is all this legislation intends. The hon. the Minister is building on the foundations laid by Mr. Jan Haak at the time. Therefore this Bill deserves the support of us all, because everyone is still inspired by the wish to develop South Africa, and we are still doing so with faith and courage. When one scrutinizes this hon. Minister’s career, one sees that he is a man who has led South Africans with daring and faith every time he has received an assignment. Whether at the Embassy in London, before the students in Johannesburg, from the pulpit at Wellington or on the rugby-field in London before all those demonstrators, every time he has been given an assignment and the ball has been placed in his hands, he has scored for South Africa. When this piece of legislation comes out of the scrum today, and the hon. the Minister sends his back-line away, every industrialist and businessman who gets hold of the ball will be able to score for himself and for South Africa with faith and courage. This amendment to the Act holds many advantages for people who wish to export. With credit insurance one helps them to compete in a sophisticated world market and one gives them an opportunity to earn a bigger turnover on their capital investment. A bigger turnover will in turn reduce their production costs, and this will make them more competitive, and when they become more competitive, as a result of the higher production, more job opportunities are created, and in this way, the rest of Southern Africa benefits from this. The greater the production capacity of the entrepreneur, the more he feels the need to expand his market abroad. Then it becomes necessary for him to make investments there in order to promote the marketing and distribution of his product. Often he even has to continue the production of his product in a foreign country to ensure its proper distribution. It may even happen that he has to go there to buy out a marketing network in that country to be able to dispose of his product there. As the standard of living of countries and nations around us improves, a demand will develop among them for luxuries such as jewellery, engagement rings and wedding rings. Once they have those things, a demand arises for other things such as housing, transport, fuel, food, clothing, shoes, furniture, perambulators for the baby and all the other things which come afterwards. As money is invested in developing the infrastructure of under-developed countries, investment possibilities will arise in their manufacturing, commercial, industrial, mining and agricultural sectors. South Africa has gone through all these phases itself, and today finds itself in the favourable position of being almost self-sufficient in all these sectors, with the result that its people can now use their expertise and their management and production abilities elsewhere and make the best of their talents.

This measure of the hon. the Minister is just another means of ensuring that the export trade is stabilized and expanded. It will mean that the private sector itself will be responsible for developing South Africa’s trade finks with other countries. In doing so, they can relieve the burden on our embassies. As we invest in the infrastructures of our neighbouring States and other countries, the demand for goods which we can supply to them will increase. At the same time, foreign countries will be eager to trade with those developing countries in order to deprive us of these markets which we have helped to build. Therefore we must create the machinery to place our people in a more favourable trading position. It is in the interests of our country and our neighbours that we accept this amending legislation in its entirety. The State is taking great trouble and investing large amounts in the infrastructure of our neighbouring States. Therefore it has become essential that we open the doors wider for the private sector to invest there as well. By allowing the private sector to do this, one is expanding its market, thereby strengthening the total structure. Since we have the opportunity of talking to our people today about the possibilities of exports, I also consider it essential to appeal to the media to give the public detailed information about this amending legislation. Too few South Africans are aware of the possibilities of greater prosperity for South Africans which this legislation offers, irrespective of the size of a business or undertaking. I want to refer to the role which this amending legislation is already playing in exporting South Africa’s expertise and knowledge and in the field of energy and fuel development in the constellation of Southern African States. I should like to quote from Hoofstad of 19 August 1981, in which a report appeared on the business page under the heading—

The report reads—

So this Bill enables us, in co-operation with Africa and Europe, to make more Southern African States independent of oil from the East or Nigeria. In this case, we and the West are going to acquire experience and expertise in our search for our own energy resources, and it is going to save an African country from the clutches of Marxist extortioners. I think we have no option but to agree with the hon. the Minister, to trust him fully and to say that we are going to teach the other African States, too, to go forward with faith and courage. Therefore we on this side of the House support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as far as this legislation is concerned, we in the NRP see these provisions as being an indication of the expansion of South Africa’s industrial capacity and investment, and also of its export potential and so on. As such we have decided that we are going to support the measure. We see this legislation as a natural expansion of the provisions of the export credit insurance scheme in order to include, as the hon. the Minister has said, investment guarantees against possible nationalization by other governments. That is the way we saw it and, as I have said, for these reasons we are going to support this.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Bryanston has seen a lot of spooks here. He said that perhaps the Government is trying to re-insure its own investments in such things as we saw develop in relation to the Information scandal. I do not know what he had in mind, but I do believe that he is seeing a lot of spooks. After all, this involves a re-insurance scheme and I imagine that it is going to be conducted in the normal manner in which most insurance schemes are managed. I also believe that this must have been agreed to after discussions with the private sector. Maybe the hon. the Minister can indicate in his reply how the private sector sees this.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that he has one or two amendments he wishes to propose. Perhaps he could expand on the reasons for the amendment he proposes to clause 1. He does propose that the definition of “investment” should read—

I can understand that. It then goes on to say—

Perhaps the hon. the Minister would like to expand on that, because I should like to know what he has in mind.

With those few words, we shall be supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when I joined the then Department of Commerce and Industry as a young cadet in 1956, the first legislation in this field was under discussion. Now that I find myself in a new environment, the same subject is once again under discussion. This Bill represents a further step in promoting economic development and growth in the national States in particular. It should be seen in conjunction with the proposed development bank and the Small Business Development Corporation. Therefore it links up with the constellation policy of the Government. Furthermore, as the hon. the Prime Minister indicated at the Carlton conference in 1979, the private sector must play a major role, not only in the economic development of the independent States of Southern Africa, but also in developing the concepts of private initiative and the capitalist system as the only means of creating prosperity for the populations of the various States. The objective has been stated by the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, namely that this measure is providing a further cover against investment risks. It is an addition to the cover in connection with our export risks. That is already being offered by the country’s export credit insurance scheme.

This measure offers prospective investors protection in the form of investment guarantees over periods of up to 15 years. The positive factor of the proposed facility is that it will only provide cover against political events and not against the risk of the investor not being able to operate his business on a profitable basis. A project or business must be viable and productive to be able to make a contribution to society.

In our capitalist system, profit is still the only effective criterion to indicate whether a productive contribution has been made. What political risks are being provided for in this measure? Prospective investors may be put off by the fact that they may in the long term be subject in other countries to government actions which may harm their investments. Their earnings from such investments may, for example, be frozen, so that they cannot have the benefit of them. Then there is also the danger of the nationalization of investments without proper compensation. To encourage industrialists to expand abroad, therefore, in order to obtain greater export earnings for South Africa, and to encourage industrialists to take their knowledge, expertise and training abilities to the developing countries around us, they have to be safeguarded against this political risk.

This facility will help to motivate the South African entrepreneur, to assist him and to safeguard him against certain risks, so that he may investigate and utilize the possibilities of establishing projects operated for gain, in co-operation with the authorities and citizens of the independent national States.

This Bill will not only stimulate investments and development in our developing countries, but will also promote our exports. For certain kinds of exports we need investments. I want to mention three examples. In the first place, one may buy into one’s distribution system. There are quite a number of farmers in this country who know that when one exports citrus fruit—or even crayfish—and one is not able to penetrate an overseas distribution system, one is faced with problems. A further reason why investments are necessary is the following. We often possess raw materials which we wish to process further overseas. Just think of a practical example such as manganese. We have bought out a business in the USA so that we may further process our manganese ore there. In the third place, it often happens that one has to enter into partnerships with companies in other countries to undertake major projects together. Consortiums are often formed today with a view to undertaking very large projects.

The question may be asked, therefore, whether we who are looking for risk capital ourselves can encourage an outflow of capital in this way. When one is able to make a profitable investment overseas, surely there is nothing wrong with making use of such an opportunity. In any event, we have the Reserve Bank’s foreign exchange section, which can exercise control over all money leaving the country. After all, the approval of the Reserve Bank has to be obtained in cases of this nature.

Now I come to a very important aspect of this matter. In this respect, I feel that the hon. member for Bryanston in particular was being a little unreasonable in referring to the strange investments and so forth which might cause money to leave the country unnecessarily. It so happens that we have an organization which can ensure that this legislation is enforced. That is the Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation. The Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation—for the information of the hon. member for Bryanston—has been in existence for 25 years. This undertaking was an outflow of the South African banking and insurance industry. It is composed of elements from our banking industry and insurance institutions. This is a company which is deliberately operated for gain, a company which also specializes in issuing of credit insurance policies.

The Government is only assisting it by providing re-insurance in so far as certain risks, especially the political trading risks, cannot be insured through the normal channels. Therefore the Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation can use its own initiative in, firstly, the finding of private re-insurance facilities; secondly, the marketing of insurance for South African exporters; and, thirdly, negotiations with foreign interests where its facilities are affected. This is a private undertaking. Therefore I cannot imagine that they would suddenly start making investments which could be very harmful to this country.

There is nothing unusual about this development either. In 1964, for example, the Agency for International Development in the USA alone negotiated $700 million in specific risk insurance on investments in developing countries. This Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation has since its inception supported exports to the value of R12 milliard. Of this amount, approximately R10 milliard was in respect of the past 10 years alone. This is a sign that its activities are growing more and more rapidly, and this has been achieved without any appeal to the Treasury through the Government. It is seldom possible to say this of other organizations.

Credit guarantee is not only a telling example of what can be accomplished if private enterprise and the Government decide to co-operate to achieve common objectives, but also proves how the private sector can be spurred on to greater achievements by the availability of certain key elements such as credit guarantees. However, this development has not stood still. It has not only grown in turnover, but has also been adapted to further needs. When we consider the unique advantages which we have, such as technical and contracting abilities, we see that these are not being utilized to the full, especially with regard to our technical knowledge in the agricultural field. For this reason, they have made adjustments, especially with a view to Government aid, and therefore it has been possible to give guarantees to the contractors and to the country’s financial institutions, so that they have been able to make funds available for medium- and long-term export credits to overseas buyers.

The granting of credit is an essential prerequisite for participation in bigger projects abroad, such as the building of hydroelectric schemes, factories, railway lines and harbours. In this connection one can definitely say that South Africa would not have been able to secure these transactions if it had not been able to offer credit facilities. The fact is that Credit Guarantee has hitherto made possible foreign transactions to the value of R1 milliard in this category without one cent of State funds having to be used.

†I now wish to refer to an interesting development in the United Kingdom. In 1980 their Department of Trade created a new project and export division to coordinate the support provided by the Government for industry involved in capital projects overseas. One of the services offered is the Overseas Project Fund which is designed to provide backing for major and difficult project contracts. Such a fund can provide up to 50% of the expenses incurred in pursuing these difficult contracts. In order to qualify for such help, the project must offer a minimum of £20 million in U.K. content relating to goods and services. This assistance recognizes the trend towards consortium business. Similar assistance can be provided by consultancy or project management contracts, in which case the minimum U.K. involvement must be £1 million.

I hope the next step following the changes proposed in this Bill will be greater assistance to firms doing in-depth feasibility studies for projects in our national states. In our export promotion system, under item D, firms can apply for tax concessions in regard to feasibility studies. I believe more assistance is necessary because by promoting feasibility studies for new projects in the national States economic development in these countries will be stimulated.

I therefore support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Dr. Marais referred at the end of his speech to a scheme in the United Kingdom in terms of which certain guarantees were provided. I understood him to say that it was export-oriented, but I also want to make the point that I do not believe that one can put this up as an example that this country should follow. I say this for the very simple reason that the U.K. is a highly developed country and it has tremendous investment in industry and commerce throughout the length and breadth of the country, whereas we in South Africa are still a developing country. Our capital resources are extremely valuable and the more those capital resources can be utilized within our own borders the better. In fact, if we wish to attain the growth rate that we need in South Africa, which is estimated to be approximately 5%, in order to keep pace with the new job seekers entering the economic sphere, we actually need to attract investment from overseas. Therefore, to have a policy that will encourage investment outside of the borders of South Africa is not, I believe, the correct step to take. Let us take this a little further. The hon. member said that this was aimed basically at the national States, obviously meaning at this stage, Transkei, Venda, Bophuthatswana and, in due course, Ciskei. He said that this was in furtherance of the hon. the Prime Minister’s constellation policy. I think that we must see it in this light. However, this Bill makes no such provision. Whether the investment is made in Umtata or in Uruguay makes no difference in terms of this Bill. Whether that investment is made in Bophuthatswana or Bolivia, it boils down to the same thing—that the Government is seeking to re-insure investment in any country beyond the borders of this South Africa of ours. I also want to say to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that this is not a normal insurance deal, not in any shape or form. This is quite clear from the long title of the Bill which states, inter alia, that the Bill seeks to—

In other words, Sir, who is backing these investments made in other countries? I think the answer is quite clear. It is the taxpayer of South Africa who is being asked to back this investment. That is why this particular measure has to come to this Parliament to enable us to decide whether this is a valid place for the South African taxpayer possibly to have to expend his money. That is the reason why we in these benches do not feel that we can give our support to this particular Bill. To have a Government re-insuring on behalf of private business and private interest investment in other countries is not, I believe, a principle which is basically accepted anywhere else in the world unless it is very closely coupled with export opportunity.

The hon. member Dr. Marais mentioned a few examples of export opportunity and I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that if this Bill were intended purely to help exporters export their products, if a certain amount of investment in the country of destination were necessary to help such exporters export a South African product made by South Africans in South Africa, then I think we might have had a different outlook in respect of this Bill. However, the hon. the Minister has actually given himself away in the amendment which he proposes to move to the definition of “investment” in clause 1 of the Bill. That amendment reads as follows—

That is fair enough; that is the first point that is covered. However, the amendment goes on to provide—

Now, Sir, almost any investment made in a country is to the advantage of the economic development of that country. Therefore this proposed amendment is extremely wide. I submit that if any foreign entrepreneur wishes to set up an economic enterprise in South Africa, provided it is within the normal course of business and is not, shall we say, for the manufacture of cocaine or something of that nature, then any investment made by a foreign country in South Africa which starts an enterprise, which spends money, which invests capital and which creates job opportunities is doing so in the economic interests of our country. The amendment which the hon. the Minister intends moving therefore gives us a very, very clear indication that the measure before the House is not simply export orientated. I do not think there can be any question about it and I do not think the hon. the Minister would even try to deny that this is not simply export-orientated, but it is quite clearly to cover investments in any field in the economy of any country.

We feel that this is a principle which should not be introduced in South Africa. We do not think that it is the job of the man in the street as a taxpayer to underpin the investments of investing companies in other lands. We believe that those decisions should be made by the businesses concerned on a normal business basis; in other words, if one is going to invest money in another country, one weighs up, amongst the various things at which one looks as a director of a company, the political stability of that country and one decides whether one’s company ought to make an investment in view of the possibility of political instability or the possibility of any political upheavals occurring. These are everyday decisions which are made in the business communities throughout the world. Any board of directors, faced with the decision to invest money in another country, will take the whole political climate into consideration before they decide to make such an investment.

We can see no good reason why those normal business practices should not hold good in South Africa. We do not see why the taxpayer should, perhaps have to reinsure a farm in a country outside South Africa. We therefore cannot see our way clear to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I must honestly say that having listened to the arguments advanced by the official Opposition to explain why they are not supporting the Bill, I cannot help getting the impression that because they did not put up a candidate in Piketberg, they felt as a matter of principle that they had to oppose me somewhere, so they would do it on this legislation. In fact, the reasons advanced by the hon. members to explain why they do not support the legislation also remind me very strongly of the campaign in Piketberg, because this is the type of mentality and approach which one often finds in one’s opponents in the constituency. In the approach to the Bill, the hon. members of the Opposition are actually opposed to development in Southern Africa.

No.

But one cannot oppose the opportunities for the private sector to promote and encourage development in Southern Africa while at the same time saying that one is in favour of development in Southern Africa.

But the words “Southern Africa” do not appear in the legislation.

That is an aspect I shall deal with. At this stage I can point out, though, that it does not exclude South Africa. If the hon. member had listened to my Second Reading speech, he would have heard that I referred specifically to development in this region, although it is not confined to development in Southern Africa. Surely it is obvious that the primary objective is to promote development in this region, because development in this region is also in the interests of South Africa and of the South African exporters. Hon. members on that side often advocate greater economic co-operation and they often say the private sector should not be restricted. They are the ones who advocate greater economic freedom, but on the other hand, when one introduces a measure which is specifically intended to give the private sector an opportunity to exercise this freedom in a bigger area, they oppose such a measure.

But it is a Marxist concept.

The type of logic one encounters here simply does not make sense. The hon. member for Bryanston advanced a few arguments which …

I asked questions.

Yes, he did not actually advance arguments. I grant him that; he just asked a few questions. These are questions I shall find it very easy to answer.

The hon. member says that if there are political risks, we actually should not insure. Does the hon. member not realize that the whole concept of insurance is related to the fact that certain risks exist? With regard to exports, too, there are certain risks, and that is the reason for the existence of export insurance and re-insurance schemes, for even the exporter in South Africa who exports his product is running certain risks. The State is not prepared to accept responsibility for the normal commercial risks of such companies, but since the private sector, i.e. the entrepreneur, exporter or investor, is prepared to run these risks, we consider it to be in the interests of economic development in South Africa and in a wider region to re-insure these risks.

What countries do you have in mind?

The hon. member asked what kinds of investments we envisaged. The hon. member for Boksburg has already replied to him on that. It is not the State that is going to invest. The State only creates the climate, the atmosphere and the opportunity for the private sector to invest. The hon. member Dr. Marais pointed out several possibilities. Therefore the hon. member must not ask us to indicate what proposals the private sector will make. The opportunities are there, and the way I know the South African private sector, they will utilize these opportunities.

Several hon. members referred to the amendment in clause 1, where the provision is being inserted that the investment must promote the Republic’s exports or the economic development of the country in which the investment is made. This amendment is intended to prevent speculative investments and to ensure that the objective of the investment guarantees is pursued, i.e. that they should support a commercial or industrial project to be established in a country other than South Africa, by means of which the entrepreneur is therefore transmitting his expertise, or gaining a foothold in such country for expanding his market. It is specifically intended to eliminate in advance any investments which are not in line with these objectives. For this reason, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is quite wrong in arguing that any investor is bound to contribute to economic development, or that any investment will meet the qualifications laid down in clause 1. An investment such as the purchase of a holiday cottage is definitely not covered by clause 1.

It is also the intention to prevent the actual portfolio investment, i.e. where an investment is only made with a view to dividends or to profits. The investment must also be intended to promote certain economic development in that country and to benefit the entrepreneur by expanding his market or by enabling him to expand his own undertaking and to reduce his overheads by transmitting his expertise. The hon. member for Boksburg also referred to this.

Finally, the hon. member for Bryanston asked what countries we had in mind. However, I cannot spell out the countries to the hon. member, because theoretically it could be any country. The fact is that when a private entrepreneur applies to have a specific investment re-insured, he goes to the insurance corporation, and as I have said, this is a private corporation which begins by ascertaining whether such an application has any specific merit. They evaluate it especially in terms of the commercial enterprise and of the expertise and ability of the specific investor or enterprise. With regard to those risks which cannot be insured commercially, they then come back to the Government. Then the application is submitted to an underwriting committee, consisting of senior officials of several departments. When those officials have properly examined the country concerned as well as the political circumstances and political risks in the broader context, a recommendation is made to the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism as well as to the Minister of Finance. As in the case of export credit re-insurance, the investment becomes operative when both Ministers have approved it. However, the list of countries involved which has been asked for is not relevant, in my opinion. The legislation is only making it possible for investors to obtain insurance and reinsurance in this way. The necessary restrictions or qualifications do exist in the sense that the underwriting committee will make a proper study of the matter.

I predict that it will mostly be the national States, because this is a political measure, and not an economic one.

The hon. member for Bryanston has had his chance to make a speech. He had a full half hour and used only six minutes of it. It seems to me that he now wants to go on participating in the debate across the floor of the House.

The hon. member for Boksburg made a very solid contribution by pointing out the extent to which this measure would benefit our business people in South Africa, by expanding their markets, and that it would also strengthen the economic ability of Southern Africa and reduce dependence on investors who may be undesirable. Therefore it is also to our advantage in the broader context if Southern Africa can build up an economic capacity of its own, and this can only happen if the necessary cooperation is brought about in this field; and the same applies to the economic field. This is also a measure which is specifically aimed at making greater economic co-operation possible. I also want to thank the hon. member for his kind words to me and for his imagery which he derived from the world of sport. Of course it is possible to score tries when one is a member of a good team, and I do not doubt for a moment that we do have a good team on this side of the House. Therefore we shall go on scoring tries against the Opposition.

The interpretation given to the Bill by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is quite correct, unlike that of the hon. members of the PFP, of course. He correctly understood it to be legislation which is intended to promote economic development in Southern Africa. As such he also welcomed it. He also inquired about the reason for the amendment. It is merely intended to qualify the kind of investor, thereby eliminating the speculative element.

The hon. member Dr. Marais made a very informative contribution, pointing out how the profit motive is still the generator of economic development, and that in this measure we are actually giving the profit motive an opportunity to enter new fields, and that although the industrialist, the developer and the businessman are already running the economic and commercial risks, the measure which is now before the House will serve as an incentive by at least giving them the necessary insurance in respect of those risks which, strictly speaking, fall outside their economic sphere.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also pointed out the political risks which business people run every day and said he could not understand why the decisions should be up to the businessman alone. However, the same argument can be advanced in the case of exports and export re-insurance, for which a scheme already exists. In terms of the existing legislation, the exporter takes the economic and commercial decision, but nevertheless comes back to the insurance company, and ultimately to the State, for the necessary coverage against political risks. So this measure is supplementary to the existing export credit insurance measure. They supplement each other. The hon. member is generalizing if he simply wishes to suggest that this measure would apply to any country in any field. I have indicated that specific machinery already exists by means of which every investment, just like every export application, is very carefully considered. Various aspects are taken into consideration before deciding whether the insurance company, and ultimately the State, is prepared to run the risks.

There are one or two further aspects which perhaps require explanation. Several hon. members asked whether the legislation would be applicable only to countries in Southern Africa. The intention is that this will initially be the case. The main objective of the legislation is to promote development in this region, but I think it would be wrong if the legislation sought to confine that objective to Southern Africa. The ultimate objective is investment guarantees for the promotion of our exports, and therefore it is also conceivable that investments may be made in countries other than those in Southern Africa, a development which could promote South Africa’s exports.

I believe I have now replied to the most important questions. There is no doubt about the fact that this measure is being welcomed by the private sector as a positive step, and that it is enabling them to expand their activities over a wide area, and that it will eventually be to the advantage of the South African economy.

Question put, Upon which the House divided:

reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No. 23.—“Community Development”, had agreed to the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I must point out that the debate on this Bill has consisted of a long series of stops and starts. During Second Reading we had four goes at it, and now, during the Committee Stage, we have also had quite a number of goes at it. As the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism is also in the House at the moment, I should like him to hear me point out to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries that it has become quite apparent that the latter hon. Minister does not appear to want to accept the amendments moved by hon. members on this side of the House, even though the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism has personally moved a similar amendment to a similar Bill. The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism has proposed an identical amendment to the Companies Amendment Bill, but the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries refuses to accept a similar amendment to the Bill with which we are dealing now. Why? Only because it comes from this side of the House. [Interjections.]

I believe that this is an attitude displayed by hon. members opposite, which gives rise to extreme concern. It is a matter of opposing simply for the sake of opposing. I do not believe that that sort of attitude does any good whatsoever to legislation passed by this House. [Interjections.]

When the debate on this particular clause was interrupted the last time, I had moved two amendments, the effect of which was the removing of the stipulation contained in this clause that spare parts bought by a farmer from a co-operative should remain the property of the particular co-operative. The reason why I moved an amendment in this particular respect was very wide. Therefore I should like to recap just briefly the reasons behind this amendment. We on this side of the House see no reason why a spare part bought by a farmer from a co-operative should remain the property of the cooperative once it has been fitted to an implement which belongs to the farmer. Let the particular co-operative by all means have a lien on the farmer’s crop to the value of the debt involved. That will surely give the co-operative the security which it obviously wants. The co-operative can have the lien on the crop of the farmer to the value of the spare part involved. Of what use on earth can the spare parts be to the co-operative once they have been fitted to a machine? Then they are second-hand parts. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether you have ever tried to sell second-hand parts. They are not easy to sell at all, and they lose their value very rapidly.

What I should like to know is this. What is the hon. the Minister actually achieving by refusing to accept this amendment? I should suggest that the hon. the Minister is, by not accepting this amendment, actually achieving very, very little.

The lien granted to the co-operative will be on the actual crop. That, I believe, more than amply covers any security a cooperative might desire. Therefore I should urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider this very seriously, because I can see absolutely no objection to it. I cannot see that we on this side of the House, because we move an amendment of this nature, could be branded “boerehaters”, as the hon. the Minister is so fond of saying. This has been the hon. the Minister’s reaction to a number of the amendments moved by hon. members on this side of the House. I believe this amendment will be to the advantage of the farmers concerned. It can only be to the advantage of a farmer if the co-operative does not retain the ownership of such spare parts.

That is the case looking at it from the farmer’s point of view. Looking at it from the co-operative’s point of view it will, as I have already said, still have the Hen on the farmer’s crop to cover the cost of the particular spare part. Therefore I urge the hon. the Minister to give this amendment his very serious consideration.

Mr. Chairman, when this debate was last adjourned the hon. the Minister had indicated that an amendment that I had moved would receive his consideration. He said that he would have it looked at from a legal point of view but he did not question the logic of the amendment. The effect of the amendment was that the crops on which a lien would exist should be identified when the debt with the cooperative was incurred. The present position, as the Bill is now worded, is that all agricultural products and all products produced eighteen months after the debt has been incurred shall form part of the lien of the co-operative. The hon. the Minister’s amendment only deals with a very small fragment of the field of possibilities that can be affected by that lien, i.e. where for a specific purpose and for a specific amount, a person who has a lien on his products can go to the co-operative and ask them in writing to release some part of his crop. But the amendment does not cover any of the other aspects, aspects that I do not want to repeat, except where the farmer makes a specific application for a loan or to cover specific debt. He does not have any crops to use as security against the obtaining of any other moneys on the open market. This would not affect the position of a creditor who would be excluded from recovery against crops that had nothing at all to do with the debt that had been incurred by the farmer, i.e. debt incurred not for the purpose of the purchase of fertilizer, seed, etc., but for a different purpose. The hon. the Minister has not dealt with any of those other aspects except to say that it seemed logical and that if he had had the time he would have looked at it in a different fight. But he has now had the time. We have now had an opportunity to have another look at it and I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister would indicate his response to that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have already replied fully on a previous occasion to all the arguments which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has raised and I am therefore not going to repeat them again now.

With regard to the matter that the hon. member for Durban Point raised, I want to tell him that if there is anyone whose amendment I should like to accept in this debate, it is the amendment of that very hon. member because he adopted such a reasonable standpoint with regard to this legislation by supporting it throughout. The aim of the amendment printed in my name, is to exempt those agricultural products of a member which are not required to guarantee his debt with the co-operative, from the lien. The aim of the hon. member for Durban Point’s amendment is apparently to achieve the same purpose, but unfortunately I have certain problems with his amendment.

What are the problems?

The most important effect that the amendment will have—the replacement of the word “may” by the word “shall”—is that the obligation is now being placed on the co-operative to ensure that a member’s agricultural products that are pledged, are stipulated. That obligation now rests with the co-operative. It may cause problems for the co-operative to implement that lien effectively at a later stage, when they have to furnish proof. This makes such a pledge risky, and since that pledge now becomes a risk, the question arises whether the co-operative would be prepared to grant the same credit to the member under those circumstances as would have otherwise been the case, i.e. if we do not make this amendment. In other words, a greater element of risk is coming into play with regard to the lien. This is not my own opinion, but it is the carefully considered advice which I obtained from the legal advisers in this regard. However, I had a completely positive attitude towards the hon. member’s amendment.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.