Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-11

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  You want the questions?

<UNKNOWN>: Questions and answers time.

CHAIRPERSON: Questions and answers, thank you very very much.  Hlengiwe, I guess you are the inquisitor.

MS MKHIZE: Thank you very much chairperson.  I've just learned something today, that business was not only about business but also, it's a mans' world.  Okay, come to a specific.  That comment was made in all seriousness.  Coming back to specific questions, in page three of your submission, right in the beginning you talked to a very very important policist
 In view of what was said this morning and I would like your explanation of that, the statement which was made that, business in general, collaborated with the government and in particular with the total strategy; and therefore, should be held responsible for gross human rights violation, especially the submissions from COSATU, Professor Terblanche this morning, clearly doesn't want to differentiate between English and Afrikaans business.  So I would like your comment on that.

MR MIDDLEMAN: Chairperson, I happened to be the originator of that 1960 statement.  In 1960, I was, I became president of ASACOM in '61; for the year 61, 62.  But I was the president of the Chamber of Commerce of Cape Town, 1959, 1960.  And I've got here the dates which I've just reaffirmed from my diaries that on 21st March in '60, there were the Sharpeville and Langa riots, Langa affairs.  On the 24th March, I was to have chaired a luncheon with Dr Norville, who was then the, whatever he was (unclear).  Instead of that I met in 19, on 21st March '60, an ANC delegation.  And then the state of emergency happened.  In April, we drafted the Cape Town Chamber, this statement, substantially; the statement that heads the submission.  It was taken together, it was taken to the Cape Town Chamber of Industries and we had a famous joint meeting on the 12th May where the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the two chambers, (unclear) the other sides collaborated, confirmed the statement.  It was then taken to the ASACOM executive meeting which was (unclear) here in May 1960 and ASACOM accepted it as it's policy and have never repudiated.  Now if you would kindly refer to the annexure to the ASACOM statement, you will see that, unfortunately it is far too much to read, but if you look at the 1960, where the resolution is stated again, then over to 1969; and we're speaking about ASACOM as SACCOB now, as an organisations.  We are talking here for the organisation.  There you see under the heading ' Bantu Laws and (unclear)',
" congress - that is the ASACOM congress - is opposed to the stated intention of the Minister of Bantu Administration, to introduce during the 1970 session, an amendment to the Bantu Labour Act designed to permit the introduction for (inaudible) upon the employment of Bantu in any particular area and any particular category of employment."
 So here we made a very clear statement, we didn't agree, we wanted government to change it.  Now if you go further down to '73, we said,
"You must review all restrictive legislation and policies which act as an artificial barrier to the horizontal and vertical mobility of such labour in South Africa."
Now you go to 1976, I'm giving this, as a consistency of ASACOM statement.  In 1976, the words 'fundamental human rights' appear in ASACOM's statement.  
"Under socio-economic conditions, convinced that the future, well-being and prosperity of the Republic of South Africa, depends inter alia upon recognition of the defective presence of all her people, their fundamental right, their economic inter dependence and their actual and potential contribution to the economy and quality of life in the country.  (unclear), then C, the evolution of a stable and contented middle class of all races with the vested interest in the well being (unclear)".
Here is a further statement again,

MS MKHIZE: Exuse me sir, if I may interrupt you, the reason why I even referred to this policy and many others is really because there's this tension between good policies and the problem, the perceived problem of racism.  And general complacency of organised business.  So the policies are really good, but  on the other side, one cannot explain, the prevalent pattern in real practice.

MR MIDDLEMAN: There was an authoritarian government under which we had to operate, so all we could do was to go against the perceived perception, to make it clear that we did not agree with it.

SACCOB SPEAKER: Chairperson, if I may expand upon that. The process of motions at congress' , reflected the collective opinions of the vast majority of the members.  The implication was that there was general support for the principles.  Many of the individual chambers then tried to ensure that the principles were carried out at various levels.  There were documents, like for example, the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce was manifesto for change, where we went out to companies and asked them to sign declarations foreswearing all forms of discrimination, wages employment etcetera, within their ranks.   So there was indeed an attempt on the part of business, of organised business, to try and encourage our members to follow the policies which we believed were morally correct, economically sustainable and politically expedient.

SACCOB SPEAKER 2: If I can add chairperson, the following on from the resolution that congress'.  Inevitably there would be contact between the office bearers, or appropriate committee members within SACCOB or its predecessors, interfacing with members of government and those interactions were reported to the membership.  So it was inevitably  an ongoing process of endeavouring to change their mind sets, to accord with the resolutions taken at the congress'.

MS MKHIZE: If I may.  Okay a related question would be, is the issue of government contracts, did it interfere with your liberty or  desire to, for instance, promote black leadership within their company?  Would you have lost some of the contracts, if you actively made sure that there was black leadership within SACCOB, which inevitably impact positively on all the community, especially the black community?

MR PARSONS: If one refers to page 37.  1985, the reform process in South Africa, motion.  What one talks upon the part of the motion, supporting the need for political reform in South Africa but believing that securing a new constitutional dispensation to accommodate blacks in decision making structures up to the highest level, has now become a matter of great urgency, etcetera.
 The third point is, it urges that the private sector should play a constructive role to facilitate a process of mediation and political negotiation.  It actually urged the members to play that role.  I can say that I attended delegations with government, aware of the fact that there could be actions against those of us who identified us with a cause which was not government policy, I don't think that ever deterred certain of our members.  To speak individually for all of them, I could not do; but I can say that certainly those involved in the movement, took great steps to ensure that the principles were put above profit.

MS MKHIZE: I would really repeat my comment that I, one cannot fault you, based what is on paper.  It's just that there are question marks regarding the reality, the development of the company.  Another question that I wanted to ask, is, whether SACCOB actively opposed the apartheid laws, besides those which interfered with your own immediate business interest.  I'm just thinking of other laws like detention laws, the influx control laws, pass law, all the laws which didn't interfere with your immediate interests?