Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House, I should like to point out in regard to the business of the House for next week that, as hon. members know, the main budget speech will be delivered on Wednesday, 24 March.

For the rest the House will continue to deal with the Orders of the Day on the Order Paper, as printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move as an amendment—

1. (1) to obtain the prior approval of Parliament for all proposals to increase tariffs for postal and telecommunications services;
2. (2) to avoid large periodic tariff increases;
3. (3) to revise the tariffs announced and gazetted on 26 February 1982, with a view to relieving the intolerable burden placed on the consumer;
4. (4) to expedite the installation of telephones and to improve the quality of the telephone service; and
5. (5) to grant appropriate relief to the pre-July 1973 Post Office pensioners.”.

While our disappointment in the budget has already been expressed, I must point out that the budget speech of the hon. the Minister really contained only one surprise, and that is the handling charge of R1,00 per telegram. This is a severe blow. Furthermore, I submit that it will indeed be counter-productive to the Post Office because it will only result in an increase in the use of the telephone service. The loss on the gentex service will be even greater. In addition to that, it is going to hit the poorer class areas, particularly in the townships, where there are not sufficient telephones. Those people, of necessity, have to rely on the telegram service and therefore they will be hit hardest.

The increases were already announced on 5 January—that is a few months prior to the introduction of the budget—when the hon. the Minister used his powers in terms of the Post Office Act to make those announcements outside this House. Those increases are on a very broad scale and they average an increase of something like 55% in the tariffs on that broad scale. He also asked for an increase of 19% in the revenue of the Post Office.

These increases leave very little untouched. They touch the standardized letter because the tariff is being increased from 5 cents to 8 cents. This is a very substantial increase. The increases also hit the parcel mail, because the tariff for a parcel of one kilogram is being increased to 90 cents. The tariff for publishers’ newspapers in being increased and so are the tariffs for registered articles. The cost of delivery charges is also being increased. The telephone service itself also received a severe blow because the unit cost for calls is being increased by an extra cent to six cents. We therefore do not only have increases on the postal tariff side, but also on the side of telecommunications. The rental is being increased from R3,00 to R4,00 per month. The minimum rate for public telephones is being increased from 5 cents to 10 cents. Another big blow to commercial firms is that the tariff in respect of cash-on-delivery parcels is raised from R1,00 to R1,30 with a levy of 1% on the trade charge. This will now bring it up to R1,70 and it therefore represents an increase of 70%. In the Committee Stage I shall have more to say about this.

Hon. members will no doubt agree that these increases, averaging all in all approximately 55%, are large, drastic and sudden. The increases were a shock and came as a surprise not only to members of Parliament, but also to the whole commercial world.

In a subsequent statement issued by the hon. the Minister he said that the National Consultative Committee for Post Office Affairs was advised of this increase and met on 20 November 1981. One of the main reasons given by the hon. the Minister was the fact that the annual operating surplus of the Post Office, which constituted an important contribution to its capital expenditure, would become an operating loss of some R70 million in 1982 and 1983 if rates were not increased. This service has always been subsidized by the very profitable telecommunications service.

The Post Office is a viable entity, and surely something has gone wrong with its financial control. Announcements of this nature shatter the extremely good image which the Post Office carried as being one of the shining examples among all Government departments. This is surprising, and to prove this I want to quote from page 22 of the annual general report for 1980-’81 of the Postmaster-General—

As recently as 1 September 1981 the hon. the Minister stated in the House (column 2502 of Hansard)—

The hon. the Minister paid tribute to his loyal staff and was showered with congratulations and praises by Opposition and Government members.

The hon. the Minister dealt with the very problem of subsidization of the losses of the Post Office and, after having dealt with the non-profitable services, stated quite clearly (Hansard, column 2520 of 1 September 1981)—

The hon. the Minister therefore endorsed what the Postmaster-General had said in his report.

However, between 1 September and 20 November, a matter of approximately ten weeks, something drastic must have gone wrong. Either the hon. the Minister was not telling us the true financial position on 1 September, or else he did not know what the true financial position was at that date, or else he woke up with a bump and ten weeks later had to tell, on his own admission, the National Consultative Committee for Post Office Affairs that he proposed these huge tariff increases. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can now explain his actions.

The other severe point of criticism which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is that if the increases were to be effective from 1 April, and since they are so drastic, affecting the entire economy of the nation— commerce, industry and private individuals—and because they will contribute towards increasing the rate of inflation which the hon. the Minister of Finance is trying to curb, would the House not have been the proper forum for the hon. the Minister to have motivated his case and for us to have had ample opportunity to discuss these issues under the budget in Parliament! After all, this is where it should be discussed and not outside of Parliament.

On 25 February 1981 the hon. the Minister again gave us assurances when he stated (Hansard, column 2353)—

I stress the words “for a long time” and “gradual”.

Why were the increases so drastic? Why did the hon. the Minister not make gradual increases? Surely, if the hon. the Minister had his finger on the pulse of the financial changes of the Post Office and if he had read the signs of inflation, the demands for higher salaries and wages, the increased cost of capital replacement and the higher cost of living, gradual increases would have been more acceptable rather than creating a gap in some of the items.

Let me take one example, namely standardized mail. The last increase was in April 1971. In fact, the rate was reduced to 4 cents at one stage and then increased to 5 cents in April 1976. It is now six years since any increases has been made. As another example may I mention the fact that the increase in private box rental was last fixed in 1952, i.e. 30 years ago. The hon. the Minister has waited 30 years before increasing this tariff. Then I can refer to telephone services. The installation fee of R30 has been applicable since 1975. The hon. the Minister has waited seven years before making an adjustment to this fee. The telex service of unit calls of 1 cent has been in operation since 1973. The hon. the Minister has waited nine years to increase this. Then there is the data service where the rental of R25 to R90 has been applicable since 1971, i.e. already for 11 years. I think I have given enough examples to prove my point.

The nation was shocked by these increases. Even Die Burger had something to say following the hon. the Minister’s announcement, and here I refer to the leading article on Tuesday, 5 January 1982, where it is stated—

I now return to the action of the hon. the Minister by announcing higher tariffs outside Parliament, thereby rendering ineffective, academic and sterile debate in this House. The hon. the Minister will say that he made the announcement on 5 January to give notice to commerce and industry of his intention to introduce increases so that they could prepare themselves. With great respect, most firms had already completed their budgets and had therefore not catered for this increase. He has caught them all off balance. Would it not have been better for him to have come to Parliament in March, to give notice here of his intention to introduce increases, say from 1 July, to have discussed the matter here and to have given firms adequate notice of the intention to change? Furthermore, the increases should have been gradual and not as steep as they in fact were. Can the hon. the Minister give this House any reasonable explanation for his action? Apparently, as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

The hon. the Minister gets very uptight when matters regarding the Post Office are discussed outside Parliament where statements cannot be tested in Parliament, but now he has done exactly the same thing. The hon. the Minister took me to task over a matter and I should like to illustrate this very briefly by quoting from column 2805 of Hansard, as recently as 3 September 1981. It would appear that the hon. the Minister has a very short memory. He said—

What did the hon. the Minister do here? He was telling me not to do something and then he went along and did it himself. He made statements outside this House. I say, with great respect, that the hon. the Minister has no right to have done what he has done, and I leave hon. members and the public outside to draw their own conclusions from the hon. the Minister’s actions.

I now want to refer to the annual report of 1980-’81 and I should like to congratulate the Postmaster-General on an excellently prepared report. It is well set out, and is clear with regard to the activities of the Post Office and the telecommunication services of this country. Others and I will appreciate particularly the balance sheets and annexures contained in the report from table 1 right through to table 36. One can very easily grasp the financial aspects, of the Post Office from these statements and statistics.

Referring to the postal services in table 4, the total revenue was R133,9 million and the expenditure, R185,2 million. We find at the bottom of the column that the excess of expenditure over revenue in this case constituted a loss of R51,3 million compared with a loss of R43,3 million the year before. This is, I believe, the nub of the matter. The whole question of subsidization by the telecommunications service of the Post Office is the crisp issue for debate in this House. With this I of course include the money transfer service, which shows an excess of expenditure of R60,2 million over revenue.

It is no good the hon. the Minister arguing that, for example, automatic telephone calls lasting three minutes cost 36 cents in South Africa, compared to 62 cents in the United Kingdom, or that the postage rate in South Africa is 8 cents compared to 22 cents in the UK, because the United Kingdom, as well as the USA, is not dependent upon telecommunications, and these services have to be subsidized. The Wiehahn Commission considered this as a viable unit, and it has always been contemplated that the postal service is in fact a service to the nation and that the profitability comes from the telephone services. If the hon. the Minister could, therefore, install sufficient telephones and in particular catch up with the backlog of 175 966 as at 31 December 1981, he would boost his revenue even further and be in a position to carry the losses on the postal services. On 3U June 1981, for example, there were 148 654 applications for telephones outstanding, and it is clear that at any moment there is always a large number of people waiting for telephones. According to the latest figures there are still 175 966 applications for telephones, and I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister when the department will be in a position to catch up with the enormous demand for telephones, as this obviously is the most profitable part of the service. The sooner we install these telephones, the sooner we will be able to increase our revenue, and that will obviate the necessity to raise tariffs to the extent that the hon. the Minister has done.

In regard to telephones, I should like to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to the answer to Question 50, namely that on the Witwatersrand there are 56 858 applications for telephones outstanding. Surely, in this growth area we should not find such a situation. So I believe this requires urgent attention. How can a business operate without a telephone? It is undoubtedly essential to mount a special emergency operation on the Witwatersrand similar to Operation Soweto, in an effort to catch up with the backlog and to keep pace with the annual number of applications for telephones.

Referring to the financial aspect, the significant feature is the capital expenditure, which at present is estimated at R757 million in comparison to R574 million last year. This constitutes a very substantial increase, of R183 million, or 31,8%. Last year the increase in capital expenditure was 41,7% higher than the previous year, while this year it is 31,8% higher.

Since capital is partly financed from internal revenue, we see a tremendous change in the increase, from 36,3% to 50,6%, using the formula of the Franzsen Committee. The hon. the Minister now, however, suggests that we are not wedded to the formula. The operating surplus that can be contributed towards capital expenditure in the next financial year is estimated at R185,9 million. What has gone wrong with the finances of the Post Office? We shall have to examine the position to ascertain whether we are borrowing too much out of revenue for capital expenditure.

While the principle of the Franzsen Committee has been recognized and applied, there are nevertheless times when it may be better to borrow money from outside if the rate of interest is favourable. However, there must be a limit to the amount taken from revenue or there will be unlimited spending of capital and tariffs will continually rise. There will be no priorities given to capital expenditure, and whatever is required for capital expenditure will be met by an increase in tariffs. There will be no control whatsoever, and we will reach a very dangerous situation if we depart from the principle of the Franzsen Committee and carry out what the hon. the Minister threatened to do in his budget speech. Furthermore, outside borrowing is not confined to the Republic. Loans can be obtained overseas if the market is favourable.

The postal services are the life-blood of the country. Whenever there is an increase in any of the postal tariffs, it brings about an increase in the overheads of commercial firms and in the cost of products. It generates inflation, and it ends up that John Citizen, the man in the street, has to dig deeper into his pockets, because in the long run he is the one who has to pay. Therefore any increases should be introduced with the utmost circumspection. Such increases should be gradual and should be introduced at shorter intervals, but only when it is necessary, and the operative words are “when it is necessary”. I say this because I am still not of the opinion that such a large amount of revenue should be used for capital expenditure. The climate for negotiating loans should, at all times, be carefully gauged. Obviously conditions fluctuate, and adjustments should accordingly be made.

The budget, of course, has an enormous impact upon the entire economy of the country. It should be seen in conjunction with the Transport Services’ budget, in which considerable increases were introduced, for example 12,5% on air and rail tariffs. What is apparently lacking is an overall economic policy, on the part of the Cabinet, to cover Ministers controlling these inflation-generating portfolios.

There is a strong suspicion that the increases are timed to coincide with periods not unconnected with elections. It is elections that appear to govern the time for increases, rather than the economic considerations that should be taken into account. We were therefore correct last year in saying: “Vote now, pay later”. In fact, in my budget speech on 2 September 1981 I am on record as having welcomed the fact that there were no tariff increases. I also said that the substantial increases that were provided for on 1 February 1980 would carry us through. I said that I only hoped that it was not a “keep quiet now, but pay later” situation, and are we not doing the paying now?

I am therefore led to ask whether we have been given a true image of the Post Office in all its years of apparent glamour and efficiency, a well-run department keeping down tariff increases. I must therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to review these tariff increases and, if necessary, to reduce them even if it means reducing the capital expenditure programme.

At a later stage I shall deal with the question of pensioners mentioned in my amendment.

Order! Before I call upon the next hon. member to speak, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to Standing Order No. 123, which expressly provides that hon. members shall not read their speeches. Hon. members on both sides of the House are guilty of transgressions in this respect. I shall be compelled to be far more rigorous in applying this rule in future.

Mr. Speaker, for the most part the hon. member for Hillbrow objected to the increased tariffs and capital expenditure, and in fact, in his reference to overall policy right at the end of his speech, he gave the impression that he had not listened to the hon. the Minister yesterday. I say this because I think that the hon. the Minister dealt with the question of financial policy in more detail and more thoroughly this year than it has ever been dealt with before. In the course of my speech I shall deal with each of the points raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

However, I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. the Minister, the Postmaster-General and his staff on this budget. When one looks at this very fine report of the department, one gains the impression, as one of my colleagues said to me the other day, that this is an exciting department. This report contains exciting reading matter. One gains the impression that this is one of the finest and most progressive Government undertakings imaginable. Apart from being a neat piece of work, the annual report gives one the general impression that the department is one which goes forward to meet the future in a spirit of dynamism. I think that in many respects this report reflects the fact that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications could serve as an example to many private concerns. It is an undertaking which gives an indication of the fact that in this country of ours, with its tremendous manpower needs, success lies in greater automation, labour saving and methods enabling the department better to finance those activities which are necessarily labour-intensive. Apart from the Minister and the Postmaster-General, we may also take note with much appreciation of the loyalty of the Post Office staff and their devotion to the Post Office. The hon. the Minister has mentioned this. I think that every member in this House who represents a constituency, and this House as a whole, may endorse the appreciation expressed by the Minister for the fact that officials of this department, perhaps more than others, have to contend with overtime, weekend work, a six-day working week and all kinds of unfavourable circumstances. Perhaps the best proof of the loyalty and devotion of the officials of this department is the fact that they render a loyal and faithful service in spite of the seductive arguments advanced, inter alia, by the Opposition that the Minister should simply increase salaries, regardless of the salary structure in the rest of the Public Service, because it is a separate section that does not fall under the office of the Department of State Administration. The hon. member for Hillbrow himself mentioned on 2 September last year that we had in the Post Office a viable branch of the Public Service, one which was not dependent on the Commission for Administration. The hon. member for Hillbrow is forgetting, or is deliberately omitting to take into account, perhaps for party-political purposes, that the Postal Service still forms part of the State Administration and that increases in salary and improvements in conditions of service in the Post Office should keep up with and be in line with those in the rest of the Public Service. Although it has its own budget, this department cannot simply go its own way while the rest of the Public Service goes in another direction. In spite of these seductive arguments, we still get this devoted and loyal service from the staff.

To show how hollow are these claims made by the Opposition, we should note that on those occasions when the Post Office has indeed tried by means of fringe benefits to improve the circumstances of its employees and to attract officials to the large growth points in our country, the large metropolitan areas, when the Post Office tries to improve the circumstances of employees by means of housing schemes, for instance, we have questions from the other side of this House which seek to cast suspicion on these improved benefits. I am merely referring to a question—I do not wish to go into the matter—by the hon. member for Hillbrow, concerning the rentals charged by the Department of Posts and Telecommunications for blocks of flats it has purchased for its officials.

As I have said, we are grateful for this loyal service. I think that this House is particularly grateful for the very clear guidelines with regard to financial policy which we received from the hon. the Minister yesterday. I think that the guidelines laid down yesterday are so logical that no reasonable person could argue against them. There could be criticism concerning the question as to whether those guidelines are applied, but no criticism can really be levelled at these guidelines as such.

Yesterday we were given an outline of a service which, financially speaking, has two facets. On the one hand, one has an expensive and ever-increasingly expensive labour-intensive service. Every year it costs more in terms of operating costs. Mention has been made here of the cost of the postal service, the loss on which is expected to be R85 million this year, as against R51 million last year.

I say that it is labour-intensive, and this is brought home to one by the fact that the staff expenditure of the postal service amounts to 70% of their operating expenditure, while the average for the Post Office totals 48%. Its transport expenditure amounts to 14%. These two items of expenditure alone constitute 84% of the total expenditure of the postal services. The telegraph service showed a loss of R22 million in the present financial year, in comparison with R13 million the previous year. On a much smaller scale, the money transfer services also showed a loss. These are three services which simply would not be able to survive without subsidization. Nevertheless, they remain essential services.

However, this is only one side of the service. On the other hand, we have a highly profitable and highly sophisticated telecommunications network. Indeed, it is this section of the Postal Services which forms the financial lifeblood of this department. There is no time to go into detail about this, but we have heard of the tremendous progress which has been made with the telephone service. We have heard about new automatic as well as electronic exchange systems. It is therefore with pride that we can today take cognizance of the fact that 90,8% of all our telephone exchanges are automatic.

Furthermore, we have heard about the Teletex service, about Saponet and about the new Videotex service. The ever-increasing demand for and the technological progress in the sphere of telecommunications, as well as the increasingly more expensive equipment, means that while this part of the service is cheaper as far as operating expenditure is concerned, and therefore more profitable as well, ever greater capital investments in this part of the service are necessary, particularly with a view of making this service among the most modern in the world.

Against the background of these two facets of the activities of this department, the policy option open to the hon. the Minister is very clear. On the one hand, we could continue to pour operating profits from the telecommunications section of these profitable services into a bottomless pit of unproductive subsidies. We could continue with this merely for the sake of the short-term advantage of lower tariffs. This is one of the choices we have. This is apparently what the official Opposition wants.

This brings me to the argument of the hon. member for Hillbrow with regard to tariffs. Firstly, however, I wish to say something about the manner in which the increased tariffs were announced. When the hon. the Minister announced these new tariffs on 5 January this year, in effect he gave notice of them three months in advance, as the tariffs only come into effect on 1 April. When the hon. member for Hillbrow was approached for comment on the new increased tariff—I do not know whether he was still celebrating New York—he said that the hon. the Minister had made use of his special powers, “and thus avoided an open debate in Parliament”. The hon. member for Hillbrow must please tell us what special powers are those that the hon. the Minister has at his disposal. When one speaks of special powers, this sounds like powers incorporated in the Act in terms of a proviso, or possibly a provision indented in the Act by way of an amendment at a later stage. Section 2(B) of the Post Office Act—one of the first provisions of that Act, one of the elementary provisions of that Act—stipulates that the Postmaster-General may, inter alia, “with the approval of the Minister … by notice in the Gazette determine and from time to time, alter the fees, rates or charges to be demanded or received …”

However, this is not all. The Post Office Act further provides that the hon. the Minister does not even have to do this himself. Section 2B(2) of the Post Office Act reads—

This means that the Postmaster-General himself may be empowered to exercise that authority. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow speaks about special powers which the hon. the Minister uses to circumvent Parliament. This shows a lamentable ignorance of the legal position. He did not merely fail to hit the nail on the head—he missed it completely. The Act very clearly stipulates the role of this Parliament with regard to the Post Office. Section 12F stipulates, inter alia, that the Minister shall for every financial year submit to Parliament an estimate of expenditure for appropriation of the amounts in question by a Post Office Appropriation Act. This is the role of Parliament with regard to tariffs. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow has been complaining today, and yesterday as well, that these tariffs have now been announced and that they have come as a totally unexpected shock to the business sector and to the economy as a whole. The hon. the Minister had already given notice of these increases on 5 January, three months before the time. Through the Postmaster-General, the Minister notified the advisory committee on Post Office affairs two months in advance, in November, of the fact that these increases were on their way. And that is not all; the hon. member is contradicting himself. In February last year, the hon. member said that there were indications of an increase in postal tariffs. This was in February last year. He then asked the hon. the Minister “business must know precisely what increases are proposed and when they are to be introduced so that the businesses concerned may draw up their budgets and calculate their costing in order to make provision for their own profit margins and ensure their own survival”. He added that he could not stress sufficiently the importance of this.

Now the Minister has done this. He has given three months’ advance notice, but now the hon. member wants the hon. the Minister to wait until the middle of March and then come and announce the increases in this Parliament. The hon. member is as well aware as any other hon. member of this House that if the Minister wishes to present a picture of a full year’s revenue to Parliament next year, he must make the tariff increases effective from 1 April. After all, the hon. member cannot have his bread buttered on both sides. He cannot say that the Minister should wait until 17 March and then, on the other hand, wish Parliament to be consulted in the matter—quite apart from the fact that it would be shortsighted not to announce the increases timeously when the Minister realizes that new tariffs are necessary. It is quite clear from the announcement of the new tariff increases that the operating loss of the Administration would be R70 million if there were no tariff adjustments. In addition, the hon. member knows that if the postal services were to be totally dependent on loans—and this would be the result if there were no increased tariffs—the interest and amortisation burden on the operating expenditure of the Post Office would be such as to cause a vicious circle. The hon. member should not totally ignore the interests of the Administration by advocating cheaper tariffs for the sake of scoring a few political points off the Government for the sake of a little popularity outside this House. Furthermore, apart from this consideration, as the value of money decreases, if there were no tariff increases it would simply mean that tariffs would become increasingly cheaper and that the Administration would thereby continue to encourage indirectly uneconomic services, and firms and other institutions who wish to make excessive use of these tariffs, for example by way of junk mail and so on, would further encourage this.

The alternatives are very clear and those alternatives are those which the hon. the Minister spelt out here yesterday. The first is an adjustment of tariffs on a regular and realistic basis. I suppose one could grant the hon. member for Hillbrow that perhaps it would have been better to announce smaller tariff increases earlier, but the Minister has already said that he prefers to give the public and the business sector the benefit of saving on tariff increases for as long as possible. This being so, and since there have been no interim increases over the past two years, the point is reached when tariff increases are simply unavoidable.

Apart from the tariff increases, this also means that an effort must be made to peg the subsidy on that part of the service—it is unavoidable and will always have to be paid. The hon. the Minister has set a subsidy of 10% as a goal. The hon. member for Hillbrow is now protesting strongly that the process reducing the subsidy to 10% is not taking place gradually enough. However, the subsidy is 20% this year, and this is merely a step in the direction of a fixed subsidy of 10%.

The worst is yet to come.

The hon. member has tried to tell us stories of hardship. He tells us how this is going to hit people hard. The average man in the street—the hon. member will concede this— writes perhaps three to five letters a month. Moreover, his income is increasing. The share of the business sector in our postal service is already more than 50% and is still increasing. As the value of money decreases, so provision must be made for this as well.

I said that the first point was the pegging of the subsidy percentage, and the second is that an increasing proportion of our operating profits from the telecommunications network will have to go into capital expenditure. The hon. the Minister said yesterday that up to now, the goal had been 50%. It is pointless for the hon. member for Hillbrow to maintain that last year it was only 36%. The fact remains that over the past 10 years the percentage has been 48% of the capital budget. I am now referring to that part of the capital budget financed from operating profits. The hon. the Minister says that this is not enough, as we should bear in mind that we are living in a developing country in which large amounts of capital have to be spent. I believe that we on this side of the House can only welcome the fact that this year will be ended on the 50:50 basis which has been the goal thus far. In future, the goal will be to continue increasing that percentage from operating profits. I agree with the hon. the Minister that the eventual goal should be that we should be able to meet all our capital needs out of operating profits. However, we must remember that we are in a developing country, that much research still has to be done on telecommunication systems and in addition, that we are living on a subcontinent where we have to give considerable aid to the developing countries around us and in our midst.

For the rest, we have to finance our capital needs, from our loan funds. Here I wish to agree with the hon. the Minister once again that if we can obtain loan funds from our own investors, so much the better, as loan funds from abroad are expensive. In addition, these are short-term loans, as longterm loans are simply unavailable. Loans from own funds fluctuate less, are cheaper and can be obtained over a longer term. Therefore the improvement to our own saving scheme, the new Telebank scheme, is welcomed.

I wish to conclude. The hon. member for Hillbrow was given very clear guidelines yesterday with regard to the financing of our postal services. The hon. members of the Opposition should tell us where they stand with regard to Post Office policy. If they accept these guidelines, they shall tell us how they differ as far as the implementation of the guidelines is concerned. They cannot want cheaper postal tariffs on the one hand, and on the other want a telecommunications system which the hon. member for Hillbrow apparently thinks must fall into our laps, without capital provision having to be made for it. Apparatus is needed for the telephones which the hon. member wants installed. Switchboards are needed. New automatic and electronic exchanges are needed. Cables are needed. All these items cause an enormous growth in capital needs in a developing country. The hon. member cannot say that he wants the one thing and the other as well, when he does not know how he will make ends meet.

It gives me great pleasure to support this budget wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I have great appreciation for the arguments raised by the previous speaker and I readily agree with what he said. However, I cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow, because it is unrealistic. After all, one must have some conception of the tremendous economic problems facing our country, and indeed, the entire Western world. They are an indisputable fact. Why should the Post Office be the only organization to escape from these problems? Prices everywhere are rising. I know of no sector in which prices have not risen. Why should our Post Office therefore be the only institution in the Free World that does not need to cope with price increases. Let us rather be understanding of the difficult times in which the budget had to be submitted. Although I do not welcome any of the price increases, we do know that in this case there was no alternative. Consequently we have no choice but to support the hon. the Minister in this regard.

We are going through difficult times and we are living in an unstable world. In addition, we are living in a time when no one seems able to predict with certainty what the future holds for the Free World in the ecomomic sphere. Nowadays anyone venturing to express an opinion on this matter is in grave danger of being proved wrong. If seven different economists were to be consulted, it would not surprise me if at least three or four different opinions were expressed. They would all express an opinion, but would probably say: “This will happen, but … ”, or “This will happen, provided …”. Thus there can be no question of certainty in this regard. Surely the S. A. economy is linked to the economy of the Free World. Surely this is a fact. In international trade we have to contend with the economies of the countries with which we do business. There are also other factors, such as unstable governments in the world, the value of the dollar, the gold price, the oil price, as well as the fluctuating prices of other commodities that have to be imported. Consequently inflation is not only a domestic issue; it can definitely be imported. An economist who can predict what the future holds in this regard would have to be a superman with superhuman powers.

In times of financial uncertainty such as these, we can understand that it must have been very difficult for the hon. the Minister and his officials to prepare the budget. It could definitely not have been easy, for how is one to know what the future may hold? Nevertheless this is a budget that displays confidence in the future. While we were listening to the hon. the Minister’s speech, we became thoroughly aware that this budget had been prepared with confidence in the future. That is why the hon. the Minister mentioned so many projects that would be continued. It is a good thing that development is taking place, and the hon. the Minister mentioned many examples of this. I should like to refer to a few of them: The provision of more and additional telephones, which is absolutely essential; the expansion of the overseas telephone service; the enlarging of the Post Office’s telephone exchanges; an increase in the 20 automatic exchanges; the expansion of the telex network; the replacement of the local telegraph teleprinter and the investigation of video conferences and telephone conferences.

These are things that will become more necessary in future. One should not only look at the negative aspects of a matter, because if one does so one could talk oneself into a depression psychosis, and this is not good for the people outside. We may not do that. We cannot allow this sort of thing to happen. All we should endeavour to do is to ensure that there is confidence, in the Post Office as well. Surely there are different ways of budgeting. I still remember the guideline a former Administrator of the province I come from gave us for preparing a budget, namely that one should first budget to see what one’s expenditure is going to be and then one should budget to see how to obtain the revenue to defray those expenses. In other words, one should cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth. I am convinced that in this regard the hon. the Minister did his utmost to budget in this way. While studying his speech I noticed that he confined himself mainly to this and that he budgeted for the unavoidable. One of the best economic maxims is surely that one one must not buy what one needs but only what one cannot do without. If every one of us in this House were to make a list of what we need, we would mention things we really could not afford but that we would nevertheless like to have. However, we must confine ourselves to the things we cannot do without. Then we would not go wrong in our own affairs. We should all count the pennies. In these difficult times it is more necessary than ever before that we count the pennies and we should start with ourselves. It is true that medicine is not always palatable. Sometimes good medicine is bitter. I know that this budget is going to hit some people hard. This is certainly not a figment of my imagination. It is the truth, and our people will just have to understand it. We must begin with ourselves. We shall have to decide whether it is really necessary to use the telephone too much, or to talk on the telephone for hours, or whether we should only make essential calls. We shall also have to decide, when we want to send a telegram, whether it is absolutely necessary for us to send that telegram or whether we should not write a letter instead.

While on the subject of telegrams, I want to make a good-natured appeal to the hon. the Minister. I am now referring to the handling charge of R1. I wonder if it would not be possible for the hon. the Minister to use another formula. Instead of R1, would it not be possible to charge the cost per word plus a certain percentage as a levy? I do not know if this is feasible, but I am convinced that it would be more satisfactory.

I should also like to express my thanks to the Post Office officials who carry out their duties six days a week. The hon. the Minister and the Postmaster-General cannot do everything on their own. They do their best, but if it were not for those officials who do their work so conscientiously, the budget would have been far more difficult than the one we now have. I have great appreciation for the married women who do clerical work in the Post Office. We know it is not always easy for a family, especially when there are children, if the wife works long hours. Some of those mothers have to leave their children in the care of créches. In spite of this, they are still prepared to work.

I have tremendous appreciation for the recruitment of workers abroad. There is a shortage of artisans in South Africa. We are extremely proud of the artisans who are trained in South Africa. Their training is good and thorough; so thorough that the private sector looks with covetous eyes at those people, and all too often people are enticed into leaving the Post Office and joining the private sector. In these difficult times in which we are living there is no safer organization to work for than the State. I hope and pray that our people will take cognizance of this and will not simply leave the service of the State.

There are organizations in the private sector that train their workers, and I appreciate this, but I want to make a serious appeal to them to do so on a larger scale. If more people were trained in the private sector, it would not be necessary to lure staff away from the Post Office. The private sector is often able to offer higher salaries, but the security they offer cannot be compared with that offered by the State. I am therefore appealing to the private sector in their own interests and the interests of the country to train as many of their own workers as possible, and not to lure workers away from the Post Office. After all, the Post Office renders a service to the private sector as well and not only to the general public.

I was delighted to hear about the housing being supplied to Post Office staff. There is a tendency among employers throughout the country to supply their employees with housing, something that was not all that common in the past. The Post Office has been doing so for some time now, and I am delighted to hear that it is now going to do so on a larger scale. I also welcome the housing subsidy because every person would like to have a home of his own. Particularly now that the prices of properties keep on rising, and employee considers it a personal investment if he can build his own home with the aid of a subsidy. In addition, he also feels he can contribute to his own house, and I want to express my appreciation for this.

As far as the Post Office Savings Bank is concerned, I agree that in the present financial climate it has reached its optimum growth rate. It is therefore necessary to give urgent attention now to alternative investment facilities that are more in line with interest rates and money markets. I therefore hope and trust that the telebank service will be well supported and that it will draw so much money that it may not be necessary for the Post Office to negotiate such large loans at high interest rates abroad.

This budget is going to hit the public hard, but I trust that everyone will realize that there was no alternative. I must support this budget because I fully realize that there was no alternative. We are living in difficult times and we must all learn to accept that we cannot always get what we want.

Mr. Speaker, it is a particular privilege for me to be able to speak after the hon. member for Nigel. In my opinion he made a very positive speech and I want to congratulate him on it.

The hon. member for Hillbrow moved an amendment in which he referred, inter alia, to expediting the installation of telephones. However, the hon. member’s speech was interspersed with objections to the increased tariffs. Without beating about the bush I want to ask him straight out whether he is therefore in favour of the amount that is being appropriated for telephone services being reduced. The hon. member is objecting to the increase in tariffs, but is he in favour of the amount that is being appropriated for the postal services being reduced? The hon. member need only nod or shake his head to indicate whether he agrees or not. [Interjections.] There is another question I also want to put to that hon. member. [Interjections.] Is the hon. member advocating a reduction in the amounts being appropriated for the staff salaries?

I made a suggestion; but you do not listen.

That hon. member’s reasoning has no firm foundation, and I am not the only one to say so. I can refer him to Prof. De Wet. What did he say? After he had seen the hon. the Minister’s budget he said that the budget proved that the postal services were being run on a very sound basis.

What do you say now, Widman?

This afternoon, however, that hon. member delivered a long tirade here about the tariffs that had not only been adjusted too early or too late, but had also been adjusted to an excessively high level. Does that hon. member not realize that we are living in a changing world? This is a new world in which we must keep up with developments in the technological sphere and also in other spheres. [Interjection.] Actually the hon. member for Umlazi gave an adequate reply to that hon. member’s speech.

I want to refer to one further aspect. The fifth leg of the hon. member’s amendment refers to pensioners who retired prior to 1973. Does that hon. member not know that Post Office pensioners are classified with Government pensioners into one pension fund and that he should therefore address his representations to the Department of Health and Welfare. [Interjections.] Apparently he did not know that.

When one evaluates the Post Office budget, particularly against the background of the present financial and economic circumstances in South Africa, and against the background of the staff shortage being experienced throughout South Africa, one really begins to appreciate the tremendous achievements of our Post Office staff during the past financial year. After all, the Post Office grew, and no services were curtailed or cancelled. On the contrary. Under the leadership of the present hon. Minister the Post Office succeeded in expanding its services further. Having said this, surely we can also say that it required a tremendous sacrifice. It called for loyalty and very hard work from the Post Office staff to achieve these results. In my opinion other institutions, particularly in the private sector, could learn a very valuable lesson from this department. One can ask what the hon. the Minister did to increase the productivity of available staff so tremendously under these circumstances. This is a lesson the whole of the private sector, the whole of South Africa, can learn. Seen against the background of the fact that during the past year the Post Office lost 26,9% of its staff, it may be asked what modus operandi the Post Office employed to achieve such sound operating results with the available staff?

At this stage I want to refer to a few aspects, because in my opinion it is enlightening and important that the rest of South Africa knows what was done. I want to refer to the programme concerned with improving or increasing the productivity of these officials. The first aspect I want to refer to is the training programmes. I think this department would probably have been in a chaotic state if the hon. the Minister and his department had not accorded a very high priority to the training of the available staff. It is very interesting to look at the programmes that were introduced. In the first place there was the in-service training programme, that is probably as old as the hills. However, its success depends on the way in which it is applied and executed. What is our department doing in this connection? It is an on-going programme that is concerned in particular with rural offices and secretarial divisions where the training is done on a one-to-one basis. It is for counter clerks, postal delivery officials and telephone operators. What was the result? This is important. Up to 30 November 1981 they had trained no fewer than 855 postmen and 1 211 telephonists. This is not as easy as it sounds. It costs the department R409 per postman and R639 per telephonist. The ideal of this department was to increase productivity in the midst of the staff shortage. The first matter they gave priority to was training. The first programme I referred to was in-service training.

The second programme I want to refer to is group training which pertains mainly to clerks. This takes place at training centres. There are such training centres in our major cities in South Africa, for example Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth, East London and Bloemfontein. There are others as well. These centres are for Whites. There are training centres for Coloureds as well. There is one at Belhar. There are training centres at East London, Bloemfontein and Pietermaritzburg for our Black people. In this connection it is important to note that up to 30 November 1981 no fewer than 750 clerks had been trained, and that this training takes from 4 to 10 months. It is also important to point that the costs involved are considerable. It is also a form of in-service training. It is estimated that the average trained person costs the department about R4 500, but without training these people this department cannot carry on with its activities.

I want to refer to another programme, namely training centres for technicians. In modern times, this is in fact the crux of all the problems. We need trained technicians who can install and maintain the new telecommunications networks. In this connection it is very important that we in South Africa are able to boast of such an institution as the college at Olifantsfontein, one of the most modern centres in South Africa, where Whites are trained as technicians for the department. We also have a training college for our Black people at Soshanguve. We also have one for Coloureds at Belhar. Asiatics are trained in Natal as far as possible. These things also cost a great deal of money. Over the past 10 years no less than R10 million has been spent on these training centres and it is estimated that during the next few years no less than R23 million will have to be spent.

This is not all. The hon. the Minister and his departmental heads also saw to it that bursaries and study grants to attend universities, technikons and other colleges were made available so that Post Office staff could be properly trained in order to increase their productivity.

There is another aspect I wish to refer to, one that is almost unique to this department, namely staff development. The officials are trained, they are able to do the work, but circumstances change and for this reason there must also be programmes for managers, training officers and supervisors for example. These programmes are constantly adjusted to meet current demands. It is interesting to note that courses in social welfare, work study and business etiquette are also being offered in order to increase the productivity of the staff. It is also important to note that over the years more than 21 704 officials have completed these courses.

Surely an employer who spends such large amounts of money on his employees must show good results and increase productivity.

However, before an official can be trained, before he can be developed, he must be physically present, he must accept a post and he must be an official of the Post Office. That is why the department also accords a very high priority to recruiting. It is also interesting to consider the recruiting methods of the department. On the domestic front, use is made of the news media. Recruitment officers also visit our universities, and trained officials have addressed about 29 000 high school pupils to tell them about the wonderful careers the Post Office can offer them in the future. Recruiting is also undertaken abroad. If hon. members of the Opposition want to help us do something, this is the field in which they can do so. At the moment the economic position in the Free World, particularly in Europe, is not very favourable, and economic circumstances there are ideal for recruiting large numbers of good officials for South Africa. The hon. the Minister and his department have also done so. Offers were made to 512 prospective officials to make it possible for them to enter the service of the Post Office. We just hope that most of them will accept those offers.

There is one question I want to put to the hon. members of the Opposition. If outsiders had had to sit here for a week and listen to the speeches of the Opposition during the no-confidence debate in this House what would they have said? I know what they would have said. Their reaction would have been that if they were to believe the Opposition, they would not even have wanted to be buried in South Africa, let alone work here. Hon. members of the Opposition must tone down their flagrant and usually unfounded criticism for the sake of South Africa. They must do this for the sake of all our activities in this country.

This is not all the great work the department has done. The department also saw to it that the working conditions of the officials were conducive to increased productivity. For this reason, particularly in our large cities, old, attractive and elegant buildings of yesteryear, that no longer meet the requirements of our time, are being replaced, converted or altered. Sometimes new buildings have to be erected in their place. This has to be done because it is important that the staff of the Post Office work under pleasant conditions. For this reason—as we already know—the new national head office of the department is to be erected in Pretoria in the foreseeable future at a cost of approximately R30 million. The large new post office in Port Elizabeth, which will also house the regional office, will be erected at a cost of R12,5 million. Kimberley will also get a new post office, which will cost R7 million. So I can continue. To sum up I can say that about R60 million is being appropriated in this budget for the erection of new and larger buildings. This will all help to make the working conditions of the Post Office staff more pleasant.

Last but not least, this department also saw to it that the conditions of service of the Post Office staff were adjusted in such a way that they would meet the demands of the times. In this regard one could also refer briefly to the important programmes in this connection, programmes that are virtually unique. One thinks in the first place of the salary promotion programme. This applies in the case of officials working in problem areas. When vacancies arise which cannot be filled, these officials receive an extra one notch increase in salary on 1 July of each year, up to a maximum of four increases. This is done to ensure that the official remains in the service. This salary promotion programme is working well. It is working particularly well in the problem areas.

However, a second programme has also been introduced in this connection. This is the wage differentiation programme. This programme is used to entice officials to work in problem areas or to keep officials in those areas. A differentiation is applied with regard to salaries and other allowances paid. Of course there are other conditions of service as well. The hon. member for Nigel has already referred to these.

I refer, for example, to the conditions in connection with housing facilities. In this regard there is the important loan scheme which has been established for officials, particularly those in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging area. This is where the programme was initially introduced, but I understand that it will now be extended to Durban. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it could now be extended to Port Elizabeth and other cities. In this way the hon. the Minister and his department are setting the private sector and everyone else a very good example because in the days ahead the State will no longer be able to provide accommodation for everyone and the employer will have to make a contribution to the accommodation of his employees.

As regards decentralization, the hon. the Minister has moved in a new direction, which we cannot simply refer to in passing. It was a great day when the first 80 staff members and 12 senior officials went to Port Elizabeth to launch the new audit division there. Eighty posts had to be created and 80 posts had to be filled and because more manpower was available in that area, those posts were easily filled. In due course a certain computer division will be transferred to Cape Town. In this way the hon. the Minister has tried to decentralize to meet the demands made of him day after day.

Finally I want to say that we cannot allow this opportunity to pass without telling our young people: Seize the opportunities that this department offers you and create a wonderful future for yourselves in this department. I support this Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat had to say. I am not going to react to any of his remarks but I do want to indicate that we on these benches will not be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. The main reason for this is an all-encompassing one and that is simply that we have before us once again a highly inflationary budget in the highly inflationary times in which we are living. I regret to say that the hon. the Minister’s budget speech of yesterday came as very much of an anticlimax and it came as such because the sting had been taken out of it by the tariff increases that had been announced earlier this year. If the hon. the Minister is going to announce increases. I believe that it is a good thing for him to give adequate notice of such increases. I have no argument in that regard at all because it gives commerce and industry the opportunity to ready themselves for such increases. However, I certainly do have a bone to pick with the hon. the Minister in regard to the size of those increases.

What disturbed me greatly yesterday listening to the hon. the Minister presenting his budget was the fact that he told us that there was a possibility of further tariff adjustments “in the not too distant future”. I also listened to the comments of the hon. the Minister last night on television during the newscast when he said that he did not envisage a further increase during this calendar year. I take it that that was what he meant. However, I should like to know exactly what the hon. the Minister means by “the not too distant future”. I say this, Sir, because we in this House have come to realize that ten minutes in politics is almost a lifetime. I think there are hon. members on both sides of us here who know that!

I am not going to wait five or six years.

Well, Sir, we should like the hon. the Minister to be a little more accurate than that. The only new announcement in the budget yesterday was the imposition—and I mean imposition in more than one sense of the word—of the R1 charge per telegram plus the normal word rate. I must ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given sufficient consideration to this matter. Has he really given this matter careful consideration? I believe that he has shown a certain careless disregard for two facts in this connection. Firstly, I believe that the hon. the Minister has not fully appreciated the tremendous hardship that this imposition is going to cause particularly our Black population because they are the people who use this service extensively as a means of urgent communication. We the Whites, have a means of urgent communication; we have telephones in our homes and on our farms. The rural Black does not have a telephone facility in his home. He does not have a telephone. The telegram is his means of urgent communication. Let us take the race connotation out of it. The underprivileged do not have the sort of communication and resorts to the telegram. Here we are imposing a fee of R1,00 before they start to pay for the words which go on that telegram form. [Interjections.]

Now the hon. members opposite are moaning; they should ask their poor people in their constituencies.

How many telegrams are daily sent from Soweto?

Has the hon. member ever heard of the Transkei area? I know it is an independent country. Has he ever heard of the platteland? Here are the representatives of the platteland; let them tell him about the platteland. They will tell the hon. member that there are rural areas in which Blacks live. Does the hon. member only think about Soweto? Is that all he has on his mind?

But one does not send a telegram from a farm. [Interjections.]

Order!

In the second instance this will result in a further loading of the telephone system, because people are going to use the telephone system more, and they can save money by doing so. They can have a three minutes’ conversation probably for less than sending a five or six word telegram. One is going to load a system which is already over-loaded. This is obvious.

I also find this service charge very hard to understand when I see that it is applied to a service that is declining rapidly in so far as usage is concerned. I want to refer very briefly to figures which I have here and will indicate to the House that telegram traffic …

Brian, you are outprogging the Progs now.

I might get some intelligence into the hon. member’s rather limited capacity head. Oh well, I shall just give it to old Koos as something incidental. [Interjections.]

Order!

In 1969-’70 inland telegrams amounted to 12 848 000. Over the following 10 year period there was a steady decline and in 1979-’80 they declined to 9 227 000. In the year under review there was a further decline because then they numbered 8 407 000. This represents a 34,5% reduction on the usage of the inland telegram from what the figure was 11 years ago. We are therefore penalizing a service which is losing popularity, and losing popularity, I hasten to add, at a vast rate of knots. I should like to know what the comment of the hon. the Minister is on this.

Telephones are a bugbear. Telephones still suffer from what I call the “backlog bogey”. I have always maintained that increased prices in whatever the commodity may be, will result in a more critical consumer market. I said it in respect of airways in the Third Reading debate on the S.A. Transport Services Appropriation Bill; I say it now in respect of telephones. The South African public and commerce and industry will pay—they will pay because they have no alternative—but they will demand a better and a more efficient service because they are more critical. What they will demand is a reduction in backlogs and a guarantee that services will be more readily available.

The hon. the Minister indicated in his speech that backlogs are on the increase. I do not want to quote his figures back at him; he is as aware of them as I am. Those figures show that despite all the appeals, telephones and telex backlogs have increased as each year goes by. This “backlog bogey” is with us and it lives with us. We have to do something dramatic about it. I believe that the hon. the Minister should give serious consideration to allocating certain capital funds with the specific objective of reducing backlog levels to an acceptable level. I accept that there is no way in which one can ever eliminate the backlog; one will never be able to do it. No country that shows or has a growth potential such as ours is ever going to eliminate a backlog, but I believe we can bring it down to an acceptable level. I believe that that acceptable level in developed communities, built-up communities should be no longer than 30 days. In a built-up area there should be no excuse. If a man in the middle of Durban wants a telephone or wants his telephone transferred if he moves his business premises or if he moves from one suburb to another suburb, he should be able to have that service within 30 days. What was the situation in Durban in 1981? In 1981, 70 831 applications for new telephone services or transfers of existing services were made in the Durban area. By the end of the year 16 977 applications were still outstanding, 59 500 telephones had been provided and the backlog therefore increased. We cannot continue with this situation.

I want now to refer to the figures for mail and postage. Something is wrong here, because the figures just do not tally. We are told by the hon. the Minister that there is an increasing number of mail articles and I accept that. He gave us certain percentages. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to his speech of yesterday.

Are you now referring to the Durban area?

No, I am referring to the figures for 1981 as compared with those for 1980 for Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Pretoria. The hon. the Minister said the increase in Johannesburg had been 26,6%, while in Pretoria, Durban and Cape Town it had been 5,7%, 9,4% and 5,5% respectively. Why is it then that when one examines these figures over a 10 year period, and especially in regard to the past year, one comes to the rather startling conclusion—but nonetheless true—that in fact we have only had an 8,54% increase on mail items handled since 1969-’70.

Your figures must be wrong.

I am so glad the hon. the Deputy Minister says that. The hon. the Deputy Minister must now go and argue with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information because I got these figures from a publication called South Africa 1982: Official Yearbook of the Republic of South Africa. The book was published by Chris van Rensburg Publications (Pty.) Limited. Would the hon. the Deputy Minister like more information as to where I got my figures from? These figures came from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s own Government. The hon. the Deputy Minister is saying in other words that his own figures are wrong, not mine.

There is a difference between propaganda and fact.

When we talk about mail, I want to say that if we are going to pay more, we must get a better service. We admit that we are a small party. There are only eight of us here.

Yes, but look at the quality!

Yes, but there are two of us who have suffered a little at the hands of our mail service. Apart from me, my hon. leader tried to send two letters from the Durban North post office—which is famous for selling bonus bonds!—to the centre of Durban and it took five days.

Did you report the case to the local postmaster?

No, you are the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and I am telling you. They were sent certified mail.

I want to give the hon. the Minister another example, also involving certified mail. I have here a letter in a regulation envelope; there is nothing wrong with it. This letter was posted in Johannesburg on 4 November 1981 and addressed to Aubrey Thompson (Pty.) Limited—the hon. member sitting in these benches—P.O. Box 356, Port Shepstone, 4240. There was nothing wrong with the address. Does the hon. the Minister know when it arrived in Port Shepstone after it had been to Richards Bay and a few other places? It arrived in Port Shepstone on 15 January 1982. The envelope contained certain documents which my hon. colleague was waiting for and it cost his business a lot of money.

Did he report it to the local postmaster?

I am reporting the matter to the hon. the Minister. I cannot do better. [Interjections.]

There are certain aspects of the budget which we welcome. Firstly, we welcome the salary increases, but we question the secrecy that surrounds salary increases. We question the secrecy because we believe this is wrong. I know it is very easy to say: “We have negotiated with the staff associations and the staff associations, although they wanted more, are happy”.

However, I want to say in this House this afternoon that the staff associations are doing themselves a disservice because the Opposition is the very instrument that can plead their case across the floor of this House. As long as they indulge in negotiations privately with their Ministries and with members of the Government so that the Minister can come and report that everything in the garden is rosy, they are painting themselves into a corner. Mark my words, what I am saying is going to come home to roost one day and it is going to come home with a vengeance.

We welcome the extended provisions for housing for all race groups because we acknowledge the tremendous difficulties there have been, particularly in the rural areas. We also welcome the discipline that is to be introduced in respect of philatelic services. I believe this is an aspect that got out of hand and it is as well that the hon. the Minister is doing something concrete about it. We also accept that the guidelines that were laid down by the Franzsen Commission have got to be adjusted to suit the current economic situation. Where in the past we have possibly erred, as have many others, in wanting to adhere rigidly to those guidelines, let us today adopt a more flexible approach and accept that we must move with the times in this regard.

In conclusion, I want to say that it was refreshing to hear the hon. the Minister admit that we are living in times of high inflation, as this hon. Minister did yesterday, and then go on to say that the Post Office was a victim of high inflation. It is refreshing to hear these words. I am just sorry that he did not also accept his role and responsibility and the part he is playing in contributing towards that inflation because by his actions he is contributing further to that inflation. At the end of the day John Citizen is going to have to dig deeper into his pocket once more and commerce and industry will obviously pass on the extra costs from 1 April to the consumer. There is only one man who is going to pay for it and that will be “die man op straat”. He is the person who is going to feel the pinch again.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlanga basically mentioned two things. The first was his criticism of the imposition of the handling charge in respect of telegrams and the other related to the problem of the slow delivery of mail. I should like to ask the hon. member a question in this regard. I should like to refer him to the hon. the Minister’s speech where the hon. the Minister pointed out that the loss this year on telegrams would be something like R22 million, something like 51% of the operating expenditure. That is a fact. It is a fact like a cow. It is not that the Post Office wants poor people to pay more for their telegrams. The whole history of the Post Office is evidence of the fact that the Post Office under all circumstances attempts to keep tariffs as low as possible. One only has to look back over its history. Even the hon. member for Hillbrow this afternoon asked why the Post Office did not make tariff adjustments over the years. The Post Office does not do so for exactly the reason that it does not want to impose hardships or difficulties on people. But where there is a R22 million loss which amounts to 51% of the operating expenditure, one simply has to do something.

It is a matter of efficiency.

The question is: What must one do?

Increase efficiency.

All right. No. hon. member who has stood up on any side of the House has as yet given us one suggestion as to how the Post Office can increase efficiency.

Why do you send a letter to Richards Bay when it is supposed to be going to Port Shepstone?

One cannot take an organization like the Post Office, an organization that delivers literally tens of millions of items daily to all four corners of the earth …

How many millions of certified mail items are delivered?

Many millions.

How many millions? Tell me how many millions.

I do not know how many millions, but many millions. One can take the Ford Motor Company, the manufacturers of Mercedes Benz or the producer of any other commodity and one will find that from time to time there will be a particular thing that goes wrong. That happens in the best of regulated families and in the biggest and the best of businesses.

Are you suggesting that I am just unlucky when it happens to me three times in a row?

Perhaps, but there may be a problem at that particular post office. The best way of resolving that problem is to talk to the postmaster. [Interjections.] Frankly, I think we are wasting the time of the House to complain about that kind of pettifogging thing. [Interjections.] If the NRP wants to move a vote of no confidence in the administration of the Post Office, they are free to do so. [Interjections.] They cannot, however, on the one hand say what wonderful officials they are, and then, on the other hand say what a bad man the hon. the Minister is and blame him for the non-delivery of letters. That is ridiculous. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow was just as inconsistent because he moved an amendment which was completely contradictory. He said that the installation of telephones should be expedited and that the quality of the telephone service should be improved. He referred to the backlog of applications for telephones and stated that the installation of telephones should be expedited and that better service should be rendered, but then he suggested that the increased tariffs that had been announced should be reduced. This means that we will have less money, but that more services must be rendered.

It must be more efficient. [Interjections.]

I know that the hon. member for Parktown is an honest man. [Interjections.] If hon. members want to be honest, they must openly attack the personnel of the Post Office. [Interjections.] They cannot say that we must reduce the tariffs and at the same time increase the services. One simply cannot do this.

The allegation was also made that during the ’seventies tariffs were not increased slowly and that this should have been done. However, this would have been quite the wrong thing to have done. One of the reasons why the Post Office is such an efficient organization is that whilst tariffs appeared to remain static, they were, in fact, not static. Because of the spiralling inflation rate tariffs were being reduced year after year. In the meantime the Post Office was increasing its capital programme and its services year after year with effectively lower tariffs.

And then what happened?

What happened? We had a massive boom in the ’seventies as well as massive capital expenditure and fantastic interest rates to which everybody, including our suppliers from overseas, was subjected. One must bear in mind that a great deal of equipment used in the Post Office with its high technological component, is imported. Of course, those items that are imported are subject to greater inflationary pressures than the local inputs used in the Post Office. In view of these facts the Post Office ran into problems, and it is not ashamed to admit that it has problems. It is, however, dealing with these problems in the best possible manner. One of its major problems was that it suffered a loss of approximately 26% of its staff. When it suits them, everybody says that the Post Office must be run as a business undertaking but in the next breath they suggest that it should be a welfare organization. The fact is, however, that if it is a business, it must take steps to try to retain its staff. What did the Post Office therefore do? It launched an imaginative housing programme which included official housing as well as home loan schemes to provide housing for the Post Office personnel at favourable rates of interest. That, I think, has probably contributed enormously to the fact that the loss of staff has not been worse. By whatever yardstick one attempts to measure the performance of the Post Office, one finds the performance to have been absolutely excellent. What is more remarkable, however, is that if one accepts that the performance of the Post Office has been superb over the years—and I think most people will agree that it has been—one is led to conclude that yesteryear’s excellence is today’s norm as far as the Post Office is concerned. On the basis of the excellence the Post Office achieved yesterday or the day before, it is in fact building, moving on to yet higher levels of achievement. Whatever yardstick one wishes to use, one must acknowledge, however, that the Post Office is part and parcel of the world we live in. The Post Office does not exist in isolation. It does not exist on the moon. The Post Office is subject to all the problems— inflationary, labour, technological, etc.— that other industries have, but it has even greater problems because it has to fund loss making activities. I say this because a normal business would not charge a handling fee of R1 on a telegram. It would simply say: “No more telegrams, because there is no point in our continuing to run the service.”

Not to mention the Minister.

So the Post Office does, in fact, have a social conscience. One only has to look at the subsidy on letters to see that, a subsidy of almost R60 million. That is the effective subsidy on letters. The Post Office does have a social conscience and is finely attuned to its market. We know of the consultative committees that exist to liaise with the Chamber of Industries, the Chamber of Commerce, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, etc.

We also know that after having given hints as early as February last year—and this can clearly be seen if one reads the relevant debate in Hansard of last year—in November the hon. the Minister went to commerce and industry and said: “Gentlemen, this is the story.” Then this year, at the earliest opportunity, he told them how things would be.

I even spoiled my holiday.

There we have it. That is another example of the hon. the Minister’s dedication.

The hon. the Minister should rather have gone on a long holiday.

The fact is that commerce and industry were given every opportunity to prepare and budget for the fact that there would be cost increases as far as communications were concerned.

I must say, if I were the hon. the Minister I do not know whether I would do it again, because what did he get for his trouble? What he got for his trouble was a slap in the face from the Opposition and from industry, when he was in fact doing everything he could to make things as convenient as possible for society as a whole. Aside from being a colleague of his in the House, I want to tell the hon. the Minister, as a business man, that I think that his actions were very responsible indeed and, I believe, highly regarded.

I should now like to deal with one other point. The hon. member said that this is an inflationary budget. He said that the Post Office was fanning the flames of inflation, etc. The fact is that if there is one business operation or department in South Africa that is, in fact, an inflation-fighter, it is this department. The reason is obvious and the proof is incontrovertible. The fact is that the tariff increases over the past seven years—I think from 1976—have risen at half the rate at which the consumer index has risen. It has therefore beat the consumer price index rate by 100% every year, and if that is not anti-inflationary, I do not know what is. The Post Office is an essential service. Although in many respects luxury services are provided, if one measures the performance of this essential service against other essential commodities, what does one find? Bread serves as a good example. From 1910 to 1980 the price of bread increased by 813% while the cost of mailing letters and parcels increased by 700%. So there was a lower rate of increase in the cost of letters and parcels than in the price of bread—and we all know what a fantastic political and social pressure is brought to bear in regard to bread. We also know that over that period we have enjoyed the green revolution, massive increases in mechanization, and so on. Yet, again, in that field Post Office tariffs have increased more slowly.

One can compare our tariffs on letters, for example, with those of other countries—the hon. the Minister compared the cost of telephone calls in South Africa with their cost in other countries. To post a letter of 50 grams in South Africa will cost 8 cents, but in Switzerland a letter costs 47 cents, in the Netherlands 25 cents and in Belgium 45 cents. Nobody can tell me that in those countries wages are three, four or five times higher than in South Africa.

And the distances are shorter there.

Yes, as the hon. the Minister says in those countries the distances are shorter, and those people very often finance their capital assets and post offices 100% from revenue, which is not the case here.

Sir, I am afraid my time has nearly run out. In conclusion, let me say that the Post Office increased its labour force by 1,8% while it increased its telephone services by 9,2%, its telex services by 16% and its data services by 37% and the number of postal items in Johannesburg alone increased by 26,6%. I say we should pay tribute to the Post Office, the hon. the Minister and the Ministry for that. I support the budget before the House with acclamation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Maitland and Newton Park tried to suggest there was a conflict between our saying we must review tariffs and our saying that telephone services must be improved. The answer to that is obvious. Telephone services are not the only capital consuming item in an annual budget. One can spend more money on telephone services in a year and cut off some of the items of lower priority and still have change in hand to reduce tariffs.

You do not know what you are talking about.

In a year in which the Post Office financed its capital projects for more than 50% out of revenue this is an obvious tactic to provide for lower tariffs. What is more, expenditure on telephones is actually revenue-producing capital expense and is, therefore, actually advantageous. The hon. member for Maitland also said it was pettifogging of the Opposition to make an issue of the letter. He should know that it is the policy of the Post Office to deliver items within 48 hours. They have obviously failed in that respect.

The hon. member for Umlazi can rest assured that this side also knows that pensioners resort under the Pension (Government Service) Act, No.57 of 1973. However, if he reads the amendment carefully, he will see that we are calling on the Government to improve the lot of pensioners, and not of pensioners of the Post Office as such.

The specific aspect of Post Office policy I should like to deal with in my speech is the question of commemorative stamps. The hon. the Minister in his speech set out what he called the new policy with regard to the issuing of commemorative stamps, but it is not so new. We first heard about it late last year. He set out three essential principles of this so-called new policy. In the first place he said that date-bound stamps were going to be phased out other than in exceptional circumstances in cases of indisputable merit. I do not know what is so new about that. Obviously, out of all the applications there have been in the past, the few date-bound ones that were selected had exceptional merit.

I am thinking of the ten-yearly Republic Festival, for instance.

Well, that is a matter of assessment.

They are slow thinkers; forget about it.

If they are only going to be issued on special dates they will obviously be the ones of exceptional merit. Furthermore the hon. the Minister says special commemorative stamps will be required to reflect the image of South Africa. He then mentions a whole list of categories, among others, art, culture, nature, economics, sport, tourist attractions, recreation, etc. I am not certain what is left out here, therefore I do not know what is new in this particular regard. To me it seems like apple pie commentary.

One material point is his third point, in which he states that he wants to reduce the annual number of special commemorative stamps to no more than five series. That is something he did not explain. Over the last five years there were 7, 7, 10, 6 and 7 series respectively of special commemorative stamps. Now suddenly the hon. the Minister says there will be no more than five. I want to argue against that restrictive step taken now by the hon. the Minister.

I am not happy at all that the policy which has been followed by the Post Office during all the years of NP Government has met with the requirements of a sound and balanced attitude in respect of the issuing of special commemorative stamps. I also do not see much light in the announcement the hon. the Minister has made now. In fact I see only darkness ahead. The issue of special commemorative stamps by the NP Government during all the years since 1948, in so far as they have been issued in respect of cultural matters, has not been done on a fair and balanced basis, in my opinion, with due regard to the interests of all the sections of the South African community. In a nutshell, I believe that the practice has in fact been grossly unfair to every cultural group other than the Afrikaans-speaking cultural group. I am sorry to say this, but I do want to draw the attention to this imbalance today. I also want to appeal for a new deal, a new more balanced deal. I had a question on the Question Paper to which the hon. the Minister replied in the House last week. Just by way of example, I want to point out that the special commemorative stamps issued last year were in respect of the Battle of Amajuba, the inauguration of the State Theatre in Pretoria, the Republic Festival, the centenary of the Institute for the Deaf and Blind, the Golden Jubilee of the Cancer Association, the Tenth World Orchid Conference and the 50th anniversary of the Voortrekker Movement. The latter is what I should class as an Afrikaans culture bound commemoration.

What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that. It is a positive step. What is wrong is what is missing. That is what is wrong. If one looks at our history since 1948 it appears that during the first 25 years of NP Government 13 special commemorative stamps were issued which were Afrikaans culture linked. During the same period four special commemorative stamps were issued that were English culture linked. All four had to do with the 1820 Settlers, which by no means covered the whole spectrum of English culture. There was one commemorative stamps which had to do with the German Settlers, and not a single special commemorative stamp which had to do with the culture of any other group in the country.

During the last nine years, since 1974, eight special commemorative stamps have been issued which have been Afrikaans culture linked, while no special commemorative stamps have been issued in connection with any other cultural group in South Africa. That means that, over a period of 34 years, we have a picture which, I believe, can be irrefutably assessed as being one of a severe imbalance in favour of only one cultural section of the South African community. Since 1973 not a single year has passed in which something of importance to either Afrikaans culture or Afrikaans language organizations has not been commemorated. In no single year since 1973 has this aspect not been recognized. I have no quarrel with this. I believe it is positive to promote the various cultural groups in South Africa. I have no objection to that at all. What I do object to, however, and what is causing a feeling of distress in various quarters is the failure of the Post Office to grant similar recognition to the other cultural and language sections of the South African community. I am afraid that on the record this is a gross failure. It is a gross failure indeed.

This is not the way in which to build harmony. It is not the way in which to enhance patriotism and a feeling of mutual goodwill in South Africa. South Africa is a country of rich cultural diversity, and that should be recognized.

I mention this against the background of something which I saw reported recently. That is that the English Academy has made an appeal to the Government to mark the centenary in 1983 of the publication of The Story of an African Farm by Olive Schreiner. That book was first published in 1883 to wide critical acclaim. It is still regarded by critics as one of the, if not the, finest novels in English to come out of South Africa.

Perhaps the most significant thing about that novel is that it was the first English novel to be rooted in South Africa and I believe that it is common cause that this would be a highly meritorious incident to mark in this way in 1983. For reasons of exceptional merit I believe it can be argued in terms of the hon. the Minister’s new policy that this would fit in and that it would promote the image of South Africa. For these reasons I want to appeal to the Government through the hon. the Minister to accede to this request by the English Academy. It will be a much welcomed gesture of goodwill after a very long drought! There may very well be other more deserving causes taking just the applications from the so-called English culture. The Story of an African Farm may not be the best one, but this is the one that has come to the fore and in the absence of a better one I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will give it the necessary recognition and I appeal to him in this regard.

A sort of a healthy stamp-sharing scheme.

I am running out of time, Sir, and I wish to conclude by saying one thing in respect of the third aspect of this so-called new policy of restricting it to five. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to opt for such a restrictive number. It is an arbitrary number. I feel that unless he can motivate this very convincingly he should avoid imposing such an arbitrary restriction. If he is going to enter into a phase where he is going to produce fewer of these commemorative stamps than ever before he is then going to make it even more difficult to achieve a fair and more balanced distribution or allocation in respect of deserving claims from all sections of the community. On top of that, I should also like to appeal for a very much wider approach to this matter in terms of which he can consult non-partisan historians who can assess the merits of particular applications. If such a body were to recommend, say, three or five a year or 10 in a year, so be it, as long as such a decision met the test of merit and discretion. I do not think that this should be limited to five at all. What is absolutely essential however, and must be followed as a golden thread of policy in respect of commemorative stamps— and I appeal to the Government to uphold this policy scrupulously—is to apply a fair and balanced allocation of issues from now on in order to redress what has been seen to be a severe imbalance in the past which has given rise to a measure of ill-will. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Mr. Speaker, I want to react briefly to the remarks by the hon. member for Constantia. I just want to tell him that recently I have bought stamps in connection with certain areas in independent States as well as in connection with the Scouts. Just prior to that I also bought stamps with regard to Rorke’s Drift and other battlefields in Natal, and I therefore think that he made an unfair statement. I do not know where he found it. Indeed, I think he has done the philatelic services a disservice today. The hon. member should have the required knowledge if he wants to talk about philatelic services. He must not simply pick up the story here and there and then try to make something of it in this House. I shall come back to philatelic services later on in the course of my speech.

The Department of Posts and Telecommunications installs approximately 1 000 telephones per day, telephones that link up directly with approximately 200 countries. The Post Office is undertaking a practically unbelievable expansion of its telecommunications network as a whole, in which a further 66 electronic exchanges will be incorporated. The department is also mechanizing its postal services by means of the most sophisticated methods in existence. The department is also involved in the judicious utilization of its staff. Tremendous progress has also been made with regard to the department’s housing and building projects, its financial policy, etc. We could have conducted a very healthy, fine debate on these matters today. We would have debated them meaningfully. However, for the past few months I have been reading in the newspapers that the Opposition, particularly the PFP and the NRP, decided months ago through the Press that this budget would simply be doomed. I am not really concerned about it, because I have already read everything that was said here today in the newspapers. What I am objecting to, is the way in which it is being done. Whilst I was reading some of these reports, I was reminded of the words of a Black leader called Mr. Tshabalala. He is the chairman of the Atteridge Community Council. Last year he opened a post office that had previously been destroyed by vandals during riots. At the time he said this as a warning to people of the younger generation—

I shall like to address the same message to the Opposition in this form: Cease these mud-besmirched words that are continually being hurled at the Post Office; we are achieving nothing by this. What we are achieving, is to bring down the morale of our people. A stop must be put to the personal attacks being launched at the hon. the Minister. Why are the hon. members doing this? Why are they saying that the hon. the Minister is dishonest to a certain extent?

Who said it?

I think it is a disgraceful statement that the hon. member made.

But who made it?

Arafat.

I object to that statement, because he says that the hon. the Minister is dishonest. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member say: “of course it is”?

Which hon. member said that?

The hon. member for Constantia.

What did the hon. member for Constantia say?

Mr. Speaker, I did not say anything.

Order! The hon. member Mr. Vermeulen may proceed.

According to certain newspaper reports he, the Minister, tried to plot and scheme in order to mislead people. I really think it is a disgrace that such hon. members …

Order! The hon. member must accept another hon. member’s word.

Sir, I accept it.

I want to come to another Opposition Party, the NRP, specifically the hon. member for Umhlanga. According to a newspaper report—it appeared in the Rand Daily Mail, and the hon. member must listen carefully and watch his step in future when he speaks to the newspapers—

To me this implies a great deal. It means that he blames the entire management, and if my assumption is correct, he blames every member of the Post Office staff. The officials of the Post Office are without doubt some of the most hardworking officials in any of our Government departments. I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to point this out, but further to that newspaper report, this was my conclusion and I shall content myself with that.

You were reading from the wrong page.

I repeat that the officials of the Post Office are some of the most hardworking officials in the country. They are also amongst the most productive. If one looks at this magnificent report of the Post Office, one cannot reach any conclusion but that it symbolizes the Post Office. If one looks at what is being done and achieved, how increased production is being achieved by fewer people, one realizes that these people are doing their share. Not only are they doing their share in the Post Office but also after hours and in excess of the six days on which they work. One simply has to look at every sphere. On church councils, cultural organizations—and in every possible sphere one finds officials of the Post Office. I do not think that people would feel very happy if they have to read over a space of three months in the newspapers what poor officials they were and what a poor management they have. I do not think that the people like that type of accusation. The Opposition would do well to cease this. Then the Sunday Express also comes along with a touch of hysteria. The Sunday Express says—

According to the Sunday Express it is one of the biggest shocks that it has experienced since 1948. This is ridiculous reporting. However, the fact should be noted that since 1948 this newspaper has been abusing the Post Office’s cheap tariffs whilst it broadcasts this type of report to the world. Since 1948 this newspaper’s price has increased by between 800% and 1 000% in comparison with increases of only 200% in the Post Office. In addition the Post Office is improving every day whilst the newspaper is deteriorating every day.

I should like to refer to a very positive report in The Star at approximately the same time. Were it not for the policy that we are following with regard to stamps, it may have been appropriate to issue a commemorative stamp for The Star for this positive report. The newspaper sums up the situation of the Post Office very neatly in one or two paragraphs. I quote—

I quote another paragraph—

I say once again that I think the newspaper deserves a commemorative stamp for this.

Whilst on the subject of commemorative stamps, I should like to express a few ideas about philately. Philately has an educational value for old and young that should not be underestimated. To the present day South Africa’s stamps have contributed towards depicting our history as a whole. South African steamps to date have contributed towards depicting the entire course of history in S.A. History has been depicted since the days of the landing of Jan van Riebeeck. It also depicts other themes, including the French Huguenots, the British Settlers, the Great Trek and other historical themes until the present day. The Post Office has depicted our history very well in its series of stamps. However, stamps have also depicted other spheres in South Africa, such as South African animal life, bird life, people, sportsmen, culture, South African leaders, as well as other themes. The Post Office has already depicted practically every conceivable theme in its series of stamps. I think this is something of which we in South Africa should be very proud, because some of these stamps have been lauded in the world as ranking amongst the most beautiful. I am thinking for instance about the Taalmonument in Paarl, which was lauded as one of the most beautiful stamps in the world. All of these are matters of which we should be proud. As a result of our beautiful stamps and their high quality, they have become sought after items throughout the world. According to the annual report of the Post Office it is clear that the number of agencies is on the increase worldwide. These fine stamps have led to there being approximately 100 000 stamp collectors in South Africa, of which 30 000 are registered at the Post Office and are deposit holders. This represents an increase of approximately 23% over the past nine months. These collectors have made the philatelic services of the Post Office more than simply a paying concern. However, there are still 100 000 potential collectors that can be recruited and here I want to say something which should not be considered as a very harsh word, but if there were more encouragement on the part of the Post Office, those people could in fact be recruited. I believe that I am speaking on behalf of the 80 clubs and that the federation will support me when I say that the clubs and the federation do in fact carry out the advertising for the Post Office. These people are doing good work and they should be considered as partners, who render a good service to the benefit of the Post Office. That is why I want to say today that if one has a partner that does such good work for one, one should give that partner every possible facility that he may require. There is a whole number that one could mention. The turnover of our philatelic industry amounts to millions of rands per year, and with the assistance of the Post Offices, that turnover can practically be doubled. At the moment it is largely due to organized philately that members are being recruited and encouraged to collect stamps. It is these friendly and zealous people that one will find in long queues at the Post Office when commemorative stamps appear.

There is a second matter that is a cause of some concern for me, and this is the fact that the historical portion of our commemorative stamps will disappear in future. I had so hoped that, since the railways is going to celebrate its 125th birthday within the following year or so, some commemorative stamp or other could have appeared which would have depicted De Aar, the town where myself and others were born, with a locomotive. I therefore want to address a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to look at this.

But then you must convince the member for Constantia first!

In future stamps will continue to appear depicting culture, art, etc., and I am very grateful for that, but I want to issue the warning today that we should ensure that the fine, high quality of the designs and of the stamps themselves will be maintained and that we should not simply design stamps for commercial purposes, depicting subjects like moths, frogs, trout-fishing flies, etc. Let us maintain the quality of our stamps.

There is a final request that I should like to make, and this is that one or two members of the federation should also be invited to serve on the selection and policy committee. At present there is not a single one, and I should like to mention a name here today: the president of the federation at the moment, Mr. A. Bezuidenhout, MPC. He is an authority in the field of stamps.

Is he a Free Stater?

Yes, he is, but he is also the chairman of the federation, and an expert in the field of stamps. I think that such a gesture would mean that there would be good co-operation between the federation and the department itself.

Since I was involved slightly in the regulations with regard to Free State 81, I feel confident in expressing a word of gratitude to the hon. the Minister and his wife, as well as to the Postmaster-General and his wife, for their contribution towards this congress in 1981. There are others that I should also like to thank in this regard as well, such as Mr. Herman Steyn. There is one thing only that should be rectified here. The hon. the Minister said in a speech: “Bloemfontein is the dead centre city of the OFS.” Fortunately I was just in time to prevent the editress of our local newspaper from translating this as “Bloemfontein, die dooie sentrale stad van die Oranje-Vrystaat”. We are grateful for the fine attitude and interest on the part of the hon. the Minister and the Postmaster-General. We hope to maintain those attitudes for many years to come.

I should just like to refer to the impressive building programme set out in the report. It entails building programmes that are already under construction and that are being purchased. Then I should like to make the request once again that when plans are drawn up for erecting a new training school for technicians and electricians in the Free State, we would be grateful if we could have one similar to the one in Milnerton, in the Free State as well. Such a training centre would be an asset to any town or city.

In conclusion, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications has many facets at its disposal of which no one is subordinate to the other. If only I had had the time, I could have said something about each one of them. Each one fulfills an important function in the communications network of the Republic of South Africa. Each one has a contribution to make that we can be proud of. The department may be proud of them and we are proud of them and grateful for every facet of our Post Office. We say thank you to the hon. the Minister and the Postmaster General and his staff every one of them, for the effective way in which the Department is being managed and controlled.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen that we associate ourselves with him. I am pleased and grateful that he spoke about the stamps because this is a subject that means a great deal to us too. Then I should like to come to the hon. member for Umlazi. I congratulate him. He is very welcome in his capacity and I hope that in the future, just as he did today, he will deliver a worthy speech, not only in the interest of the NP, but in the interest of South Africa and its people too. This is how I viewed the matter when I acted in that capacity. The hon. member did so well and I congratulate him on it.

When I came to this House in 1962, I joined the Post Office study group. Quite by chance I went through my old notes today and I find it very interesting to see that I was elected secretary to this study group on 5 August 1966. I should like to mention a few names of the members of the study group at that time. The group consisted of 28 members. Amongst others they were W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, C. P. Mulder, G. de V. Morrison, H. H. Smit, our present Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, and J. P. Van der Spuy, the previous Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. This shows us the importance of the Post Office study group. They are people who made their mark at the time. As an MP I have always said that this is one of the most important sections of our infrastructure, because when the Post Office cannot function, when it fails, South Africa will fail. It is a very important aspect of the entire infrastructure of our national life, and I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Nigel by saying that we support the budget. We are opposed to the amendment, because it is in the interest of South Africa and its people that this budget should be passed. This is how we on this side of the House feel about the matter. What we are going to say and what we are going to do in this House, will be in the interest of South Africa and its people.

The hon. member for Umhlanga said that this budget was entirely inflationary. This is not absolutely true. Only a portion of it is inflationary; the balance is not.

The hon. member for Hillbrow has already been dealt with adequately and therefore I do not want to spend any more time on him. If there is time, I may come back to him later. At one time Langenhoven wrote and said; “’n Mens moet jou swaarkry met lekkerkry klaarkry”. (One must overcome adversity with a smile.) If Langenhoven said that, I think I too can say it about the Post Office and all its people today. These officials of the Post Office are just like John Citizen. Due to the high rate of inflation they too have to struggle to keep their heads above water; they too are struggling. The Post Office official is struggling. They work a six day week and longer hours in general than any other department in the government sector. Therefore the Independent Nationalists thank them and pay tribute to them. However, we ask them to continue in that way and assure them that South Africa is proud of their contribution.

As far as this budget is concerned, I must admit that it amazes me. I am going to criticize the hon. the Minister, but it will not be destructive criticism, because I want to assist positively in keeping the Post Office of South Africa on an even, healthy footing. In September last year the hon. the Minister spoke with glowing praise of the achievements of the Post Office, but he did not utter a single word about the increase in tariffs. At the beginning of January this year he suddenly made the announcement, and there, I think, the hon. the Minister made a mistake. Perhaps it was a small mistake, but from the viewpoint of the public it was a mistake. The hon. the Minister indicated that he would have to increase tariffs once again in the future. He held discussions with businessmen and warned them that tariffs would be increased, but John Citizen was not aware of it. Therefore I want to suggest that in the future the hon. the Minister should publish a general notice in good time in order to inform the public, because then it would not be such a shock to them. We do not want the public to be shocked. We accept that there had to be an increase of tariffs.

Why do you ask of me what you do not ask of the Minister of Transport Affairs or the Minister of Finance?

They are all “fat cats”.

I should expect it from them as well.

The hon. member for Hillbrow criticized the hon. the Minister about the announcement that he made in January, but whether the hon. the Minister made it then or today, Parliament still has to decide on it. The fact that the increased tariffs were announced in January, makes no difference whatsoever, because Parliament still has to approve it. If the majority of votes are cast on the Opposition side, Parliament votes against it. [Interjections.] The only criticism that I have of this, is that the public was not informed as well. The hon. the Minister acted correctly in announcing it in good time, but as far as I am concerned, this was a small mistake, the mistake that the public was not informed as well.

With regard to the increased tariffs, I am thinking of our aged in particular. They like to keep in touch with their family and friends, and as far as this is concerned, they are dependent on the Post Office. The Post Office is their friend, because the letter that they may receive every week or month, means a great deal to them. Since I am now talking about the aged, I should like to propose that their pensions should be included in the new Telebank as well. Not only would this be to the benefit of the Post Office, but it might also relieve the burden that rests on the shoulders of the administrative staff of the Post Office, and therefore the Post Office will also be able to function more smoothly. Possibly the hon. the Minister could ask his officials to investigate this possibility, because I believe that it can in fact be done.

I have already spoken about the staff, and as the hon. the Minister indicated in his budget speech, it is clear that the Post Office is still burdened by a staff shortage. The recruitment abroad was not as successful as we had hoped; the results were not as they should have been. However, we note that only R110 000 was voted in the budget for 1981 to 82 for the training of technicians, engineers and so on at universities, and this same amount is being voted for this purpose in this year’s budget. However, I feel that this amount is completely inadequate. More money must be voted for university training and the promotion of telecommunications research at our universities and technikons. If this can be done, we will be able to pluck the fruits of it because we will be able to employ more trained staff from the universities. This could also bring relief at a very high level too, and I am referring to the management posts. There is a shortage at that level too. We must plan for the future. If we do not plan for the future, we are going to encounter problems. I am pleased to hear that the department is involved in an in-depth investigation into the staff problem, and we wish the department everything of the best. We hope that the problem will be solved soon.

Of course, salaries are one of the biggest factors in the entire budget, and staff recruitment is naturally related to this. If the staff is not remunerated adequately, one cannot attract employers. If officials trained by the Post Office are offered double, or 1½ times their salary in the private sector, it is quite logical that the officials will leave the service of the Post Office to go to the private sector. This is a problem in all the Government sectors, but I am dealing with the Post Office now, and I should like us to do something about it so that the activities of the people that we require, can be expanded and that the Post Office need not suffer in the future.

The hon. the Minister also mentioned Telebank. As the Post Office is experiencing a staff shortage, and therefore does not have enough officials to deal with all these various services, can the Post Office not entrust this service, as in the case of other services, to the private sector on an agency basis? I should like the hon. the Minister to investigate that possibility. If this can be done, it would relieve the staff position considerably. Indeed, the Post Office could benefit by it. The Post Office could still supervise the marketing of the Telebank idea. Therefore, the Post Office could continue to keep a watchful eye over it. However, it would require an in-depth study to have a savings bank functioning in this way, and it would of course require hard work too, but I think it is worth while seeing whether this cannot be done.

Now I come to the question of housing. I want to associate myself with previous speakers and say that I am very grateful for the steps that have been taken, because housing is an important factor. R30 million has been voted in the budget for staff housing schemes and R16 million for official housing. I want the hon. the Minister to spell out in more detail exactly what the R30 million entails. For instance, how much has been set aside for White housing and how much for Coloured housing and Black housing? I also want the hon. the Minister to indicate how much has been voted for each province and where the proposed growth points will be established. There are many problems, but we know the hon. the Minister is trying to solve the problems. However, I should like him to spell this out to us in greater detail. I should also like the hon. the Minister to say where the housing is going to be provided. The Post Office can definitely not fall behind with its housing, whether it be for its White, Coloured, Asian or Black workers. We know that housing is an important factor in all the sectors of our society. That is why the hon. the Minister must ensure that we do not fall behind in this sphere. If we fall behind in the housing sphere, we will not succeed in attracting sufficient staff.

There is another matter that I should like to raise too. I am referring to the question of the video conference facilities. The hon. the Minister announced and demonstrated this last year. It was also said that it would be made available at no cost to Government departments and business enterprises for experimental purposes. Is it not possible that we could have that service for 20 minutes only in order to experiment with it? We should like to see how it works. I want to apply right now across the floor of the House. Will the hon. the Minister please give his permission? Could we not perhaps see whether we could speak to our people up there and tell them how the thing works?

Who are “we”?

I am referring to we independent Nationalists [Interjections.] It is a fine cause, and we can develop this cause. I do not think there would be any problem if the hon. the Minister were to put it at our disposal for 20 minutes. We should like to experiment with it and see how it works. I hope the hon. the Minister will agree.

It is a reasonable request.

Then I wish to talk about telephone services. The hon. the Minister has told us that there is a tremendous shortage of telephones at the moment and that the waiting list is becoming longer. I am not so concerned about the fact that the waiting list is becoming longer, as long as it is being dealt with. When I start a new business, I want advance orders so that I know how much I must manufacture. I see the situation as follows: If we have a waiting list, the Post Office knows how many telephones have to be made available within the next six months or a year. However, we must not allow the waiting list to become too long. I agree with the hon. member who said that the waiting list should be short. In any event, this gives the Post Office an indication of how many telephones are required so that they can make plans for them.

The Post Office launched an Operation Witwatersrand in the past. The staff was paid overtime, they worked over weekends, but they completed their task. I want to ask that this be done again. Our people are competent and they can do it. It would require additional overtime payment, but then the required telephones would be installed which would also provide additional revenue in the future. The extra money that one will spend now, will in fact be a good capital investment.

It has been said that there will be approximately 2 000 additional connections in the rural areas. I do not want to chase up hares now, but I want to say that the people in the Northern Transvaal Bushveld are talking up a storm. I think that Waterberg alone requires 2 600 telephone lines. [Interjections.] These connections will stretch across the entire Northern Transvaal. They begin at Rustenburg and cross Waterberg and the Pietersburg flats. Soutpansberg will also be included. [Interjections.] On the Rand we are also going to need many telephones and we must ensure that something is done there too. In my own constituency, Sunnyside, a fantastic, beautiful constituency, a tower was erected and this is all very well, but I think that the telephone services on the Eastern Rand can also be expanded and that we could erect a tower there. We might possibly struggle to find a name for it, but we can simply call it “Frank Triomf”.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. member for Sunnyside. I think he made some very interesting comments and I very much agree with his comments in regard to training and the provision of housing for Post Office staff.

One of the things that really is worrying us on these benches and to which we have referred before, is the inflationary aspect of this budget and of the budget before this. We are fully aware of the fact that there are basic needs that have to be met and that there are basic improvements that must be made to all the services, but we are highly concerned at the inflationary aspect of the capital development reflected in these budgets. I think that anybody who has made a study of the economic position in Britain and America will bear out that the pattern that developed in those two countries two, three and four years ago is being adopted here. When one looks at the remedies that are now having to be applied in those countries to rectify a position of this nature, one is filled with considerable despondency and alarm. Listening to the budget speech of the hon. the Minister yesterday one could not fail to be impressed with the improved technological ideas that he was putting forward in respect of improving the whole service throughout the country. Again, however, I would like to refer to the utilization of these services and to the expense that is to be involved. That is not, however, the main line along which I want to direct my speech this afternoon. I want to touch on an aspect which has received little attention in this House so far. That is the question of rural services that are supplied by the hon. the Minister’s department.

When I listened to the hon. the Minister’s budget speech yesterday, as a representative of a rural constituency, I felt very much left out in the cold. It is for this reason that I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister certain aspects of the postal services in the rural areas. I do so in an effort to be positive, and not in an attempt to be critical. I want to state at the outset that I am not trying to create the impression that nothing has been done to improve the services in the rural areas but I do want to point out, that I believe that the hon. the Minister and his department have dragged their feet in respect of the development of services in the rural areas. They had not given due consideration to the requirements of the rural population.

I should just like to make one point clear here today. We appreciate the fact that the department is confronted with staff shortages. We appreciate the fact that staff shortages in the country areas are possibly a greater problem than they are in the urban areas. I would ask the hon. the Minister, however, to give attention in the rural areas to a more flexible service, a more flexible roster of duty that could be applied in the smaller villages and in rural towns.

Just by way of example I would like to quote a stated case of a particular village in my constituency. The local inhabitants of that village, having been approached by the Postmaster in that area, were asked if they would agree to the closing of the post office in question on Thursday afternoons. The inhabitants of that area unanimously agreed that that concession should be granted. The Post Office Department was contacted and advised of the fact that the local inhabitants had no objection whatsoever to this post office being closed on Thursday afternoons. This was turned down, however, by the department. What was offered instead was the closing of the post office on Saturdays. That, of course, was something that was unacceptable to the local community. Therefore, I want to make one particular appeal to the hon. the Minister. In those rural areas where the postal staff play such an important part in community life, is it not possible to adopt a more flexible approach in regard to the staff and their duties? It is in these smaller rural areas that one finds that there are cases where the Post Office staff have served particular communities and areas for between 20 and 25 years. In fact, they have become part of that community, they have been absorbed by that community and because of these facts the service they render to that community is a high quality service that one may possibly not find being rendered in any other section of the department. I think that this spirit is one which should and could be preserved at all times in rural communities.

Another point I wish to raise is the fact that the smaller towns are experiencing considerable problems in regard to their expanding telephone systems. Promises are sometimes made that new telephone systems will be installed in a particular year and yet the installation of such systems is invariably postponed three or four years. This sort of thing upsets the whole community and affects the operators of that particular telephone system.

Finally, because my time has just about run out, I should like to raise one last point for the hon. the Minister’s consideration and that is that certain promises are made to these smaller towns in the rural areas that, provided certain conditions are complied with, they will be afforded postal deliveries. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there are towns that, having complied with these conditions, have nevertheless been informed that such a service would not be forthcoming. I want therefore to ask the hon. the Minister to give very careful consideration to the postal and telecommunications system in the rural areas because it is of vital importance to the whole rural community that a smooth functioning telephone and postal system is available in these areas at all times.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River drew the attention of this House to the parlous state of the postal and telecommunications services provided by the Department of Posts and Telecommunications in the rural areas. As I believe the hon. member for Albany will be discussing this particular point tomorrow, no doubt in support of the hon. member who has just sat down, and will be making certain recommendations, I shall not deal with this matter. However, I trust that the hon. the Minister of Finance will deal with this ever-increasing problem of inflation on Wednesday next and in doing so provide the country with a complete solution in this particular regard.

I also want to say that the speech made by the hon. member for Sunnyside was the first speech to which I listened this afternoon during which the hon. member speaking referred to the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure to describe and discuss certain problems confronting this House. Many of the speeches to which I listened did not deal with these details but rather with many of the functions of the Post Office, which in some ways is a very good thing. However, there is one point that I must raise here in order to correct what was said by the hon. member for Sunnyside. The purpose of an Opposition is to discuss the problems of the Post Office or any other department, and they are just as patriotic and just as sincere in regard to the development of our country as are hon. members on the Government side. Any amendment that may be moved is not moved for any destructive purpose; it is moved rather for constructive reasons in an effort to make suggestions for the benefit of the country. I must say, therefore, that I was very surprised that the hon. member for Sunnyside saw fit to criticize the hon. member for Hillbrow for moving an amendment. As I say, the purpose of that amendment is to draw the attention of this House to certain specific details which need rectifying.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with a matter that has not yet been mentioned in this House and that is the question of the army post office and our soldiers on the border. As far as the postal aspect is concerned, I believe that we have a very good service indeed and that the soldiers on the border are receiving their post within a reasonable period.

I believe that in Israel when troops go forward into battle, the telecommunications service is almost behind laying lines so that they can communicate with their people at home. Morale is a very, very important factor in this country, particularly in the light of the great difficulties we are experiencing at the moment. I believe it is the duty of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications to put up some sort of telephone service so that the soldiers on the border will be able, when they return to base, to speak to their families. I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that a flat charge of 50 cents for three minutes should be levied so that they can ’phone anywhere in South Africa at that particular price. I realize it is necessary to have some charge. I would prefer it to be free, but I think it could then lead to certain abuse. I should like to suggest that they have a telephone system whereby, if they put 50 cents in, they can ’phone any place in South Africa on a three minute basis. I hope that the hon. the Minister will institute that for the morale of our soldiers and for their families in South Africa.

Are you now talking about the operational area or about the military bases all over South Africa?

I am referring to the operational area in particular.

Well, there are technical difficulties in that particular area.

They must be overcome.

One of the technical difficulties is that we do not operate in South West Africa. [Interjections.]

I should also like to deal with a few points in relation to the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure. The Estimates contain certain facts in regard to the financing of posts and telecommunications. When one looks at the capital expenditure, for instance, one finds that for post offices the total amount is only R22 million as compared to R734 million which is being given for telecommunications; in other words, only 3%.

No, you are wrong. The hon. member should also look at the amount provided for building programmes.

I appreciate that. Buildings form part of it, but I am talking about actual expenditure. I feel that something should be done to ensure that our post offices are not neglected even though certain additional funds are provided for buildings.

I want to deal particularly, as I did last year, with the question of financing. The problem here is that I believe the institution of the Telebank is and should only be the beginning of a system. I asked for it last year when I said that the department’s saving services were bad. Well, they are still bad. The department should go into competition. The Post Office is a business, but it must not forget one very important factor, and that is that it is a business which has been given a monopoly on communications by this House. It is almost in the same position as AT & T in America. Because it is a monopoly, we have the right to criticize the hon. the Minister.

Hear, hear!

Sir, the same applies to the S.A. Transport Services.

When the hon. the Minister raises the point that he is going to collect only R120 million through Savings Bank certificates, I am not at all surprised. I remember that I asked the hon. the Minister last year to do something about raising the rate of interest on taxfree shares. I have taken this leaflet out of a post office today. This is what I find: There is an interest rate of 9,5% on Treasury Bonds obtainable at our post offices. These investments do not go to the Post Office; they go to the Treasury. The only things available to the Post Office are 8,75% Savings Bank certificates and the 5,5% Post Office Savings Bank accounts. The average man who goes into a post office does not realize that most of the tax-free bonds which carries higher tax-free interest rates is being collected for the Treasury and not for the Post Office. If the Post Office is going to give only 8,75% interest tax free whereas the Treasury gives 9,5% tax free in the same post office, can one imagine that anybody is going to buy Savings Bank certificates instead of Treasury Bonds? I think the whole thing is absurd.

I now want to refer to a very dangerous practice which I think is going to take place. The hon. the Minister said it was his intention in future progressively to finance a larger portion of our capital expenditure from internal funds and to limit as far as possible the use of loan funds which cannot be obtained through the department’s savings services.

Do you not agree with that?

No, I do not agree with that at all. I believe one must borrow a certain amount of money …

We are doing that.

The hon. the Minister is borrowing through Telebank. One must not forget that the money that is received through the Telebank earns 8,75% interest as compared to borrowing money at 16% or 17%. That is why it is important to develop that particular section.

What is your personal opinion as a businessman?

I do not have the time to answer that now [Interjections.] I want to make one very important point. I believe the whole question of the development of the bank should be investigated properly and that the hon. the Minister should appoint a commission—as I stated last year—to investigate the whole question of the Post Office Savings Bank or the Telebank. This bank must be set up on proper lines because it has to compete with ordinary banks and building societies. This bank has one advantage, however, namely the best communications system in the country and it does not have to pay one cent for the use of that system.

I believe the hon. the Minister of Finance owes the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications an explanation as to why the latter should only be entitled to ask for 8,75% for tax-free savings certificates while the former takes 9,5% for himself. He is getting the money; he is stealing it away from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. That is exactly what is happening, although the two hon. Ministers sit close to each other.

In conclusion, I want to suggest that the whole question of the substantial quantity of very expensive mail which is being removed by our so-called courier services in South Africa should be thoroughly investigated. I do not want to go into too much detail, but it does seem absurd that they can take letters all over South Africa and charge up to R5,00 or R10,00 and even up to R100,00 or more for papers taken to the United States. It is high time the Post Office itself introduced a courier service.

Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the debate, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Umlazi on his election as chairman of the study group on Posts and Telecommunications on this side and on his first speech in that capacity. The hon. member gave an experienced and thorough exposition of the financial affairs of the Post Office, and I should like to congratulate him on it.

I shall reply more fully to the speeches of other hon. members tomorrow, yet I should like at this stage to express my disappointment at the actions of the hon. member for Constantia. If the hon. member had had any feeling for or experience of philately, and had consulted philatelic societies, he would not have made these bitter statements and insinuations today. Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of the term “conveyance” in the definition of “import”. The problem that I have with this new definition is that the term “conveyance” or “convey” is not defined in the Act and that means that these words have their ordinary meaning. If this is so, it means that where the definition of “import” includes—

there must be some vehicle, vessel or aircraft used in order to import these armaments. However, the one situation which is not covered is where someone crosses the border in order to bring the article into South Africa. This has been done on occasion and it is not covered by this definition. This means that one can, for example, in terms of this definition, cross the border carrying a machine gun or rocket launcher and it would not be an illegal import in terms of this Act. That surely cannot be right. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will deal with this and whether he can assure us that something will be done to put this right. There are other laws which may cover this; for instance, there may be some provision in the Defence Act. The difficulty that I have, is that if one looks at the Arms and Ammunition Act, it is clear that that legislation only covers a limited number of articles and, in particular, it does not cover certain matters which are included in the definition of “armaments”. Here we have a situation where people can actually cross the border carrying a rocket launcher and it would not be an illegal import in terms of the Act because we are only dealing with means of conveyance. Where something is physically carried it is not covered in terms of the Act.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to deal with this. At worst he can let this clause stand over, otherwise he will have to do something else in regard to this provision. However, I certainly cannot accept the situation that it would not be illegal to carry armaments into the country.

Mr. Chairman, this Bill is in fact aimed at controlling the import of armaments as such. However, one is faced with the problem of defining what is meant by the term “armaments” and what are commercial weapons such as hunting rifles, etc. As far as armaments are concerned—and I am now referring to armaments such as automatic weapons—no private person in this country may possess such weapons. Therefore, if anyone were to cross the border with such articles he would be prosecuted according to law, but not in terms of this specific legislation. However, if someone were to enter the country with a rifle, he would be prohibited in terms of some Act or other from bringing that kind of commercialized weapon into the country. I share the hon. member’s concern that there is no legislation in this regard, people will be able to cross the border freely with arms, whether or not they are automatic weapons and whether or not they are weapons which can be used for private purposes. I am prepared to go into this matter and I can assure the hon. member that the matter will be rectified if the position is indeed as expounded by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, the proposed new section 4 C (1) (a) lays down the procedure for notifying or advising someone of a prohibition and it stipulates that the Minister may—

1. (i) shall be exported …

I have a reservation about the provision “notice in writing to a particular person”. Wherever there is a prohibition with a sanction, I believe that everyone should have knowledge of that sanction and that prohibition. In terms of this provision it would appear that the Minister may write to one particular manufacturer or importer, place a prohibition upon or allow an export whereas it would not apply to others. Once it has been published in the Government Gazette everyone knows about it, it is common knowledge; it is public knowledge, and there is no possibility of favouring one person over another. But once one starts writing to a particular person there is no assurance that there will be seen to be complete fairness or that one or other person is not getting preference. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s response to that.

Mr. Chairman, the aim of this clause is to exercise a degree of control over the local manufacture or import or conveyance of armaments. At present, no form of control is prescribed. The aim in this regard is to introduce control. It is difficult to introduce control if one does not specify what one wishes to control. The hon. member for Yeoville broached this point yesterday and I think this links up with the point which the hon. member for Durban Point has also just made, viz. whether it should be spelt out or whether one should only use the term armaments. If one does not spell it out but merely uses the term in the general sense, it means that any item constitutes armaments, e.g. provisions, commissariat supplies, etc. The result would be such total control that in fact we would paralyse the country. Therefore this will have to be specified in very broad outline, particularly as far as weapon systems, ammunition, communications equipment etc. is concerned. In practice this is going to create a problem with regard to the distinction between armaments and the type of arms that can be classified as hunting weapons, weapons for private purposes, etc. As far as the question of control is concerned, it can be stated here in general that for the purposes of control, if one wishes to manufacture locally, or if one wishes to import or export, one has to follow the process of obtaining permission from Armscor to do so. The question occupying the mind of the hon. member for Durban Point concerns this notice in writing to a particular person. This notice in writing to a particular person or organization is aimed at telling him: “Very well, in terms of this notice I permit you to manufacture this specific item.” He may then manufacture it. Now, however, we come to armaments. If one analyses the philosophy of Armscor with regard to the manufacture of armaments, one will find that no item that is not of strategic value, or on which a profit may be made, may be manufactured by Armscor. These must be made available to the local industries. In other words, one will not have the situation which the hon. member for Durban-Point is concerned about, viz. that one industry or manufacturer could obtain an advantage at the expense of another.

But who would know?

Mr. Chairman, I wanted the hon. member for Durban Point to deal with his issue because it is slightly different from the matter that I want to raise. I want to repeat what I said yesterday, namely that in our view the distinction between commercial arms and armaments is an artificial one and not a real one. I think that it is undesirable that we are perpetuating this situation. May I for instance refer to the definition of arms, which is the commercial definition, in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act. There it is stated that—

certain things, such as gas-rifles, air-rifles, alarm pistols, etc. It also includes the barrel of an arm. To my mind I find it an unanswerable fact that a pistol that can be used and which is to be licensed in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act and which is a self-defence weapon, is also a weapon to be used in the Defence Force and which is included in the definition of armaments that have to be manufactured. I would imagine that if one manufactures pistols, for example, to be used in South Africa, one could manufacture a pistol that could be used by the Defence Force as well as for the defence of the individual. It would actually be a question of using the economies of scale in order to achieve that, and the same article could be used for the same purpose. In exactly the same way, if we were manufacturing shotguns, these could be used for hunting purposes as well as for military purposes and could be included in the definition of armaments. I really think that all arms in the true sense of the word should be under the same control and be handled in exactly the same way. I can see no logic in having a factory that makes commercial arms under one control and another that manufactures the same arms, the identical article, for military purposes under another control. With great respect, Sir, I just do not see the logic of this.

The second point I want to raise relates to this. Unfortunately, one cannot alter the provisions of the relevant section as it is not part of the amendment but as I indicated yesterday, the whole idea of advertising what cannot be dealt with is in my view unsatisfactory. This is quite a different point to the one raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. To my mind no arms of any kind should be manufactured in South Africa unless they are manufactured under permit. It is only because of the situation in which the country finds itself that one advocates this encroachment on a principle of free enterprise and of firms being able to manufacture whatever they wish. However, arms are a different matter. It is perfectly true that the definition of “armaments” in terms of the legislation that we are dealing with, includes a lot of things that are not armaments in the sense that one understands them to be weapons that one fires. It can for example include a truck that is used to convey troops or one that can be used for both civilian and military purposes. That can, however, be excluded. In other words, any article that can be used for civilian purposes can be excluded from this type of broad prohibition, but anything else that is a true armament in the sense that we understand it, should in my view be prohibited. It should only be allowed to be manufactured or imported under permit and every type of weapon should be under the same authority.

The last point I wish to make is that the term “conveyance” is again used here. The same point that I made in regard to clause 1 applies here. The hon. the Minister undertook to look at it and therefore I will not pursue it. I merely draw his attention to the fact that it is contained in this clause as well.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Yeoville raised a valid point when he said that as far as uniformity was concerned, it would be easier for all arms and all ammunition to fall under one organization which could control permission to manufacture, and he proposed that in this instance, Armscor should accept the responsibility. However, I wish to remind him that he predicted yesterday that within a year or three we should have to approach this House again to introduce amending legislation in this regard. At the moment, however, Armscor has a specific function with regard to certain types of armaments, and in this case it is really a matter of automatic weapons and systems used in warfare. At this stage the S.A. Police are responsible—and I am now referring to manufacture, conveyance and import—for certain weapons which may, in terms of legislation, be possessed by private individuals. Therefore, it is in my opinion somewhat risky to accept the ideal solution, according to the hon. member for Yeoville, at this stage. If we were to do so, we should immediately give Armscor a policing function, and I do not believe that that would be desirable at this stage. The result is that if in practice—as the hon. member for Yeoville predicts—this does not work as effectively as we might wish, I should be prepared to discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister of Law and Order and the Director of Import and Export Control and ask that we reconsider this matter. However, I do not think this is essential, because if we can achieve effective functioning in regard to armaments, I am sure that the department responsible for the other aspects will indeed be able to handle the matter.

However, the hon. member for Yeoville also spoke about the definition of armaments. I concede at once that there is indeed a problem in this regard. However, the problem is not one of armaments alone. It concerns other aspects as well. Here I am not referring to armaments in the broad sense of the word, e.g. tents, toilet facilities, etc. I am referring to certain facets that do not involve arms, e.g. radio communication apparatus and other sophisticated equipment which also falls under the heading of armaments and is subject to a manufacturing control period, not because it is lethal, but because it is important in the context of armaments. However, it would be very difficult to define it. I readily concede that. However, I think that the requirements for such a definition must be based on this country’s manufacturing capability and our requirements, but those two aspects must not suffer as a result of definition in the Gazette.

Mr. Chairman, I have no disagreement with the issue the hon. the Minister raised in the last portion of his speech in connection with the problems arising out of the definition of “armaments”. It is quite obvious that the word “armaments” does include all these other items, and also things that are in normal civilian use, but it also includes things of a highly sophisticated nature which people should not, in any case, be manufacturing if the said items could be used for any ulterior motive. In other words, some degree of control is obviously necessary in regard to those articles. So I have no difference of opinion as far as that is concerned. Let me, however, give the following illustration of what I do, in fact, disagree with. Let us say one has a factory that manufactures pistols, which are commercial weapons licensed in terms of the relevant statute. Let us say one then finds that that particular article is suitable for Defence Force purposes. Which Act would then govern such an item? There I think one is getting into very difficult and problematic terrain. So whereas I do see the problem involved in the definition of “armaments” in its broader sense, and the resultant problems that may possibly not be capable of so easy a solution, this problem can, in fact, be easily solved. What I should like the hon. the Minister to do, at the very least, after we have passed this law, is to see whether the practicalities of the situation do not require our putting it under one system of control. If he would agree to look at that, he would satisfy us, because I really do not see any possibility of allowing licensing for a commercial purpose and then using the relevant item for a military purpose, because this would entail duplication. It is really not logical. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to look at the problem in that light.

Mr. Chairman, I undertake to go into this matter in order to see whether it would be conducive to greater efficiency, as the hon. member for Yeoville suggested.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment on the Order Paper which I now move, as follows—

1. (3) Any person who exercises any power in terms of this section shall, at the request of any person affected by the exercise of that power, produce the inspection authority in writing furnished to him in accordance with subsection (1).

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, and that of the House, I should like to change the amendment slightly. The amendment on the Order Paper refers to the addition of a proposed new subsection 4F(3). It would, however, more appropriately apply to a proposed new subsection 4F(2), being inserted after line 45. The proposed new subsection 4F(2) would then become the proposed new subsection 4F(3).

The existing subsection (2) will then become subsection (3). By way of explanation I want to say that the wording of my amendment, with the exception of one word which had to be changed—in the relevant provision the word “inspector” is used as opposed to the word “person”—is identical to a similar provision which we passed last week in respect of other legislation involving powers of inspection. As I say, the wording is absolutely the same with the exception of that one single word which is merely an adaptation to circumstances. I motivated this yesterday and I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat that.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the amendment. I discussed it yesterday and I do not want to repeat what I said. I just want it placed on record that I do in fact support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman …

The Honourable the member for Pretoria West. [Interjections.]

Is that a portent of things to come.

Hear, hear!

Some of us have our admirers, Sir.

I particularly appreciate the attitude of the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban Point, because I think that in the circumstances of the situation we are all members of the defence family and we all have the interests of our defence set-up at heart. I wish to move an amendment to clause 4 which in fact, in my opinion, goes somewhat further than the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. I think the time has come for us to take far more rigorous action, firstly, because our production of armaments has reached the stage at which our technology is very advanced. Three years ago it was perhaps not as far advanced as it is today. I think that nowadays there are people who would very much like to obtain information about our technology. We are far advanced. In some respects we are equal to the best in the world. Therefore I think that we should impose stringent control on access to the factories in question. What is more, I think that the owner should be helped to some extent to impose stringent control. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (1) On page 7, after line 45, to insert:
   1. (2) An employee or other person referred to in subsection (1) shall, at the request of any person affected by the exercise by such employee or other person of any power conferred upon him by that subsection, identify himself as the said employee or person.

Put differently, it is not sufficient for anyone to have an authority in writing on his person. An authority in writing can be falsified. It is very difficult for the owner of the security officer at the factory to ensure that the person in possession of the authority in writing is indeed the person he claims to be. I therefore felt that the onus of proof should rest upon that person to identify himself as the person possessing that authority.

There are many ways in which this can be done. For example, one can send to certain factories, photographs and lists of names of those persons authorized to carry out inspections. Such a person could then arrive there, give his name and identify himself as such, and this can then be checked on the basis of the data sent to the factory by Armscor. In the first place, I think that this would improve security considerably. In the second place, I think that by doing so, Armscor would assist the person in control of the factory to exercise due control. He could consult the documents sent to him by Armscor and satisfy himself that the identification is correct and in order. That is why I move the amendment. However, there is a second amendment, too, which I should like to move. It is an amendment that is consequential upon the one I have just moved. I therefore move as a second amendment—

1. (2) On page 7, in line 49, after “subsection,”, to insert:
   • and any person who falsely represents himself to be authorized as contemplated in that subsection,

I believe that if anyone falsely represents himself to have powers of inspection, a penal provision ought to be applicable to his action. As long as everything is going well, of course, there are no difficulties. However, when efforts are made to obtain information in an unlawful manner, this provision must be made as thorough and effective as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I have no problems with the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria West. The truth, however, is that someone who falsely professes to be someone other than he really is would in fact already be committing a crime in that he would be committing fraud. He could in any case then be charged criminally. I think therefore that it is not necessary. If it is desired, however, to insert that stipulation we will certainly not oppose it. It is in fact a common law crime, a crime of fraud, for someone to pretend to be somebody who he is not in order to gain access to certain premises, because that would quite clearly be to the prejudice of whoever is in charge of the premises. That is quite clearly a common law crime of fraud in respect of which the penalties are very serious.

I am sure that the hon. member for Pretoria West, who is honourably learned in the law—if I may use that term—is aware of that. It is indeed unnecessary, but if it is inserted there is no problem as far as we are concerned.

I do, however, have a difficulty with the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria West. Whereas I have no problem with his argument that somebody should identify himself, my problem is that for a person only to identify himself is not sufficient. It is also necessary that he should show his authority. The hon. member for Pretoria West has formulated his amendment in a way in which, I submit, it only means that the person who presents himself at the premises has to prove that he is indeed the person he says he is. In other words, if he should say his name is Rex le Roux, that is all he has to do. He does not have to show his authority. Although I do agree he should identify himself, the real issue, as far as we are concerned, is that he should be able to produce proof of his authority. In other words, merely to prove who he is is not sufficient. He actually has to prove that he is really Rex le Roux and that he has authority to come on to the premises.

If the hon. member for Pretoria West really feels strongly about the identification part, we have no objection to that. In any case, if one shows one’s authority, one also has to prove one is indeed the right person. If the hon. member feels that that is essential—and I really have no problem with this at all— then his amendment should actually read as follows—

I believe we could compromise on that. If the Committee would agree I now ask for permission to withdraw my amendment, because that will then cover both contingencies.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I now move—

1. (2) Any person who exercises any power in terms of this section shall, at the request of any person affected by the exercise of that power, identify himself and produce the inspection authority in writing furnished to him in accordance with subsection (1).

Mr. Chairman, I am in agreement with what the hon. member for Yeoville has just said. Therefore I support the altered amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. I should also like to point out that there is a basic difference between the concept of identification and the concept of producing proof of one’s authority. In terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria West, identification will only take place when requested. As it is now worded, it makes it obligatory both to identify oneself and to produce one’s authority. Therefore I think it improves the original concept in two ways. If it is acceptable, I think we shall all be at one on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban Point. I believe that the addition by the hon. member for Yeoville is entirely acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, since we have had a good and effective discussion, I accept the hon. member’s amendment.

There are two amendments; one of mine and the other moved by the hon. member for Pretoria West.

I accept the second amendment, which concerts identification and authorization and was moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. I accept that part of the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria West which relates to the clause “falsely represents” and the words that follow it.

Mr. Chairman, in view of what the hon. the Minister has just said, I withdraw my first amendment.

Amendment (1), with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. Z. P. le Roux agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say one simple sentence. Firstly I think the spirit in which this legislation has been dealt with by the House demonstrates certain fundamental facts. Those facts are firstly that in so far as South Africa is concerned, it will defend itself. Secondly it will arm itself to enable it to defend itself. On those issues there are no differences in this House. That is why we can deal with this matter in the spirit in which we have dealt with it both today and yesterday.

Well said.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a matter today which has very serious implications for us. Unlike the hon. member for Sandton … [Interjections.] Oh. Have we not yet proceeded to the Second Reading of the Group Areas Amendment Act? [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, this debate descended to a rather low level last night before it was adjourned. We had the interesting phenomenon that the hon. member for Sandton finally supported the Bill, but it cost him great pains to arrive at that standpoint. I have read the hon. member’s speech with interest and subjected it to critical evaluation, and I have come to the conclusion that he tried to criticize the present Government policy on two aspects in particular before he could bring himself to support the legislation.

In spite of several interjections and requests addressed to the hon. member to forget about the past and to move towards the future together with the Government, if he is prepared to support constructive legislation, the hon. member kept saying that he was compelled to refer to the past. Reading the hon. member’s speech, I find it interesting that he began with D’Oliveira, and he made the following statement about that—

He went on to say that such action on the part of the Government had exposed the country to criticism from abroad.

I should also like to refer to a few incidents from the past in order to show the PFP that if mistakes have been made in the past by this side of the House, what about them? If the D’Oliveira case was in fact a mistake, my question to the hon. member for Sandton is: Did it do our country more harm than his letter to the New York Times?

It did a million times more harm.

If hon. members on the other side of the House say that it did in fact do more harm, I also ask: Did it do more harm than the incorrect reports publicized by the hon. member for Berea when he alleged that the Government had sponsored the golf tournament at Pilanesberg? The hon. member had to withdraw his allegation a week later. In spite of this, we are still waiting for the hon. member for Berea to discuss that matter in this House as he promised to do. If this is still not enough for the hon. member for Bryanston, I ask: Did he do more harm than the call of the hon. member for Sea Point to Mr. McHenry?

You are talking about a false allegation.

That is the way the Opposition behaves when it comes to the national interest.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bryanston entitled to say that the hon. member made a false allegation?

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that.

Mr. Speaker, I very clearly heard the hon. member say that it was a false allegation.

Mr. Speaker, I said the hon. member was referring to a false allegation.

Order! What was the hon. member referring to?

The hon. member was referring to a telephone call and an allegation which had been made in that connection, and I said that that allegation was false.

The hon. member for Vasco may proceed with his speech.

The second point which the hon. member for Sandton raised in his speech and which I wish to refer to is the point which the hon. member tried to make that it was as a result of the HSRC report that this amending legislation was now before this House. If this is so, I ask: Who made that report possible? Who created the facilities for compiling that report? Who was not afraid to accept that report? You see, the political philosophy of this Government and of this side of the House is fundamentally different from that of that side of the House.

It is coming much closer. You are beginning to share power …

They can never come any closer, because, as the old saying goes, “East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet.” That is the basic difference between that side of the House and us. You see, we are prepared to adjust to the changing circumstances of the country’s requirements in a regulated and co-ordinated way, but not to capitulate at once and simply to surrender from a position of weakness and to say that we must yield this or that.

You are simply unwilling to admit that you are accepting PFP policy, but we are making you do so anyway.

For that reason, this legislation is very simple. In the first place, it is a consequential amendment because the Coloured Development Corporation has now been changed and taken over, and in its place we have the Small Business Development Corporation. The second element in this legislation is also of a consequential nature, following from the amendments to the liquor legislation last year which were supported by everyone in this House except the PFP. I expect that this will again be the case when this Bill is put to the vote, especially in the light of an interjection made by the hon. member for Langlaagte yesterday. The hon. member for Sandton had said: “Then, of course, there are those outside our country who want to see no change or improvement taking place”, and then the hon. member for Langlaagte said by way of interjection: “Inside this country too.”

And do you deny that?

No, that is precisely what indicates to me that the hon. member for Langlaagte and the people around him will also support this consequential legislation, just as they supported the amendments to the Liquor Act last year, because the principle is the same. As for myself and this side of the House, we have no problems with this legislation, and I wish to endorse the support given to this Bill by this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as you see, I am a man who is never late—I am quick on my feet when I have to stand up for my people.

Firstly, in the short time available to me, allow me to convey my thanks to a man such as Mr. Fouché, who, I understand, is to assume another position in September or later this year. I have been concerned with housing for many years, and I think I can say in all humility that I have probably built more houses and sold more plots than any other member in this House. I am talking about private people.

And many people are suffering as a result.

Many doctors’ patients also suffer as a result of their treatment. I want to tell you that in all the years I have been involved with departments and municipalities—I served in the Johannesburg municipality for 12 years—I have seen what this man, Mr. Fouché, together with people such as the Minister who is in South West Africa today, achieved with municipalities and how one Minister after another did great work for South Africa in the field of housing in co-operation with this man, and very often under his guidance. I want to tell him today that I think he has placed South Africa on the world map with regard to housing. Mitchell’s Plain, Phoenix and other places in Natal and the Transvaal are world records in the field of construction. They are unique in world construction. We must tell the hon. the Minister and the department that they have done a great job.

Coming back to the Bill which is before the House at the moment, I want to disagree a little with the hon. member for Sandton.

Just a little?

Yes, just a little. I just want to tell him that I disagree with him slightly and that I want nothing to do with power-sharing. The hon. member quite suddenly, and with the approval of the other side of the House, of course, got onto the subject of sport. In actual fact, this amendment has nothing to do with sport, except that it is now being proposed that clubs in any White area be thrown open to any person of any colour in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

I can understand that “hear, hear”; after all, that is the PFP’s policy. I think they have the courage of their convictions to say so. However, I ask the other side of the House today whether it is the policy of the NP to throw separate development overboard.

Of course. Slowly but surely.

I am simply asking today: Is only lip service being paid to this policy now? This amendment to the Group Areas Act is an important change. It enables any person to start a club and anyone can go to that club. He can be a member or a guest of the club and he can be a person of any colour.

That is not so.

The hon. member for Bellville should keep quiet now. He will have his chance presently. The trouble is that many people read the legislation but do not understand it.

Yes, that is so.

There are many of those hon. members who read the Bill but do not understand it. Then they come to this House with all kinds of stories. I must honestly say that I do not believe that this hon. Minister has introduced this legislation of his own free will. I believe that it has been forced upon him.

By whom?

Who is in control on the other side? [Interjections.] Just listen to that! Can they ask such stupid questions? I have only made a statement, and now they get angry. Would the hon. members on that side not give notice of their intention to get angry? Just listen to what the hon. the Minister said in his speech last year. Last year the hon. the Minister was very upset when the hon. member for Hillbrow asked him whether it was true that 2 000 complaints had been received in Johannesburg. This is a Minister who knows his job, and I say he is a good Minister. The hon. the Minister said at the time that he had received 2 000 complaints about Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and such people who were causing problems in Johannesburg.

What has that got to do with this Bill?

The hon. the Minister must be patient for a while. I know that the hon. the Minister sometimes finds it difficult to understand something. But that is just by the way. It is only a joke; I did not mean it seriously. Then the hon. the Minister replied to the hon. member for Hillbrow by saying that 2 000 complaints had in fact been received. There could easily have been 8 000 to 10 000 people involved in these complaints. So far we are all in agreement.

Order! The hon. member must not stray so far from the Bill.

No, Sir, I am merely pointing out the implications of this Bill and what the hon. the Minister said. The hon. the Minister referred to people who visited clubs and other places in the city, and we talked, among other things, of overcrowding and people being crowded out. Thereupon the hon. the Minister said that he would have to introduce new legislation.

Now you are talking nonsense. I never said such a thing.

I shall give the relevant Hansard column number presently. The hon. the Minister then said that he would have to introduce new legislation providing for Coloureds, Indians, and other illegal occupants to be removed. In terms of the existing legislation, it was a long process, and it was even necessary to go to court. In view of this, it is understandable that I was quite amazed to hear a completely different story this year. I see that we are now dealing with legislation which by implication accepts that 10 000 non-Whites can be in a White area 24 hours a day, as long as they are participating in bona fide sport.

What about all the servants? [Interjections.]

Let us take as an example the darts club in Rosettenville, at the bus depot. At least 3 000 to 4 000 Bantu work there during the day.

What is a Bantu?

I shall tell the hon. member what a Bantu is. A Bantu is a person who lives in a Black homeland and who still takes pride in serving his own people. [Interjections.] The hon. member has been making many interjections lately, but I do not think they are going to be of great benefit to him.

I want to come back to the darts club.

Is it a sports club?

Yes, it is a sport. These people can also go to a club which has a liquor licence. What is the definition of a club?

A club is a thing with which someone should hit you over the head. [Interjections.]

There are so many interpretations of the word that one can completely distort the Act if one wants to. There is no reason for hon. members to laugh while knowing that they are throwing open White areas 24 hours a day to anyone who wants to use sports or club facilities there. [Interjections.]

That is untrue.

Of course it is true.

The fact is that this affects so-called separate residential areas. I am referring to places such as Mayfair, Jeppe and Skyline, and especially to Rosettenville, where 2 000 non-Whites belong to the darts club. In terms of what legislation can they be removed if they want to stay at those clubs throughout the night? If one of them were to stay there from ten o’clock in the morning until two o’clock the next morning, in terms of what legislation could he be removed? There is no law which provides that that man is not allowed to be there. If the man were to stay the night, he could not be forced by any legislation to leave the place if he were sleeping on the premises where sport is practised.

Does one have that right now?

It is no use asking whether one has that right now. There was the necessary permit…

But you wanted to throw Mayfair open a year ago.

Now the permit in terms of which things were regulated in this country is being abolished. Remember, I am not the first Nationalist. I only co-operated with other Nationalists in 1948, and it is the policy of those hon. members which I am trying to preserve, their policy which they are trying to run away from. [Interjections.] I am just pointing out how those hon. members have foresworn separate development. I ask them not to be afraid to spell it out to people.

But you wanted to throw Mayfair open a year ago.

I wanted to throw open what? [Interjections.]

Hillbrow and May-fair.

You see, Sir, that hon. member does not understand the difference between group area legislation and legislation which throws things open. [Interjections.] I asked that Hillbrow should be a group area … [Interjections.] … because I had heard that there were people who wanted to make it a grey area. Even though that hon. member is a lawyer, it seems to me that he does not know the difference between a group area and a grey area.

Are you in favour of a grey area?

Oh, please, Louis!

Will someone please buy me a tin hat?

Order!

If that hon. member had not come here via the courts, he would never have got here. [Interjections.]

What are you insinuating?

We are dealing today with certain facts which we cannot deny. The Government wants to put certain things right in South Africa. The Government wants to rectify certain things which it believes to be wrong. It is said that the Government wants to normalize sport, but now we are abolishing permits.

Only yesterday you agreed with it.

Formerly, those people did not have the right to be in White areas at any time. Formerly, those people could not belong to clubs. Now, however, they can flock to theatres and other places and they can be there 24 hours a day.

Where does it say so in the legislation?

I shall tell that hon. member in a minute. The facts in this legislation are clear. There is only one thing which has to be done today. The NP must admit that it has given up—and this applies to separate residential areas as well—because this legislation is going to make it impossible to maintain such areas.

Absolute rot!

Because of the fact that any person can belong to a club, separate areas will no longer be possible. The fact that a person can be a guest in a club in a White area and cannot be evicted as long as he behaves himself will cause this to happen. In my own constituency he will be able to play soccer in Robertsham, for example. There he will be able to participate in club activities. They will be able to flock there in their thousands and we shall not be able to do anything about it.

Can he buy property?

The hon. member asks whether he can buy property. He will just have to wait a little while for that. Dr. Piet Koornhof is still working on it. [Interjections.] We have come a long way …

[Inaudible.]

Would the hon. member for Oudtshoorn please be quiet?

If only you would be quiet, I would also be quiet, because you are only talking nonsense.

I do not know why that hon. member is so sensitive.

I am not sensitive.

I think he should just give me an opportunity …

Go and arrange it with your party.

I think we should just consider the facts, and I quote—

Read the Afrikaans.

I quote further—

Do those hon. members now accept this as their policy?

Read the Afrikaans.

Just listen to that! They do not accept it, and I am quoting from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. You see, Sir, these people are confused. I quote further—

Hear, hear!

It is quite right that the PFP should say so, because that is what they stand for. However, is this what they mean and is this why they told us …

What do you stand for? [Interjections.]

That is a very good question, and I am going to answer the hon. member. I stand for the principles of the NP. I stand for separate development. That is what I have been standing for all these years, and to me it is not a sacred cow. To me these are the principles of a party which I have served for more than 30 years. No one ever paid me for it. I worked for the party for nothing.

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

I do not reply to stupid people’s questions. [Interjections.]

Order! Who said the hon. member was afraid?

I said he was afraid, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sooner or later, the moment of truth arrives for everyone in this House. For me, perhaps, the moment of truth came the other day when I saw …

You would not recognize it when you saw it.

… that I could no longer go along with people who were paying lip service to the principle of the party while supporting the policy of the Progressive Party.

But your Leader was in the Cabinet when this legislation was approved.

These are matters I was faced with …

But Ferdie, you helped to approve it.

… and all the hon. members on the Government side will be faced with them sooner or later.

Ferdie, you helped to approve it. Now be as honest as you want to be. Tell him that you helped to approve it.

Order!

Just listen to that!

Your Leader was in the Cabinet when the legislation was approved.

I shall tell you where my leader was. He was trying to keep the party together.

He helped to approve it.

He was trying to keep the party together. He did not want to walk out every day; he did not want to be fired every day.

Where is the jelly fish?

Yes, that is an open question!

You are talking through your hat.

The hon. the Prime Minister says I am talking through my hat. That may be true, but I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister would not give notice of when he intends to get cross.

One cannot get cross with you; one can only laugh at you. [Interjections.]

That is so. That is quite right. The hon. the Prime Minister will admit that when I was sitting in a bench on his side, it was a balanced party. At least we laughed, but now only the cross ones are left in that party.

Sir, we cannot get away from the fact that separate development has been pulled from under the feet of the people of South Africa without this fact being admitted. We cannot get away from the fact that this legislation means that anyone can start a club in a White area, even a Black, a Coloured or an Indian.

But who is asking to start a club?

Why does the Government want to change the law if there is nothing at the moment to prevent people? [Interjections.] Please, Sir! I do not want to be rough—it is a joke, after all. [Interjections.] At least the hon. members can have a laugh again. We cannot get away from the fact that this change in respect of control is going to cause problems for places such as the Johannesburg city centre.

That is rubbish.

It is going to cause great problems. I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow …

It is not Hillbrow. It is Yeoville, and you are talking rubbish.

I know the hon. member is now in Yeoville. He had to fight three people before arriving in Yeoville. First it was the man in Hillbrow and then it was the man in Yeoville.

Now I am fighting with you.

I shall take the hon. member on.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended for dinner earlier this evening, I was discussing this legislation with the hon. the Minister of Community Development. The hon. the Minister said a very important thing in a speech which he made in this House on Tuesday, 15 September 1981. I quote what he said on that occasion—

But who wants to repeal the Group Areas Act? [Interjections.]

Very well. The hon. the Minister explained at length here that he was not in favour of people mixing freely. Now, however, he is throwing open all clubs to all races.

That is not true at all.

He is throwing open the clubs in White areas. He is throwing open all sports clubs. [Interjections.]

That is not true at all.

The hon. the Minister can protest as much as he likes. The facts speak for themselves. Practice will also demonstrate this to him. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sandton said a very true thing here last night.

But you were one of those who supported this legislation. You supported this legislation in the caucus.

The hon. the Minister knows that what he is saying now is untrue. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister knows it is untrue. I ask him to withdraw that allegation.

Order! Is the hon. member for Langlaagte alleging that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is deliberately telling an untruth?

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying he is doing it deliberately. His memory may be playing him false. What he is saying, however, is untrue.

Order! The hon. member alleges that the hon. the Minister knows that what he is saying is untrue. He therefore means that the hon. the Minister is deliberately telling an untruth. The hon. member must withdraw that allegation.

Mr. Speaker. I withdraw it. However, I did not vote in favour of this legislation.

We did not put it to the vote, but you nevertheless supported it in the caucus.

You supported it by your silence.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the experience tonight that people who are bigger than the hon. the Minister have shouted across the floor of this House, saying where other people have voted and where they have not voted. I do not think it will serve any purpose for anyone to try to score political points now. The fact is that I shall not vote for the legislation. Hon. members sitting with me in these benches will vote against this legislation. [Interjections.]

Now I come to a further aspect. Here in my hands I have a newspaper report. Its heading is: “PFP welcomes the amendment”. Now hon. members must listen carefully to what it says in this report. I quote—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Langlaagte allowed to read newspaper comment on legislation which is still before the House?

The hon. member for Langlaagte is not allowed to quote such a newspaper report.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the following things have been said in PFP circles. It has been said that this legislation is breaking down separate development and that it is opening doors which can never be closed again.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Piketberg. He is welcome to sit there smiling. He is the one who began this whole thing. So he is winning now. I must concede that to him. He has made the party do his bidding and they will not get away from that. I agree with him.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill and must not repeat himself so often.

Very well, Sir.

Did you not support Koornhof and say that apartheid was dead?

Looking at all these matters which are before us, such as the legislation, I want to read them again, without repeating myself. [Interjections.] I apologize. I only meant that I wanted hon. members to study them carefully. Listen very carefully to the provisions of the proposed section 1(6)—

1. (a) for the purpose of attending in some or other capacity a bona fide sports meeting being held there;
2. (b) being used for the purposes of any bona fide sports club or any club in respect of which a club liquor licence has been granted under the Liquor Act, 1977, in his capacity as a member of or a guest in that club.

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, as was frequently the case in the past when the hon. member for Langlaagte made a speech in this House, one could laugh at this speech, but the times in which we are living are too serious for us to be able to laugh at an hon. member’s speech.

One should rather cry.

The events of the recent past have had such serious political repercussions for law and order and orderly government in South Africa that we cannot laugh at the hon. member and condone his speech because of its entertainment value. This evening I want to tell the hon. member and the independent members over there that their spokesman made a reprehensible and disgraceful speech, full of untruths and half truths that …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the expression “half truths”.

Sir, I withdraw the words “half truths”. [Interjection.]

Order! I request the hon. member to moderate his language.

Sir, I shall do so.

I want to tell the hon. member that his speech was not in the spirit of nationalism, and the sooner there is political distance between this side of the House and that little group seated over there, the better.

But there is. After all, you have power-sharing.

I am glad. I want to tell the hon. member that I shall deal fully with every allegation and every statement he made. However, I want to return now to the legislation to single out certain technical principles contained in it before I get to the hon. member for Langlaagte.

Clause 1 of the Bill is a demonstration of the growing understanding between the Government and the public sector to stabilize the small businessman. The Small Businesses Development Corporation grew out of the Carlton conference and the Coloured Development Corporation and the Indian Development Corporation were incorporated into the Small Businesses Development Corporation. In terms of clause 1, the rights, powers and authority previously vested in the Coloured Development Corporation or Indian Development Corporation are being transferred to the Small Businesses Development Corporation so that it can fulfil its entrepreneurial function without being disqualified in terms of the Group Areas Act.

The new subsection (6)(b), as contained in clause 1(b) of the Bill, is a consequential amendment to the Liquor Act. In October of last year the Liquor Act was so amended that a licence holder to whom an on-consumption liquor licence has been issued, is not subject to the prohibitions in section 72 of the Liquor Act. The question of who may visit a club, and in what capacity this takes place, is now being left to the autonomous discretion of the licence holder. This principle which the hon. member and his other hon. independent colleagues accepted in October of last year in the caucus of which both we and they were members—the principle of autonomy—is now being carried through. Those hon. members accepted it.

I did not accept it.

The hon. member did accept it.

Do you think that because I voted against the hon. the Prime Minister I…

This principle of autonomy was accepted by all those hon. members, and this principle is being carried through in this Bill to bona fide sports functions. The same principle which those hon. members accepted is now being carried through to the attendance of bona fide sports functions. I maintain that those hon. members accepted this principle.

The statement by the hon. member that this amendment will lead to Black people being in Pretoria for 24 hours of the day is not true. The hon. member is now arguing from the premise that this amendment will lead to the Government compelling liquor licence holders to throw open their facilities. This is not true. Who is admitted to a bona fide sports function depends on the autonomous decision of the owner of the premises, the sports federation concerned and those in charge of such a bona fide sports function. I therefore want to tell the hon. member that it does not accord with the truth to allege that this statutory amendment will lead to people of colour being in a specific group area for 24 hours a day. After all, the discretion as to who may be admitted to specific premises rests with the autonomous management body in charge of that specific sports meeting.

What happens if they allow it?

If they allow it, they are welcome to do so.

Let us put a few questions to the hon. members sitting over there. The principle behind this legislation has already been cleared at Cabinet level. As it stands here, the legislation has been cleared by the Cabinet. The hon. member for Lichtenburg and the hon. member for Waterberg were members of the Cabinet and they supported the principle underlying this legislation. In the second place, those hon. members were in the same caucus as these hon. members and I, a caucus that accepted the principle of autonomy. Is this true or is it not? [Interjections.] May I ask the hon. member for Lichtenburg whether he supported the principle of this legislation, yes or no?

Yes.

He is wavering.

The hon. member says “Yes”. In view of the present political circumstances a very interesting pattern is developing here. We accepted the principle of this legislation, certain hon. members of that party accepted the principle of the legislation as it stands, and the remaining hon. members accepted the principle of autonomy. These two matters have become part of the policy of the NP. This evening we witnessed the debacle here of those hon. members moving away from NP policy. These matters of principle have been accepted, but they are moving away from NP policy step by step.

You are moving away to the left and they are moving away to the right. [Interjections.]

In the present political climate, a climate in which the 1977 proposals are extremely relevant, I firstly wish to deny the allegation made against this side of the House that we are moving away, and in the second place I want to make it quite clear that, in terms of this legislation, those hon. members are moving away from a principle they have already accepted. If this is so, why should they not, when the moment of truth comes, also move away from the 1977 proposals? Each of those hon. members should be a man like the hon. member for Lichtenburg and admit this.

Did you accept power-sharing in 1977?

Yes.

The standpoint adopted by those hon. members is therefore degenerating into a political farce. It is important that we also consider another aspect in the present climate. A basic principle of the NP is that one keeps one’s word. This evening we watched those hon. members who were once members of the NP repudiating this principle they previously supported for the sake of political opportunism. Those hon. members intend to hold a congress on Saturday. That congress will have a foundation.

Of that you can be sure.

Judging by the behaviour of those hon. members in this House, the foundation of that congress will be a lie. That congress will be based on a lie. It is a lie on which that congress will be based and on which it hopes in future … [Interjections.] I am only reacting to what was said. [Interjections.]

But just the other day you were so verkramp.

Order!

I now want to deal with the hon. member’s allegations … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must control themselves.

I want to deal with the hon. member’s allegations that this legislation …

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

No. [Interjections.]

He can only ask a stupid question.

I want to deal with the hon. member’s allegations that this legislation would amount to a suspension of the Group Areas Act. This allegation is not consistent with the truth because all this legislation is doing is to bring the Group Areas Act into line with its normal character. [Interjections.] The hon. members must just give me a chance to state my argument. What do the provisions of the Group Areas Act do? The provisions of the Group Areas Act make provision for the demarcation of group areas and who can purchase property in an area and who enjoys occupation rights in the group area. This is the basic character of the Act. Owing to court verdicts that interpreted “occupation” as “habitual, physical presence for substantial periods of time” a proclamation was promulgated in terms of section 1(4) which stated that “presence” now means “occupation”. Now this proclamation is simply being repealed and the original character of the Group Areas Act is being confirmed, because nowhere in statutory law or in common law is there a provision which lays down that different races cannot participate in a sports function. By means of a proclamation it was stated that presence means occupation and this is now being repealed. This is all that is happening.

It was out of character with the Act for 30 years and only now are you rectifying matters.

Yes, we are rectifying matters.

After 30 years. That is why the world cannot understand it.

Order!

I now want to take the hon. member for Langlaagte and the other hon. members of his party back to 1963. In 1963 there was an Indian golfer, Papwa Sewgolum, and he had to receive a prize. He took part in a provincial open golf tournament.

Why?

Let us be serious. He was present at this tournament in a “disqualified” capacity. The hon. member waxed lyrical about his language, his culture, his religion, his partriotism—call it what you will—but who does he think will have more understanding for what he wants to protect and keep intact? Will it be Papwa Sewgolum who was discriminated against at the time, or will it be those persons who will be treated decently in terms of this legislation. This is the basic difference between those hon. members and members on this side of the House. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Langlaagte brought this debate down to the level of a political farce. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte must contain himself.

However, I trust that in future we shall be able to debate such matters at a higher level.

I feel that this debate affords us an opportunity of expressing a word of thanks.

†This is an opportune moment to record a vote of thanks on behalf of this Parliament to Cez Blazey, Dicky Jeeps, Graham Gooch and Lord Chalfont, to mention but a few, who have not succumbed to political pressure to isolate South Africa in the world arena of sport.

Order! That is irrelevant now.

I shall leave the matter at that, but on behalf of this House I want to address a word of thanks to those persons who helped and stood by South Africa when attempts were being made to isolate us in the field of sport.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Bellville will forgive me if I do not take part in his personal argument. It does remind me, however, of a situation many years ago when I was involved in wartime circumstances. We had been fighting with the French against the Germans. Then the French collapsed, and thereafter we were fighting the Germans and the French, without quite knowing who was the enemy at any given time. [Interjections.] A similar sort of situation has now arisen in this debate. As an Opposition—and the NRP is one of the three Opposition groups— our function is to oppose the Government. Of the two Opposition groups that have spoken so far, the one is strongly in favour of the Bill while the other group is strongly opposed to it. [Interjections.]

Local option!

I am therefore in a position where I can bring in a little bit of local option … [Interjections.]

I think it must be conceded that on paper this is really a very small Bill indeed; Yet it has very wide implications.

If I were you, I would not mix in.

I must concede that paragraph (b) has a highly emotive implication, but I rather suspect that the part that has been least discussed in this debate, namely paragraph (a), has probably more positive implications in so far as helping the public is concerned. Clause 1(a) does somewhat ease the position in the sense that the Small Business Development Corporation will not have to own all the shares. I know that it may seem as if I am dodging the issue, but do not worry, comrades, I shall be coming to that in due course. [Interjections.] I believe that a Bill should be dealt with seriatim. I shall not do as some other people do and deal with the last part first and forget the beginning. [Interjections.] It does seem to me that this will have the effect of improving business facilities in the Coloured areas because it does open the field a lot more than has previously been the case. I therefore believe that the business opportunities in the Coloured areas must be substantially improved. Whilst we in in this party believe that the running of businesses and the owning of business properties should be totally excluded from the Group Areas Act, in conformity with our general philosophy of accepting an improvement in a situation we are happy to see this improvement, because as far as we are concerned this is an advance on the current law. Whilst I would have hoped—and I still do hope—that the hon. the Minister would, at some time or other, have seen his way clear to making business interests totally non-racial, this is nevertheless a step to the right direction, and we are therefore very happy to go along with this amendment. [Interjections.]

I am sorry the hon. member for Sandton is not here at present.

So is he.

As I mentioned earlier, although clause /(b) is the more emotive issue, I believe that clause /(a) is the more important one. I am therefore rather surprised that the hon. member for Sandton did not make any reference to this aspect. Possibly it was not worth talking about in that it might not have achieved the sort of publicity he might have been looking for.

The proposed new section 1(5)(iv) is also a very interesting little piece of legislation in that it removes specific reference to the Coloured community.

[Inaudible.]

Get to the short title.

It does remove such specific reference. I appreciate the fact that it may well have been done because it would have been grammatically more correct to bring in the aspect of companies.

That is right!

I am not altogether a nut, Harry.

No, not altogether.

I do believe, however, that the very fact of removing the concept of colour, as such, is helpful, and I would hope that this is a policy that will be continued in various other Bills that are brought before this House, because I believe that to keep on referring to race can only do us a lot of damage. I therefore believe that even though this may have been inadvertent, in itself it is helpful in improving our legislation.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe that clause 1 (b) is certainly the most noteworthy amendment in this Bill. I must say that we in these benches are very happy to support this new provision. I refer, of course, to the removal of the necessity for the application of group area laws at bona fide sports meetings, sports clubs or clubs licensed in terms of the 1977 Liquor Act.

The hon. member for Sandton dredged up almost everything he could think about…

Out of the mud.

… in connection with what could or could not have been done by the NP over the last 30 years. In all fairness and in all honest let me say that we in these benches and, I believe, the hon. members on the other side of the House realize that the legislation they passed in respect of sport was bad legislation and has done South Africa great damage. I believe that the hon. members on the other side also believe that today, and have proved that point by removing one of the last pieces of legislation, so far as I am aware, that does discriminate against sportsmen. So far as we are concerned, we are very happy that they are doing so.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Sandton chose to use such immoderate language as he did, because in all conscience we have enough enemies without encouraging them further. I truly believe that his speech was one of the speeches that will be taken up by the foreign Press and used against us in the future.

Wasn’t he supporting us?

He supported the legislation ultimately, but not before he got in his dirty digs. There is no doubt in my mind that any hon. member in the Opposition benches can, if he wants to, dredge up dirt. As has been mentioned, we had the incident of Sewsunker Ramgoolan which was most embarrassing. There was the incident of the Japanese jockey which was also most embarrassing. If one wants to go through them, one can point to lots and lots of incidents.

Be careful. The foreign Press is listening.

There have been lots of incidents where we have been embarrassed by legislation, by the Government.

Now you have sunk South Africa.

Your are just the local muck-raker.

Why don’t you go back to your muck-heap?

Go back to the sewer.

We appreciate that today, when it comes to legislation in respect of separate development, the Government are having another look at quite a few of those laws. Many people feel, as we can see from the debate today, that the Government are moving too fast. The hon. members immediately to my right hold that particular viewpoint.

Racing tortoises.

Yes. The hon. members further to my right, although it should be “to the left” in terms of political nuances, believe they are going far too slowly. We believe, as I mentioned earlier, that there must be progress and that, if there is progress, the Government are not to be condemned for it, but are to be commended for it and encouraged.

That is why we are supporting the Bill.

Sir, I do not wish to speak against the hon. member for Sandton when he is not here, but it is not my fault that he is not here. I will say this: What reasonable person will turn on, and hammer the hell out of, someone who has virtually admitted that he has made a mistake and is trying to put things right? What sort of attitude is that? Certainly, it is not gentlemanly and, certainly, it is not Christian. This is the sort of thing that does rather irritate me. So far as I am concerned, I feel it is most unfortunate that the hon. member for Sandton did use such immoderate language as he did on this issue.

We are used to that.

The hon. the Minister may be used to it, but I am not used to it, having come from a forum where, perhaps, there is a different approach. As I have said before, the Government appear to have realized the error of their ways and are attempting in this Bill in respect of sport to improve the situation. I do not believe that the tirade to which we were subjected by the hon. member for Sandton is going to be very helpful or is going to encourage any other Minister who may wish to make improvements to the separate development legislation which is still on the Statute Book and which should be removed.

We in these benches, as I said earlier, are appreciative of the measures contained in this Bill and we do hope that as a consequence of these particular amendments we will not be embarrassed any further so far as sport is concerned. I do hope, however, that the hon. the Minister will bear in mind that sportsmen are not on the field all the time, and that after they have finished their game they are often taken out by their teammates or even by their opponents, and they want to visit hotels, restaurants and various other places of entertainment, some of them not necessarily of international status. We should like to see this measure extended a little further so that hotels, restaurants and other places of entertainment should also have the effects of the group areas legislation removed. I make this submission because there have been a considerable number of embarrassing situations created by people of colour being taken to various establishments that do not have international status. We would hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will bear this in mind, and having gone so far as he now has, will take the matter a little further. As far as we are concerned it is here again not a question of making it mandatory that all of these places be opened up to everybody. Hon. members can have another laugh if they like, but we believe that local option should apply and that the establishment concerned—whether it be a cinema, a restaurant, a hotel or any other place—should have the right to choose whether it wishes to have its establishment opened or closed to a particular racial community. [Interjections.]

I believe further that if the Government were to remove legislation in respect of this type of establishment they could but only do themselves a lot of good, because they would then remove the opprobrium which now falls squarely on the shoulders of the Government over this sort of thing. All said and done, who is it going to hurt? Who is it going to embarrass by removing this restrictive legislation? I believe it is not going to hurt anybody because the people who own these various business establishments are ultimately going to look out for what is in their interest. Private enterprise being what it is will only ask what is good for their business. If it is good for their business to keep it closed—be it a particular establishment—to their own community, whether it be Indian or White or Coloured or Black, that will be their business. If they want to have it open, however, and the local populace does not patronize their establishment, they have to make up their own minds about, as I have said before, what is in their interests.

The point is this. Why must the Government take upon themselves this opprobrium which serves no really useful purpose? They get hammered. They get castigated all throughout the world over a silly little incident; silly it may be, but terribly embarrassing, and, in terms of human rights, very important. The Government is criticized for it while it is not necessary for the Government to be criticized.

Therefore, as far as we in the NRP are concerned, this Bill goes part of the way towards removing an embarrassment, and we should like the Government to go just that little bit further and clear the situation in respect of other types of business. We hope that the Government will extend this relinquishing of the tentacles of the Group Areas Act and also remove themselves from the opprobrium of racism. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, we are very happy to support this Bill. We hope that it will in due course be extended a little further.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the member for Umbilo always reminds me of the man who has his head in the oven and his feet in the refrigerator. His head is always too hot and his feet are always too cold. But at least his midriff is comfortable. [Interjections.]

I am also beginning to think that there must be something in the NRP’s policy of “local option”, for since they have begun moving closer to us, one can almost get along with them. I should like to thank him, even if it is for the qualified support of the eight hon. members for the Bill.

I should like to pause for a moment to say a few words about the hon. member for Langlaagte in particular. If one considers the situation confronting us in this country—an external military onslaught and an internal terrorist onslaught—it is almost unthinkable to me as a young member that such an amendment as this should elicit such strong criticism from the hon. member, particularly under the circumstances of the past few weeks. The hon. member for Lichtenburg, one of their top men—I must say I have a great deal of respect for him and always have had—has admitted that he served in the Cabinet when this amending legislation was discussed, and that he accepted the principle contained in it. Consequently the same must also apply to their other top men, the hon. member for Waterberg. One just wonders whether the two of them have changed their principles, or is it just that the hon. member for Langlaagte is already a little out of step with them as well? One almost wants to feel sympathy for the hon. members in that group who think for themselves and tell them that it is unfortunately not always the people who belong together that end up together, but sometimes, too, the people who deserve each other. [Interjections.]

The hon. member claimed vehemently that with these amendments the NP was moving away from its principles. Incidentally, in the course of his speech the hon. member referred to himself as a Nationalist. He is no longer a Nationalist, and I think it is time he remembers this. The fact that he does not know what he is does not alter the fact that he is no longer a Nationalist.

Based on the statement, as he put it, that the rug had now been pulled out from under the feet of separate development, he made quite a number of wild statements, most of which the hon. member for Bellville has already dealt with. Nevertheless, I should like to dwell on a few of them.

I feel that to place the matter in perspective, one should examine the object of the legislation again. I want to refer specifically to the provisions contained in clause 1(b) concerning sports clubs and sports meetings. The proposed provision involves nothing more or less than attendance at and participation in sports meetings on the one hand and the presence of people at clubs on the other. What is important is that the clubs involved in this are specified in the legislation, namely clubs holding a licence in terms of the Liquor Act. This immediately negates the hon. member’s statement that a few people can get together and simply say they are a club and carry on from there. This only applies to a club holding a liquor licence in terms of the Liquor Act.

It can also be hired.

No new principle is contained in these provisions and in any case the provisions as far as clubs are concerned, as the hon. member for Bellville pointed out, are simply consequential amendments arising from the amendments to the Liquor Act that were supported by all those hon. members when they were passed last year. In fact the amendments came after an investigation by the Human Sciences Research Council. In my opinion those amendments did not change any principles in any case; they only changed the procedure in terms of which people can get together at a club. Whether one obtains a permit, as was done in the past or whether one is permitted to do so in terms of the Act, does not alter the principle that in appropriate circumstances people of different colours participating together in sport, may sit down together at the same club. I must ask the hon. member if he is now suggesting and is now of the opinion that people of different colours must under no circumstances get together at one club …

Can we bring Coloureds to Fernwood?

I shall get round to that. If this is the case I want to tell the hon. member that he must tell all the clubs in his constituency to clean their clubs themselves, because it will no longer be possible to allow cleaners. [Interjections.] The hon. member reminds me of the man who walked into a church and saw a Coloured man on his knees. The man went up to the Coloured man and asked him: “What are you doing?” The Coloured man replied: “Sir, I am working.” The man then said: “Oh, that’s all right then. I thought you were praying.” I think this is the land of mentality that hon. member has [Interjections.]

The principle that multiracial sport may take place and that people of all races may attend sports meetings, is, after all, a principle that was accepted long ago. Newlands without its Coloured spectators is almost unthinkable, has become a tradition. [Interjections.] Every one of those members making such a racket now and using every trick they can think of to escape the situation confronting us, supported that principle. If they did not support the principle why did they not leave then?

The amending Bill does not contain any new principles and is in fact merely eliminating obsolete procedures which, particularly in the times in which we live, could cause South Africa unnecessary harm. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. member that I am just as religious as he is, and I was not making fun of religion. The hon. member did not realize that I was actually making fun of him. There are many things the hon. member is unaware of.

The hon. member also stated that the amendments contained in the Bill would result in club facilities being thrown open to all races and that everyone could go wherever they liked, and stay there for as long as they liked, without having to answer to anyone. This is not the case. A club is accountable to its members and determines for itself who may be there and who may not. The same applies to sports fields. The owner of the sports fields, whether it be a private or a public institution, is still able to determine who may be on the premises and what may happen there. Sports clubs do not exist in a vacuum, separated from the rest of mankind. The management committee owner or persons controlling the club still remain responsible to public opinion. Up to now PFP orientated people were able to hide behind the Government when it came to what they would allow and what they would not allow. I believe that this amendment will now compel them to accept responsibility for their own decisions. This will result in their being more in line with what the community wants.

Another misconception that was created was that the amendments amounted per se to all sports clubs were being thrown open to all races. Surely this is not true. The Government is not compelling anyone to do anything he does not wish to do or to admit someone he does not wish to admit. The club, local authority or person in control is still at liberty to decide who may be admitted. However, this must still take place within the framework of the country’s laws, which will ensure that everything takes place in an orderly fashion.

All that is happening here is that the responsibility for decisions is being entrusted to the person or body that may decide on admission to premises. Wilful PFP-controlled local authorities in particular must take cognizance of this.

The hon. member for Bellville replied adequately to most of the remaining absurd statements by the hon. member for Langlaagte. However, in conclusion I cannot omit to react to just one more statement of his, namely the statement that to be in Rosettenville, for example, someone can play darts continuously for 24 hours. I want to tell the hon. member that if anyone wants to be in Rosettenville so badly that he is prepared to play darts continuously for 24 hours in order to be there, no law will keep him out of Rosettenville.

Some people even sit in a cage full of snakes for 24 hours.

I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London City, as in fact most members in the Government and the other Opposition Party, are obviously caught up in the politics of a split. This is what it is largely about. Some of it represents the substance of a debate, but the rest of it is what we have gone through in other parties and is really a self-justification of their present position as opposed to their previous position. This is what we have been listening to and it is quite easy to get involved in this. I believe that we will have to endure this for a short while and once we have worked it out of our system, perhaps we can come to grips with the real issues confronting us in South Africa. I find it incredible in this day and age, when members on the other side talk of a “totale aanslag”, when all of us realize what a serious situation is developing in and around South Africa, that the Parliament of South Africa can even be debating a measure like this and arguing the pros and cons of it. We are actually having a debate and an argument on the question of whether we should open clubs and sportsfields to people of all races!

So you are admitting now that there is a total onslaught against South Africa?

That hon. member must just listen very carefully. We all realize that there is a serious situation developing inside and outside South Africa. I would like to bring the debate back to this level. It is interesting and fun to listen to all these verbal exchanges, but it is a really sterile and puny debate against the background of the very serious situation in which we find ourselves in South Africa.

Of course, those two parties are probably both right, because the policy of the NP as defined in the 12-point plan is very much like the policy of say the United Party 20 years ago. You can find something in it to suit the right wing and something to suit the left wing. You can quote Graaff and Smuts on almost any issue and you can find something that will suit you.

Is Harry Schwarz in your wing?

I am merely saying that this is the reality because the NP—and this Bill is evidence of it and I am not criticizing it—is a party and an important element of Government in South Africa which is caught up in the whole process of transition. The NP, whether it likes it or not, is caught up in the process of transition. The gentlemen that have broken away from the NP are part of the consequences of the process of transition and this Bill before the House is part of the process of transition in which the NP is caught up. That is the reality of South Africa today. It is caught up in a process—and this Bill reflects it—of transition from a hardline orthodox apartheid philosophy handed down by Dr. Verwoerd. I was in the House when Dr. Verwoerd was elected. One noted that it was a fairly straight-forward, crisp and clear ideology and philosophy. It was apartheid and separate development in its purest form.

That is where I stand.

That was the founding philosophy of the modern NP. Circumstances are forcing it to move away from that. It has not found a new philosophy, but it has been forced to find a new policy. Its problem is that there is a conflict between the philosophy on the one hand and the policy on the other. The problem we have to face is that at a time when we need strong leadership we have a situation where a party and Government are in transition from the purified philosophy of separate development à la Verwoerd, to a new policy which is forced upon any Government in South Africa which wishes to face up to the realities of modern, multi-racial South Africa in the world of 1982. That is the reality of what is taking place and what is reflected in this Bill.

It would be quite easy for me to say that this Bill is a departure from NP-policy because in the 12-point plan it states “we believe in vertical differentiation”. In that sense it is a departure. It states further “we believe in the principle of own schools and own communities”, and this Bill is clearly a departure from own communities. In that sense the hon. members who broke away from the NP are right. It is also right to state that there should be “the removal of hurtful and unnecessary discrimination”. Therefore those gentlemen are right because this is clearly a removal of unnecessary and hurtful discrimination.

When we have finished playing politics and these two sets of gentlemen have enjoyed themselves at each other’s expense, we still have the interests of South Africa to deal with. The question of what the NP policy was before is actually irrelevant. What it was before is irrelevant as far as the interests of South Africa today are concerned. The whole of this country, including the NP, is going to have to change. We are going to have to move. I believe there is a slight recognition of this even in this measure before the House. That is why we in these benches have said that whenever this Government moves in a significant way to change South Africa from an apartheid South Africa to a non-discriminatory South Africa we in these benches shall support them. That is why we are supporting this measure. We support it not because we like the NP or because we are satisfied with this measure, but because we believe that it is important that this Parliament must give a message, not only to those of us sitting here but also to South Africa. If South Africa is going to survive, not in the next 100 years but in the next 10 years, we are going to have to move faster and faster away from discrimination. Therefore it does not matter what our policies were in the past. What is important is what our policies are going to be in the future. It is on that basis that we approach this Bill. We reject entirely although there are aspects of his analysis which may be correct, the out-and-out, crude, racist approach of the hon. member for Langlaagte. It is a crude, racist approach in South Africa and we reject it.

That is NP politics.

We believe that the hon. member exaggerated and overstated the consequences of allowing sportsmen to integrate and clubs to be open. We do not share with him the fear that the heavens are going to fall and we do not share with him the fear that Whites are going to lose their identity.

Why do you not open Kelvin Grove?

We believe that the faster we move away from discrimination in South Africa the more we shall ensure the future of Whites. The future of Whites is not going to be maintained in South Africa by building the walls of apartheid even in clubs in South Africa. The future of South Africa is going to be determined by the extent to which we can break down the walls of artificial division in this country and by allowing people freedom of association. These hon. members may be right in terms of the orthodox interpretation of the NP policy. They may be right, but that is irrelevant. I believe that their attitude is disastrous for South Africa. It is even disastrous for the people whom they are trying to defend. It is disastrous for the White minority in South Africa and, if I might separate that, within the White community it is disastrous for the Afrikaner South African.

No, you are wrong.

That is why we reject it. It is not because of who was right and who was wrong in the Cabinet or whether there was “’n stilswyende lid in die Kabinet”; that will work out in the next six months or so. What we are concerned about is the direction in which South Africa is moving and that is why we support this measure.

I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Bellville. He always makes an interesting and positive contribution and in a sense his was a positive contribution. But once again, even an hon. member whom I would call a relatively “verligte” member of the House, coming from Bellville, still had to say “dit is nie ’n opskorting van die Groepsgebiedewet nie; dit is net die herstel van die Groepsgebiedewet in sy ware karakter”. Why do Government members spoil it? I know the hon. the Minister is not going to say that. The hon. the Minister is certainly not going to say that this is “net die herstel van die Groepsgebiedewet in sy ware karakter”. It is like the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development who once said “gemengde sport is ’n natuurlike ontplooiing van die apartheidsbeleid”. Of course, that is nonsense. This Bill is not just putting apartheid or the Group Areas Act in its true character. It represents an important and fundamental departure from the principle of group areas. I do not know why the Government members on the other side always spoil it by running away from these things. Why do they not admit that they made a mistake or that they were right 20 years ago, but that in the South Africa of 1982 they have got to change? Why should people be ashamed, embarrassed or scared of admitting that they are changing? Let hon. members say that they are changing. Let them say that perhaps the PFP were right. We do not really need that but we do nevertheless get satisfaction from the fact that they are of necessity having to move in our direction. This Bill does represent a fundamental and necessary change to the principle of group areas. One has only to read section 17 of the Group Areas Act, which is absolute. It states that as from a certain date no person will be able to occupy land if he is a disqualified person.

That is a clear fundamental principle. In section 4 provision is made for certain exemptions by way of Ministerial edict. For the first time since about 1951, or thereabouts, when the Group Areas Act was originally introduced, Black, White and Brown South Africans, not as a matter of Ministerial favour but as a matter of fundamental legal right are going to be able to occupy property, irrespective of whether they are qualified or disqualified. That is a change, Sir, and to that extent we welcome it. It is a limited change, and at the moment the change is related to sport. Sport can be compared to the bow of a ship plowing through the sea. It is the ice-breaker. It is breaking through and getting rid of the icebergs and the logjams ahead of us. We see this as a fundamental change and we believe that this particular change is going to add to the whole dynamic of change in South Africa. We believe it is going to add to the process of change, even in the NP. While I have expressed certain reservations about this measure, we see this as a necessary fundamental change that is taking place in the country, and that is why we support this measure.

There are two elements to this Bill. The one deals with the question of occupation for sporting and club purposes and the other one deals with the question of the Small Business Development Corporation. In case the hon. the Minister feels that I have been embracing him too closely this evening, let me say that I am distressed and disappointed at his miserable step forward as far as the Small Business Development Corporation is concerned. The hon. the Minister even said that all this measure envisages is to give effect to the change that took place when the Small Business Development Corporation took over the CDC and the Indian Industrial Development Corporation.

What is the position? The hon. the Minister’s predecessor committed the Government to throw open central business districts to non-Whites for trading purposes. That was three or four years ago, and in the meantime we have been waiting. Here was a glorious opportunity for the hon. the Minister to say: “Using the Small Business Development Corporation, let us now open up the business areas of South Africa to people of all race groups”. However, even in this measure the Government is timid and nervous. The Small Business Development Corporation is now a deracialized body. It is no longer a Coloured Development Corporation or an Indian Industrial Development Corporation. This is a deracialized Small Business Development Corporation, and it is now being provided that if the corporation or a fully owned subsidiary owns or has property in an area, it will not be deemed to be disqualified under the Group Areas Act. Therefore, where the Small Business Development Corporation or an affiliate owns property, even if there are Coloureds, Blacks or Indians involved in that operation, they will not be disqualified under the Group Areas Act. To that extent the Small Business Development Corporation is a small breach in the absolute hard line philosophy of apartheid in the central business districts of South Africa. But what is then added? The Bill then states that if there are any people who are disqualified who hold a majority share, then suddenly the whole of that company will become a disqualified company. We have a situation, therefore, where the Small Business Development Corporation can have minorities of Coloureds operating in a White central business area, but when that corporation sells out to its Coloured partners and those partners then become the people who have effective control of the company, from that moment that company becomes a disqualified company. That is the position. I am using the Coloured man in this connection because the demand is to move into the White controlled central business areas. As long as the Coloured man is the junior partner of the Small Business Development Corporation, he can participate in the economic activities in the central business area. However, the moment when the Small Business Development Corporation says to him: We have been with you long enough, you are grown up now; we want to sell our shareholding to you, and you can now take off on your own, the Coloured man becomes disqualified in that area. That is a fact. As long as the Coloured person is in a minority position and not in a controlling position, he is accepted, but as soon as he moves into a controlling position then that company becomes a disqualified company. As I say, there is now a small breach in the dyke, and through the Small Business Development Corporation these people can now move into the central business districts. The intention of the Small Business Development Corporation is not to have control over these companies forever. The hon. the Minister indicated that in his Second Reading speech last year.

But they are not going to be the major shareholders.

Who is not?

The Small Business Development Corporation.

In this particular Bill it is stated quite clearly that this applies in the case of the Small Business Development Corporation having a controlling interest.

In providing office buildings, for instance.

All I am saying is that the Bill is quite clear. When a company has a controlling interest, or when other people are in a minority position, they can be accepted and will not be subject to the Group Areas Act. However, as soon as the minority, which may be the Coloureds, become the controlling interest in that company, they will be subject to the Group Areas Act.

Do you mean in the White areas?

Yes, in the central business districts.

That is what it is all about.

We can talk about White areas, Coloured areas and Black areas, but we all know that the most lucrative trading parts of South Africa, the parts where the Blacks and the Coloureds spend nine-tenths of their money, are the central business districts of South Africa. That is where the cream is skimmed off the milk, and that is, in fact, where traders want to go. So all I am asking is whether the hon. the Minister would possibly think of introducing an amendment making it possible for a Coloured person, once he has been a junior partner with the Small Business Development Corporation, and the company as a whole has therefore enjoyed immunity from the Group Areas Act, to continue having that immunity once he becomes a senior partner. Then this would all make some sense. As things are at the moment, however, this is simply one of those timid little efforts being made by the Government. At a time when there was an opportunity to make a breakthrough, using the Small Business Development Corporation, the Government has once again shied away at the jumps.

I want to conclude by coming back to another element of the Bill. I am referring to the question of sports clubs. I am not doing so in order to find fault with the Government, but because I think we should have clarity on what this all means. Quite clearly the proposed new section 1(6) will exempt certain people from the operation of the Group Areas Act, as I read it, both as regards ownership and occupation. I hope the hon. the Minister will take note of this. As I see it, and I quote—

will not apply in certain circumstances, and those circumstances involve ownership and occupation. So both ownership rights and occupation rights are now going to be conferred on people who did not have such rights before. I think we should first understand that that is the one element involved. It is a question of both ownership and occupation. Secondly, we must note who it is who will now be exempted from the operation of the Group Areas Act. In other words, who will be able to own property and to occupy property? Firstly, and I quote—

The hon. member for Sandton asked why one should say “in some or other capacity”. Perhaps there is a good reason, but we think that one could delete those words and still have the same meaning. What is much more important, however, is what is meant by a “bona fide sports meeting”. Our interpretation is, in terms of both statute and common law, that when any two people meet for a common purpose one has a meeting. I must therefore assume that whenever any two people meet with the common purpose of having a sporting encounter or a sporting engagement, that is a bona fide sports meeting. It is on that basis that we support this legislation. We assume it is not going to be a sports meeting defined by some new regulation, but a sports meeting, in the orthodox sense of the word, of say thousands of people, or even any two people meeting for the common purpose of playing sport or engaging in sport. That is our interpretation of this. Secondly, the proposed new subsection 1(6)(b) deals with the question of clubs. In spite of all the nasty racism that the hon. member for Langlaagte introduced into this debate, I think that in substance he is basically correct. The club referred to here is any club that has a liquor licence, but nowhere does it say that the club is to be attended for the purposes of sport. One can, for example, have a sports club that also has many other ancillary activities, or one could have a club that has a liquor licence but is not restricted, in its activities, to sport. So we see this—and this is our reason for supporting the legislation—as a very significant opening of the door in the direction of allowing people freedom of association. Much has been said about local option, apartheid, separate development and an integrated society. Let us make it quite clear that when it comes to private premises we on this side of the House believe in freedom of association. To the extent that this Bill for the first time in 20 years makes it possible for people in clubs and people who want to partake in sport to accept the PFP principle of freedom of association rather than the old-fashioned principle of apartheid which was once advanced by Dr. Verwoerd, we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point has again shown in his speech that he is far more moderate now than he was a year or two ago. A lot of what he said one cannot argue with.

As you move closer, he looks more moderate.

He makes the point that South Africa is caught up in a process of transition and therefore the Government of South Africa is also caught up in that process of transition. That is of course incontrovertibly true. However, that is nothing new. If we look at the whole history of this country from the time of the Boer War through the period of World War I into the great mining boom of the 1920s and the massive post-war boom, we see that there were great shifts of White people—in the case of the Black people it followed later—from the country areas to the cities. There was also a massive movement of people of colour to the cities. That is still going on now. Of course this is a country in transition. There is nothing peculiar about that. The hon. member said we will have to change. Of course we have to change and of course we have changed. The whole history of this party is the history of a party that has fought for change. It fought for change on the constitutional front. It fought to change this country from a dominion to a Republic.

You have taken the Coloureds off the common voters’ roll.

We have lots of time to argue about that when the President’s Council reports. The fact is that the whole history of this country has been a history of dynamic change, and the whole history of this party has been the history of a party that has responded to that change but has not necessarily allowed itself to be overrun by changes that might have caused disruption amongst the people of South Africa. I shall come back to the hon. member in a moment.

The whole point is that the Small Business Development Corporation, the successor of the CDC, is not a “little matter”, as the hon. member for Sea Point referred to it. It is not a halting step but, in fact, a mammoth step. It kicked off with a capital of R40 million and, if my information is correct, that amount of capital will increase very, very rapidly. What is the Small Business Development Corporation trying to do? It is simply trying to bring into the main stream of our economy people who are currently not participating in the economy of South Africa. That has to do not only with fair play, justice or equity, but it has to do with the fact that, if we wish to protect and perpetuate the private enterprise system of South Africa, we must draw all the people of this country into that system. The Small Business Development Corporation is simply an instrument to give effect and momentum to that reality, and that is a good thing. In so far as this Bill makes allowance for people to trade freely, that is a good thing as well.

As regards the second leg of this legislation, let me say that it is perfectly simple. The reality of the situation, the current practice in South Africa, is simply being legalized. What is being made lawful today is what we all know is currently taking place in all of the clubs in Cape Town and all over the country.

Unlawfully?

Yes, unlawfully.

What an accusation!

It is perfectly true. What is happening here is that the actual situation, which is unlawful, is simply being made lawful. All that is happening is that the de facto situation in South Africa is becoming—as has been pointed out already—the de jure situation in South Africa. The situation is in fact being normalized now. That is perfectly reasonable. What is happening now is that a sport club is entitled now to invite whomever it wishes to invite, regardless of race or colour. Clubs that do extend invitations to people of colour, when they do so, are able to treat their guests as normally as they would treat any White guests. That is perfectly reasonable. I believe that anybody who is opposed to that is being grossly unfair. In a country such as ours one cannot indeed expect that a situation should be allowed … [Interjections.] Of course, when a club is invited to play at a particular venue one cannot allow a situation to occur in which some members of that club are not being treated on an equal basis with other members. That sort of thing is absolute nonsense. That does not mean that if a club does not want to play against people of colour or with people who are left-handed and have blue eyes, or who have only one leg, such a club should not be entitled to make its own rules.

It is after all a principle that a club is a home from home. As I have already said no sport club is compelled to invite people they do not wish to invite. When a club, however, invites people it wishes to invite that club should be in a position to receive its guests lawfully and treat them normally. This amending legislation allows clubs to do just that.

Will they be allowed to do it for 24 hours? [Interjections.]

As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, a club is a home from home. The rights granted to clubs in terms of this amending legislation are in fact the same rights any home owner enjoys. One can invite into one’s home whomever one wishes to. One can invite people to dinner any time one likes.

For how many hours?

If one wants to invite people of colour into one’s home there is no rule that prevents it. One can in fact invite whomever one wants to.

For how many hours?

One can invite whomever one wants to. Having said that, there is one point I should like to make very clear. The introduction of this amending measure makes no difference whatsoever to, and also does not detract in any way from, a few of the fundamental beliefs of this side of the House. That is that we believe that the separate communities in South Africa are entitled to community privacy, to the maximum community privacy. We also believe that the communities in South Africa are entitled to cultural security by being able, for example, to attend their own schools. We believe that the various population groups in South Africa, including the White population group, have the right to remain master of their own destiny. Even though it does not wish to practise baasskap over other population groups, the White population group also wishes to remain master of its own destiny. That is one of the pillars on which the beliefs of hon. members on this side of the House are based.

In a complex and heterogeneous society such as our South African society it is of course irrecoverably true that, because it is a complex society, there will be times when complex arrangements will have to be made. Even the PFP, in its own publications, shows acknowledgement of this fact. I should like to quote from one of the PFP’s publications, entitled “Alternatives to apartheid”. An hon. member of the official Opposition was kind enough to lend me this document. I quote from page 2 of this publication, as follows—

This is the PFP speaking—

Does the hon. member for Bryanston admit that this is what the PFP believes?

We have always said so.

Of course, I know.

On the other hand, the NP has always denied that. [Interjections.]

Well, that being so, the PFP must resort to giving effect to that reality. It is no good acknowledging the reality on the one hand, without, on the other hand, making provision for accommodating that reality.

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue by quoting another excerpt from this PFP document. Under the subheading “Protection of heritages” they state as follows—

That is what the PFP says.

Do you agree with that?

Of course, I agree with it. We all agree.

But you do nothing about it.

The fact is that the PFP does nothing about it. There is no point in simply recognizing that reality. Anybody can define the problem. The difficulty is defining the solution. That is far more complex.

It is on page 2.

They say that they want equality of opportunity to become a reality. So do we. We also want equality of opportunity; not equality of status but equality of opportunity. However, Sir, in order to treat people equally it is sometimes necessary to treat them differently. That is a fact at every interface of society. Let us take the example of education. A gifted child is treated differently to a so-called normal child. A backward child is given different education to that given to a normal child. A person who is disadvantaged is helped by society and a person who is not disadvantaged is not helped in that way. That is what we spend half our time discussing during the budget debate. We discuss the question of apportioning money to people who are disadvantaged. Therefore, in order to give effect to the objective or the ideal of equality of opportunity it is often necessary to treat people differently in order to treat them equally. That is what organizations like the Small Business Development Corporation are all about. To say that it is immoral or wrong for us to seek to protect group rights is absolute nonsense. I want to argue this point. By the sanction of law, with the protection of the full force of law, we protect the family, we protect marriage and even the geography of a home from uninvited intrusion. We even build walls and fences around our property. We protect our privacy and we protect the security of those people living in that geographical location. The fact that people are separated into small groups is not resented by the PFP or anybody else as an affront to human dignity. It is no hindrance to personal development. However, when we extend that principle to say that a community has the right to a degree of community privacy we are not dealing with an absolute situation. We say that an individual can invite into his home whomsoever he pleases. Therefore it is not absolute. However, when we insist upon a high degree of community privacy then suddenly the logic of the argument advanced by hon. members of the PFP falls flat on its face. They accept all of the arrangements that society makes as a matter of normality but as soon as we extend that principle to a community to allow for community privacy, it suddenly becomes immoral and wrong.

This brings me back once again to the Bill. What we are doing here is simply extending an absolutely normal and customary convention to the sporting arena. We have our community privacy in our various neighbourhoods. People live there, various communities live in various areas and their privacy is protected with the full force of law but, as I have said, they are able to invite into their homes whomsoever they wish from time to time. Therefore what is now to be extended to the supporting arena is absolutely normal. I for one welcome this measure. I have had a great deal to do with sporting administrators of various kinds and I have taken the trouble of consulting them in regard to this legislation. I have consulted some of the leading sports administrators and I can tell hon. members that they are delighted with this measure before the House. It is going to make things easier for our sportsmen and it will make things easier for our society generally. It will in fact mean that persons who are invited to participate in sporting events together will be able to socialize on a perfectly normal basis. For these reasons, Sir, I support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, before I react to the speech by the hon. member for Maitland I want to refer briefly to the contribution of the hon. member for Bellville.

It was a good speech.

I shall leave that to the hon. member’s own judgment. The hon. member for Bellville tried to make a big issue about who had accepted or acquiesced in what and at what stage. The hon. member can play that game if he wishes; I am not prepared to reciprocate. If all the hon. members of the NP on the other side of the House were 100% satisfied in their hearts with this measure, then over the past three weeks a group of them have performed more than one somersault. However, I do not intend debating on that basis.

However, the hon. member for Bellville accused us in these benches of basing our actions on a lie.

Yes, that is correct.

The hon. member has now repeated his statement. The hon. member is fully entitled to think what he likes.

You were not very consistent.

I shall leave the matter at that. I do not wish to behave towards the hon. member for Bellville in the way that he has behaved towards us this evening.

As far as the hon. young member for East London City is concerned, I should like to make one remark. The hon. member told a really unsavoury story, to put it mildly. It is a story which originated abroad and spread throughout the world, to South Africa’s detriment. This evening the hon. member seized on that story to cast reflections on our group on this side of the House. That is what he did.

That is not correct. He qualified his statement at the end of his speech.

The hon. member ought nevertheless to apologize.

I want to dwell briefly on the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Maitland. He made an amazing admission this evening, and in doing so many have furnished the real reason as to why this Bill is before the House at present. The hon. member said—I hope I understood him correctly—that this Bill merely legalizes the situation which already exists in practice.

Surely you know that that is true.

It was done by way of permit.

No, the hon. member said that in cases where permits had been issued, it was not illegal. The hon. member for Pretoria Central will not get away with that quibble. That is the only inference one can draw from the argument advanced by the hon. member for Maitland. He will also concede that this amendment is being effected to legalize the situation …

It is to normalize the situation.

… which was illegal and the hon. member admits thereby that this mighty National Party was not able to implement the laws which it itself passed. That is the admission the hon. member made. Now, what are the facts? I concede that the issue of permits created problems for the Cabinet. [Interjections.] I concede that this did cause problems for the Cabinet. Members on the other side of the House must not come and tell me now that we did not discuss this matter at length among ourselves, with regard to the Liquor Act as well. Therefore I wish to say to the hon. member for Bellville once again: Rather stop playing that game about who accepted what and when.

You accepted joint responsibility for that.

There is also such a thing as acquiescing in a decision which is ultimately taken by the majority. [Interjections.] That is so. I shall not get excited. Hon. members opposite need not get excited either.

What have we done, and what are we doing now? We have now again heard from the hon. member for Maitland for fine words “maximum community privacy”, and our people are being told that this is the policy of the NP.

What does that mean?

The hon. member for Bellville spelt it out for us this evening and said that the legislation was a measure which merely allowed the Group Areas Act to come into its own. That is the oddest argument I have ever heard in my life. When one looks at the provision in question, it has only one meaning: The provisions of the Group Areas Act are being totally suspended with regard to sports clubs as well as other clubs—whether they be sports clubs or not— which possess liquor licences. However, the hon. member for Bellville contends that the Group Areas Act is only now really coming into its own. In other words, the Group Areas Act comes into its own when one suspends the provisions of the legislation. That is one of the most far-fetched arguments I have ever heard in this House.

Why do I and hon. members on this side of the House object to this measure? We have before us another pragmatic measure on the part of the Government, because the Government is saddled with a practical problem. As far as permits are concerned, it is abolishing control entirely. After the election last year, the Transvaal NP held indepth discussions in Pretoria, in which we considered what had happened and searched for the reasons for certain results achieved during the election. I am not speaking out of school now, because I think this is well known. A Cabinet committee was even appointed in this regard. The one conclusion we reached …

Starvation diet.

… was that the White man felt that he was being crowded out of his own living space. That is the conclusion we reached. Subsequently, some of my colleagues tried to get away from that. If the hon. member for Pretoria Central is speaking about the starvation diet which the hon. member for Waterberg provided, I find it strange that he, too, needed that diet in his constituency. There was a time when the hon. member for Pretoria Central, too, had to feed his voters that diet to get back to this House. It is not only the hon. member for Pretoria Central who needed that starvation diet …

My voters are properly informed.

Several of his colleagues on the other side fell over one another to offer that starvation diet to their voters in their constituencies.

You too, Dawie.

Let us therefore forget about the starvation diet and come back to the Bill. I want to issue this warning: We have promised the voters of South Africa security, and every population group its own environment. This is another departure from that. This is another pragmatic departure, nor is it going to end here. I want to warm the Government that they are going to encounter problems with this measure.

Why are you worrying about that?

Because I take an interest in my people. The standpoint of the NRP is one of “local option”. By means of this measure the Government is going much further. Even the local communities no longer have an option. The owner of a club can decide whom he wants there; an owner of a club can decide whom he wants in that community, while the people who live in the vicinity will have no say whatsoever. They will have no say whatsoever as to who may visit that club and who may be a member of it. Let there be no misunderstanding on that score.

It is late, and I shall now conclude. The hon. member for East London City made a snide reference to our group here and said that we were no longer Nationalists. As we sit here this evening we have been deprived of our membership of the NP, but no one, the young hon. member for East London City included, can deprive us of the nationalism which burns in all our hearts.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it was ever the intention, when this legislation was being drafted, that the debate on it should descend to the level at which we find ourselves at the moment. I have no wish to be personal. I am not going to do that. However, when one considers what the NP has achieved since 1948, I think of my friends on the other side of the House who have tonight in all sincerity voiced their opinion about the legislation which is before the House. It is their right…

So did the HNP …

That hon. member is the biggest joke in the House, and he knows it. I think he really should keep quiet for a while. I do not think this legislation was in any way intended to benefit any persons or any political party in the House. I think the people outside who are affected by this legislation will laugh at us when they hear to what level we have already descended in this debate. Hon. members on the other side of the House, including the hon. member for Barberton, will agree with me that what the NP and the National Government have achieved in promoting good relations in the Republic of South Africa can never be undone. One has nothing but appreciation for what has been achieved. However, it is very different when one is sitting on the Opposition side of the House. On this side of the House is seated a party that governs the country, and we continue to pass legislation in this House which will be to the benefit of all the inhabitants of our country, irrespective of the standpoint of the other political parties.

I want to make it quite clear that the legislation which is now before this House was considered by the Cabinet as early as last year. The legislation is now before the House and is now being debated. The official Opposition regards this as an opportunity to try to convince the Government that it should now abandon separate development and the Group Areas Act. They are trying to make political capital out of this. But that is not what the debate is about. There are other opportunities for the official Opposition to promote their policy in this House, but in this debate it is quite inappropriate.

I believe it is important that we should find out tonight what is in the best interests of the Republic of South Africa, and that we should act responsibly as far as this is concerned.

I do not want to cross swords with hon. members on the Opposition side tonight, but since reference has been made in this debate to the policy of the NP, I must have it placed on record that it is stated in the programme of principles of the NP—it is no secret—that the party stands for the just and equal treatment of all race groups in South Africa and for the impartial preservation of the rights and privileges of each population group. This is the course we have been following since 1948. There is yet another principle in the NP’s programme, and there has been no difference of opinion about this. I do not wish to get personal, but I just want to quote one of the clauses of the NP’s programme of principles—

This is the course we have followed.

We must not regard this measure as one which seeks to have one group crowded out by another. The hon. member for Barberton also referred to this. The hon. member for Langlaagte said tonight that people of colour would be allowed in a White area 24 hours a day. Would the hon. member for Langlaagte tell us in all honesty tonight how many thousands of Black people are present in White areas 24 hours a day in his own constituency? [Interjections.] But it is true. Let us not argue about this: The permit system did create problems. It was very easy to obtain a permit, and then one could have a Black man on one’s premises. A club will now have this right. For too long, organizations and even local authorities have hidden behind the Government and pretended that this was the Government’s standpoint. Now clubs may decide for themselves whom they are going to allow on their premises.

I gladly support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get involved in the argument between this side of the House and that side of the House.

Which side of the House?

I am referring to the Independent Nationalists on this side and Government members on the other side. [Interjections.]

Order!

That debate is one that we here, the PFP, certainly do not want to get involved in. It makes me think of the last election, because these are the same kinds of difficulties one faces—and in this regard I sympathize with the Government— when one is trying to create some change in South Africa. I do not envy those hon. member, because it is not an easy road to travel. It is, in fact, a hard road to travel if one is trying to move away from White privilege and towards some kind of a change. So I really just want to leave it at that by saying that I do not want to enter into that debate.

I just want to reply to what the hon. member for Maitland said. He claims that his party stands for equality of opportunity amongst the various races. It is really not necessary to list all the examples illustrating that the races in this country are not equal. One does not have to mention, for example, section 10 of the Urban Areas Act and all kinds of things like that. Let me, however, just sum up by telling him that the whole question of racial equality, or actually the question of racial inequality, very simply starts off with the Population Registration Act. That is where it all starts. [Interjections.] That is then also the end of equal opportunities for the various races, because that Act… [Interjections.]

Order! I think that hon. member is going too far beyond the Bill under discussion.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am just replying to what you allowed the hon. member for Maitland to say. [Interjections.] I shall not, however, dwell on that at length. [Interjections.] I just want to end off what I was saying about that by stating that that Act is the end of the matter, because it decides where one is going to live, what type of education one is going to get, how far one is going to be from one’s school, how far one is going to be from one’s job, etc. All those matters are determined by that legislation.

This Bill contains an amendment excluding certain people from the provisions of the Group Areas Act. It specifically excludes certain people from that Act, and there is no question about that. It excludes, for example, people attending sports meetings. What I want to ask the Government is: Why? Why must people who attend sports meetings be exempted from the provisions of the Group Areas Act? [Interjections.] What is so special about people attending sports meetings?

Because it is a religion in this country.

Let us look at the logic of the situation, and I am now looking at NP policy against the background of this proposed amendment. If, for example, Black people are of such a nature that they ought to be prohibited from being on any White land “for a substantial period of time”—that is the phrase used by the hon. the Minister in Proclamation 228—why should they be allowed there for the purposes of sport? The Independent Nationalists are quite right when they say that this is a running away from the policy of the NP, and I want to know why they are doing it. [Interjections.] I think the reason is a cynical and sordid little one. [Interjections] I think it is simply because the NP wants so desperately to get South Africa back into the world of international sport. [Interjections.] That is the reason why this is being done, and not because of equal opportunity or because they do not believe in the Group Areas Act, because they do believe in it absolutely. They just miserably want to creep into the arena of world sport.

This is the Peter Hain clause.

That is what it is all about. The Independent Nationalists are quite right in criticizing the Government. In fact, the Government are prepared to forfeit their principles to get back into world sport. Let me say that they prostitute their principles for that reason.

You are worse than Dalling.

That is my view. The truth of the matter is that all group areas ought to be abolished.

For all purposes.

Yes, for all purposes. There were no group areas before this Government came into power. There was no real friction in the country in the absence of group areas. We believe that all group areas ought to be abolished, but, as has been intimated, because this is some little step along the way, we shall support this Bill.

It is a sordid little measure according to you, but you are supporting it.

The purpose of clause 1(b), containing the proposed new subsection (6), is to repeal Proclamation 228 of 1973. That was the proclamation dated 5 October 1973. That proclamation was issued the day before the Aurora Cricket Club in Pietermaritzburg was due to play its first league game. It was due to play its first league game on 6 October 1973, so the whole might of the Government was invoked to crush this little but courageous club in Pietermaritzburg about to play its first league game. Do you know what happened, Sir? The then hon. Minister of Sport and Recreation, Dr. Koornhof, said on 5 October that the purpose of the proclamation was to stop Aurora the following day. In fact, higher authority intervened before the next day because rain stopped play. Anyhow, the following week the proclamation came into effect and now it is law. The Bill we are now looking at seeks to abolish that proclamation.

What happened on 13 October when the Pietermaritzburg cricketers tried to play their game? They were “bekruip” by a lot of policemen and group area officials. Let me just read from a report that appeard in a newspaper—

Don’t you feel ashamed of yourselves?

What a creeping, disgraceful behaviour towards sportsmen.

That is healthy cricket!

There is nothing about which you care more than smearing the country.

Order!

Then, what did the hon. the Minister say about those players? My submission is that the disgraceful behaviour was all on the part of the Government. The Minister said—I am quoting from the report in the newspaper—

He went on to say—

He stated further—

What clause are you dealing with now?

This is hurting you, not so?

Do you want him to keep quiet?

It would be better for himself if he were to keep quiet.

You are not the umpire. Keep quiet!

Mr. Speaker, that is emotive and inflammatory language by the Minister. It is also untruthful. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister is now agitating for mixed sport. Has he now got the wrong motives? [Interjections.] I should just want to tell you what else he also said, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister also said, and I am quoting from The Daily Dispatch of 14 September 1973—

That was Aurora—

Old Piet has really said some scandalous things in his time. [Interjections.]

What he did was the correct thing at that time. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say anything more to hon. members on the Government side. All I want to say is that it is a hard road when one begins to move in the direction of change. The Government is going to have to change even more than it is changing now.

The Government has already met its Aurora. [Interjections.]

Hon. members on the Government side should just remember that when they begin to accuse everybody else of being agitators and of having the wrong motives, it is just possible that they might find themselves in that very same position in the not too distant future. It is a hard road but we will support the Government on this road.

Mr. Speaker, since I do not wish to devote very much time to the hon. member for Pinetown, I shall begin with him. He seemed to take pleasure in raking up old issues in this House. I do not begrudge him that pleasure. However, I certainly do not apologize for the fact that the Government—and those hon. members who are now sitting on the other side were still with us at the time—has changed its attitude to sport over the years. After all, we are not fossils. [Interjections.]

Order!

After all, this is not a stagnant party. It is a dynamic party, a party which has been able to adapt to changing circumstances over the years.

A party which has only now discovered the twentieth century!

Order! If the hon. member for Bryanston makes any further interjections, I shall be compelled to act against him.

Therefore I do not apologize for the fact that we have come to this House with this measure. I am not ashamed of it. Nor am I running away from the decisions taken by the Government. No one can deny that the NP’s attitude to sport has changed over the years. Only a fool would deny that. Therefore I do not blame the hon. members directly opposite me for having changed their minds with regard to this matter during the past 14 days. They are entitled to do so. However, they must admit that they formerly supported these changes that we have made.

I was never in favour of them.

Before I begin to reply to every speech on this subject—and many of the hon. members had a great deal to say—I just want to say something else. Is my time not limited to half an hour? I wonder whether the Whips could give me an indication of how much time I have available to me.

The hon. the Minister’s time is unlimited. He could even continue tomorrow if he wanted to.

Take your time. Do not hurry. [Interjections.]

In the first place, I want to make a few remarks before replying to the various aspects raised here by hon. members. As far as the Government’s approach to sport is concerned, this is formulated under the guidance of the hon. the Minister of National Education, to whom this task has been entrusted. However, it is a policy for which all of us on this side accept joint responsibility. In the past we accepted this together with hon. members who are now sitting opposite us. This was the case until a fortnight ago. We are not primarily concerned with the NP’s sport policy tonight. However, I want to point out a few aspects which are beyond dispute. The first is that the Government believes that sport can best be practised within an ethnic and group context. The second aspect I want to point out is that sport should not be controlled and regulated by the Government, but should rather be left in the hands of sport administrators. [Interjections.] We have our own view of the matter, but the Government leaves it in the hands of the sport administrators. This is the approach we have all agreed with over the years.

In the third place, matters concerning sport can only be removed from the political arena if we respect the autonomy of sport organizations and if we leave it to those organizations—as the hon. member for Umbilo rightly pointed out—if we leave it to the sport administrators and to the people who practise sport to make arrangements relating to sport, to keep order in sport and to grant or refuse admission. The Government should stay out of it. We cannot blame other people and other countries for politicizing sport while we want to do the same. [Interjections.] Hon. members need not laugh about this. I say that our views in this regard have also changed in recent years. The hon. member for Parktown is giggling as though someone were tickling him.

We told you so years ago.

The hon. member was engaged in other activities years ago, and he should rather have stuck to those.

Having made these few statements to the effect that we have our own views about the practice of sport, but that we have felt over the years that sport should be depoliticized and that we believe that this can best be done if we recognize the autonomy of sports clubs and the people who deal with sport every day …

We also said so.

Yes, we all say so. The hon. members opposite also said so, up to a fortnight ago.

I ask: If this is generally accepted by us, is it not necessary—since we have arranged this administratively in the way we have over the past two or more years, with the unanimous approval and the full agreement of hon. members on the other side, tacit or otherwise—that we should now bring the legislation into line with the way things are done in practice? Is it not merely logical that this should be done? I ask hon. members: What purpose does it serve if our sport organizers and administrators do everything in their power to free our young people from the isolation in sport which our enemies want to impose on us every day, and we have been doing these things administratively over the years, to give them a better chance of breaking out of that isolation, but Sanroc and the other enemies of South Africa can still rub our people’s noses in these statutory provisions which have been placed on the Statute Book and which have meant nothing in recent years and have not been implemented in practice, enabling them to achieve their object to the detriment of South Africa and sport in this country? Is it not merely logical that we should take this step on this occasion?

That is a logical conclusion.

I believe every right-thinking person in the country will welcome this legislation as an instrument for helping the sportsmen and women in this country to frustrate the determined attempts by our enemies in the world to isolate them from international sport.

Therefore we also wish to give effect to the recommendations of a scientific inquiry which led to the report of the legal scientific committee about the normalizing of sport relationships. The inquiry took place under the guidance of the HSRC. The hon. member for Sandton also referred to the report, and I want to advise hon. members, including the hon. member for Langlaagte, to read it. It is really an interesting report. That report was also, in the final analysis, the reason why it was felt that we should now proceed to bring the statutes into line with the way things are done in practice. Surely the hon. member knows that these things have been discussed over and over again, not only in the NP’s study group on sport, but also in the caucus itself. Surely it was decided long ago that we should rectify these matters, and all those hon. members concurred. Just ask the hon. member for Kuruman.

It is on record that I did not agree with it.

It is true that the hon. member had reservations, but those hon. members must admit that—even though it is true what the hon. member for Barberton said—they abided by the majority decision and therefore share responsibility for it. Those hon. members cannot get away from this. I shall refer to this aspect again at a later stage.

The hon. member for Sandton, who is not in the House this evening—I believe he made his apologies—asked me three pertinent questions. In the first place, he wanted to know what “in some or other capacity” meant. I believe the hon. member for Sea Point also asked this question. It simply means: In the capacity of spectator, coach, team manager, participant, official, caddy, icecream vendor, and so on.

It also includes a player.

Yes, that is correct.

The hon. member for Sandton also wanted to know what a “bona fide sports meeting” meant. A bona fide sports meeting is, as the hon. member for Sea Point said, a sports meeting where the common purpose, the main purpose, is the practice of sport. It does not include a picnic where some people happen to be playing tenniquoits or jukskei. Nor is it a bona fide sports meeting when a group of Blacks play darts at a bus stop while waiting for the bus. Whether there are ten or 1 000 Blacks, this is not a bona fide sports meeting.

The hon. member for Sandton also asked why I did not have the courage of my conviction to abolish proclamation 228 in its entirety. Proclamation 228 relates not only to sport, but to many other matters as well. I shall come back to this point later, in my reply to the hon. member for Langlaagte, who said that we were now throwing open all facilities. The criticism of the hon. member for Sandton is in fact that we are not repealing the proclamation in its entirety, but that we are merely removing from the proclamation those aspects relating to sport. This proclamation also provides for aspects affecting restaurants, receptions, drive-in cinemas, circuses, swimming baths, night clubs, roller skating and ice skating rinks, amusement parks, etc. These places are not all being opened, and the hon. member must realize that only sport is being excluded.

Which are the spheres that are being excluded?

It is only sport that is being excluded. The hon. member cannot argue with me about this. I want to tell the hon. member for Sandton that this proclamation falls within the terms of reference of the Strydom Committee, which will make recommendations on it, and on other aspects as well, including the question of central business districts.

Before I forget, I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Vasco, the hon. member for Bellville, the hon. member for East London City, the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for Witbank for their contributions. I am not going to reply to their contributions tonight. In fact, they have helped me reply. However, I want to thank them for their positive and constructive contributions, in which they refrained from making personal remarks.

The hon. member for Sea Point also asked me a few questions, and if I do not reply to all of them, the hon. member must repeat his questions in the Committee Stage. The hon. member wanted to know whether this Bill referred to occupation and right of ownership. No, the Bill clearly refers to “presence”. Moreover, the regulation also refers only to “presence”. This has nothing to do with ownership and refers only to occupation. Of course, I can issue a permit allowing people to own property in areas in which they are disqualified persons. However, when a sports club is established in a White area, these disqualified persons can only occupy it, but cannot own it without the necessary permit. This is the position.

The hon. member for Sea Point also had something to say about the Small Businesses Development Corporation. In order to provide some background information, I want to tell the hon. member that the shareholding of that corporation consists of R50 million obtained from the private sector and R50 million provided by the Government. In speaking of the corporation, therefore, it cannot be said that Coloured people can obtain a majority stake in it. Certain elements have been incorporated into the Small Businesses Development Corporation, including the old Coloured Development Corporation, which was later known under a different name. In addition, the Indian Development Corporation and the Small Industries Division of the Industrial Development Corporation have been incorporated into the SBDC. In future it will be the object of this corporation—as it used to be the object of the Coloured Development Corporation—to help Coloured businessmen, among others, to gain a foothold in business in their own areas in particular. This is the principal object. If the SBDC, in which the Coloured people have a minority stake, were to obtain an interest in a bottle store and Coloured people were to take over such a concern, it could not be operated in a White area without ministerial consent and without a permit.

The hon. member told me that he now understood that people could go to a club that had a liquor licence, but he asked what the position was with regard to clubs which did not have liquor licences. Would they be welcome there as well? They would be welcome there at the invitation of the club, as laid down in the legislation. They could only go there at the invitation of the club. The club is an intimate, voluntary association of people. A club is like a family: One has to apply for membership. There must also be a constitution. There must be rules and such a club also has its traditions.

What about Kelvin Grove?

Yes, such a club can admit or exclude Jews; it can also admit or exclude Boers. It is their prerogative. In the same way, it can admit Brown people and exclude Blacks. Therefore the autonomy of the club is being recognized here. Just as one cannot make laws to regulate the lives of private individuals, one cannot do it in respect of a club either.

The hon. member for Barberton and the hon. member for Langlaagte can invite as many Coloured people as they like to their homes tonight.

Suppose I do not want to?

There is nothing to prevent them. They can even have a drink together and can even swim together in their private swimming pools. I have no control over that; there is no legislation to prohibit it. He can also dance with them in his own house. There is no legislation which prohibits this. After all, we cannot make laws to regulate the lives of private individuals.

I come now to the hon. member for Umbilo. I have great appreciation for this hon. member and especially for the attitude he displayed here. It is true that the hon. member for East London City said: This is an hon. member who, thanks to experience, has got both feet firmly on the ground. Of course, he is also a bit of a jingo, like all good Natalians. They have to be. In addition, however, they are good South Africans. The hon. member spoke a very true word when he said that the SBDC would be of great service and would probably help the Coloured people to establish businesses in their own areas. This is so; the hon. member is right. He also said that the legislation as it is on the Statute Book today has harmed the country. Of course it has harmed the country. No one would want to argue with him about that. Not even the Independent Nationalists sitting next to him would want to argue with him about that.

The hon. member referred to the movements of sportsmen and women away from the sportsfields and said that there should be a kind of local option. To a large extent this is already the case today. The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism anticipated that matter last year when he decided that the licensed clubs could decide for themselves beyond the sportsfields. Local authorities can also decide for themselves. This is so; it is embodied in the Act which all those hon. members voted for. A club can decide for itself. But a club must have a constitution and must comply with certain requirements. In terms of section 27 of that Act, there are no fewer than 10 conditions with which such a club must comply. In such a case, where a club has decided that a man may come in and have a drink, the hon. member for Langlaagte has said: “I am opposed to drink,” just as he said during the discussion on the budget of the S.A. Transport Services, but here he voted for an Act which not only allowed a person to go to a club, but also removed the restrictions upon him and enabled him to enter a club and to have a drink there with other people. That is what the hon. member voted for.

You know I did not vote for that.

Of course the hon. member voted for it. How could the hon. member not have voted for it?

You should table the caucus minutes.

The hon. member for Umbilo went so far as to ask why the Government should take responsibility for all the problems and all the difficulties. Why not leave it to the local authorities and the sports clubs to decide these matters for themselves? The hon. member is right, and he is only saying what we all say.

I come now to the hon. member for Barberton. I shall reply further to the hon. member for Langlaagte at a later stage. The hon. member for Barberton alleged that the hon. member for Bellville had taken his stand on the Group Areas Act. This hon. member was only referring to the report by the committee of experts which had investigated this matter. On page 70 of its report, the committee says—

That was what the hon. member was referring to. And it is true. Originally the Group Areas Act was not used for regulating sport. This provision was only written into the Act in 1966, when we decided that it was necessary to regulate the sport situation. Then Proclamation 228 was introduced to give effect to the will of the legislature. The hon. member for Bellville alleges that the Group Areas Act originally had a different purpose, but this committee says that one cannot properly regulate mixed sport and sports clubs in terms of this Act. This is all the hon. member for Bellville wanted to say in this connection. The hon. member for Barberton says we are not giving anyone an option any more. Of course we are still providing an option. The Pretoria city council, for example, imposed restrictions on the Black people wanting to enter the Caledonian sports stadium in Pretoria. They have the right to do so, and they will continue to have that right. The Johannesburg city council entered into a lease with the amateur soccer club in respect of the Rand Stadium. This is a club consisting mainly of White people. However, they refused to enter into a contract with the professional soccer club, which consists mainly of Black people. In this connection, the Johannesburg city council and the Pretoria city council have local option. The hon. member cannot get away from that. What is happening in practice, however? The hon. member knows that hundreds of Whites go to Actonville where the Indians play soccer on Sundays. The hon. member has attended a soccer game on a Sunday himself to see the Black people play. Thousands of Whites go to watch soccer matches at Orlando Stadium every Sunday. This is the situation. Therefore the people must decide for themselves.

As far as the hon. member for Langlaagte is concerned, I find myself in a difficult position. He will not feel happy if I ignore him, and if I reply to him, he will not feel happy either. [Interjections.] I have listened to many speeches today, including those by the hon. member for Barberton, the hon. member for Sunnyside and the hon. member for Nigel. They also disagree with us, but they disagree with us in a different way. It is not necessary to be offensive or hurtful when people disagree with one another about something. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member for Langlaagte that it is not necessary for us to address one another in such a way across the floor of this House. He should follow the example of hon. members sitting in front of him. We must at least behave like civilized people. I have no option but to say that the hon. member for Langlaagte made an extremely disgraceful speech here today.

That is true.

Yes, and he cannot deny it. He made allegations and wild statements here which were devoid of all truth. I do not want to discuss them in detail at this stage, but he said, among other things, that the legislation had nothing to do with sport, and that its true purpose was to throw everything open. However, I have just pointed out to him that only sport is being excluded in this provision. Surely it is ridiculous to make such statements.

The effect of regulation 228 is not being removed from the legislation. All that is happening is that sport is no longer included under it. This question of bona fide sport only relates to bona fide sports clubs, and has nothing to do with the matters which the hon. member for Langlaagte tried to drag in here by the hair. Clubs other than sports clubs, in Rosettenville or anywhere else, are subject to the provisions of the Act.

Now I just want to put a few questions to the hon. member for Langlaagte. Earlier this year, during the no-confidence debate, I said the following in my speech (Hansard, 1982, col. 241)—

In the light of this, how on earth can the hon. member now say that he did not agree with the legislation which is before us tonight? After all, he was vice-chairman of the group, and I said on two occasions last year, and this year again, that I was going to introduce this legislation. The hon. member was sitting next to me at the table, and he supported it.

I never said I supported it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Germiston and the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, who were all members of the group …

You never said what the contents of the legislation would be.

Mr. Speaker, they were all members of the group.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he ever indicated what the contents of this legislation would be?

Of course I did.

You did not!

I told the hon. member for Langlaagte that we wanted to bring the legislation into line with the way things were being done in practice. After all, this is all that is being done here. The hon. member served in the group for all those years, but today he behaves in this manner. I do not mind if he disagrees with me, but he must indicate that he has changed his mind. After all, he is entitled to change his mind, and he has often done so recently. Since this is so, why is he ashamed of it now? [Interjections.] Here we have a situation in which the leader of the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. member for Lichtenburg do not agree with him. They cannot agree with him, because they were present in the Cabinet when this matter was discussed. They deliberated with us about it. As the hon. member for Barberton says, this will not get us very far, but really and truly, there are certain principles. I advise hon. members in those benches rather to quarrel with us about questions concerning which they did not agree with us. However, one must not sit in the Cabinet and in the caucus and support these things there, and then hold a different view a few days later. Where I come from, such a man is called a hypocrite (“tweegatjakkals”).