Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the Second Reading debate on this Part Appropriation Bill on White own affairs was one of great diversity. Various matters were raised, and the hon Ministers of the Ministers’ Council did not respond to even one of them.

Yes, that is correct!

Each hon Minister of the Ministers’ Council came here with a prepared speech on completely different matters, and delivered it. I can draw only one conclusion from that, namely that for the governing party own affairs are of no importance whatsoever. [Interjections.] Of no importance whatsoever, Sir! [Interjections.]

Instead of replying to the matters that were raised, the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply told us that there were 28 schemes on which so much money in excess of so many million rands had been spent over a period of seven years. He had to combine seven years’ figures to arrive at a meaningful amount. When one divides the figure he mentioned by seven, the answer is a small figure that is the equivalent of a single amount voted for a single place last year, namely Soweto, to enable it to pay back its foreign loan. That is the extent of it. [Interjections.]

If one listened to what the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare had to say, one would have thought that to him the AWB was the most important White own affair. [Interjections.] That is the only subject he discussed. [Interjections.] On this topic the hon the Minister talked until he was breathless. Eventually, when he was completely out of breath he said that he would avail himself of another opportunity to reply to the matters that were raised in the Second Reading debate. He literally ran from one goal line to the other simply to find, when he arrived, that he had long since lost the ball. [Interjections.] To tell the truth, he never had the ball in the first place. [Interjections.] Then he said he would see whether he could get hold of the ball next time. [Interjections.]

Order!

The most interesting of all, Mr Chairman, is that in this debate, as has often happened before, Government speakers— I do not believe that they do this consciously; apparently they do it unconsciously—tried assiduously to present the CP as something completely different to what it really is. [Interjections.] It is a matter of life and death to them that the CP should appear to be something other than it really is. [Interjections.] What is incredible is that they try to present the CP as something which they themselves are.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, Sir, the hon member must sit still. What is incredible is that they try to present the CP as something which they themselves are, because they know they are being increasingly rejected by the voters. They also comprehend the reason for their rejection, and in all the things for which they are being rejected, they try to prove that the CP is the same as they are—it is ostensibly guilty of everything they are guilty of. [Interjections.]

I can easily list 50 examples of how they are trying to label us as something which we are not but which they, in fact, are. I shall mention only a few examples. The first one—the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare also tried to do it—is that it is being said that the CP is being influenced by some factor outside the party. The CP is ostensibly being influenced. They claim the AWB is influencing the CP.

I am telling them that no one influences the CP. We make our own decisions. [Interjections.] We have our programme of principles. I ask the hon members on that side to name any member who fought an election or a by-election on any of those aspects the hon the Minister mentioned yesterday. [Interjections.] We fight on the basis of our programme of principles. [Interjections.]

Order! I know the hon member has limited time available, and the hon members cannot carry on in this way. The hon member is being interrupted too frequently. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Sir.

Who is being influenced? It is that party that is being influenced, and the examples are legion. We well remember that article on the Council of Foreign Relations which appeared in 1980 and was written by Dr Crocker. In it he said, in 1980, that Dr Treurnicht and a number of his people should be expelled from the NP. Also in that article he said that a tricameral Parliament was on the way. He also said that there would be a Department of Constitutional Development and he even predicted who the Minister would be. Was that man born with a caul, thus enabling him to predict these things precisely, down to the finest detail, two years before they happened?

The following example is the document of the Afrikaner-Broederbond which states that a Black man can and may become State President of South Africa, and that the majority of the Government of South Africa will be Black. Gradually the hon members—that hon the Minister as well—echo this one after the other and say that this is what will happen.

Recently we had the Freedom Bulletin of the International Freedom Foundation that anticipated the economic programme and pre-empted the hon the State President’s announcement.

Because they are being influenced from an external source, they would like to suggest that the CP is also being influenced in this way, but it is in vain, because the hon the Minister dropped the ball, and in the same way they are all dropping the ball.

Another thing they do is to try to suggest that the policy we advocate is not really a reflection of our true objective. They allege that we actually have another objective involving Nazi-like aspects we are planning. Apparently that is the actual objective that we are going to realise later.

I want to know which party is, in fact, concealing its policy from the voters and has another policy that it is implementing. Today I am asking, with regard to the Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke constituencies, but especially Schweizer-Reneke, whether the NP candidate has ever mounted a platform anywhere and told the people that he had expressed an opinion in that regard, and that fantastic progress had been made because he could say at this early stage that we would have a Black President. No, he says nothing about that to the voters.

Has he told the voters of Schweizer-Reneke which hostels he had in mind when he signed the President’s Council’s report on the throwing open of university hostels? Did he say that he signed his name in favour of repealing the legislation on separate amenities? Did he tell the voters of Schweizer-Reneke which area of that constituency he had in mind for an open rural area where people of another colour could buy farms and start farming there? No, he did not. What are they saying there? They are saying that they stand for separate beaches, for separate residential areas and for all kinds of separate institutions. I ask the hon the Minister why he has not been to Schweizer-Reneke. Why has the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning not been there either? They do not want them there, because they are afraid that they will let the cat out of the bag.

I ask them if they have told the voters of Standerton, Schweizer-Reneke and Randfontein the following: “Look at our wonderful achievement with the release of Mbeki. We engineered such a fantastic peace that we have now only had to restrict 17 organizations; that is a splendid result.” No, Sir. That is the party which, when it arrives there, presents an image to the voters different to the one that it puts forward as its real objective, here and overseas, and that is why they are accusing us of doing that. [Interjections.]

They also try to label the CP as a vacillating party. The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare will, no doubt, remember the little pamphlet that I have here before me. It was signed by Dawie de Villiers and distributed in 1974. [Interjections.] Here he said a wonderful thing with regard to their policy.

[Interjections.] Was the hon the Minister a Nazi-type when he made this announcement? [Interjections.] He chopped and changed. The people who are now in the CP said those things then and are still saying them today. The policy he proclaimed then is our policy. [Interjections.] Yesterday the hon the Minister tried to give the impression that the CP was a Nazi-like party. [Interjections.] However, I want to ask whether that party was a Nazi-like party when it appointed an Ossewa-Brandwag general State President and Prime Minister. When it allowed him to be succeeded by one of his followers who was also a member of the Ossewa-Brandwag, was it then a Nazi-like party? [Interjections.]

The party that chops and changes is that party, which rejects everything that it ever stood for and now stands for what its opponents always stood for. [Interjections.] I want to raise a final point. There is a sedulous desire in that party to break down the leader of the CP because they know that he is inviolable and unimpeachable because of his incorruptible integrity and spotless career. [Interjections.] It sticks in their craws. I want to say something to that party in this regard. If the leader of the CP had as many faults as they make out, they would have been in the pound seats. It is their ideal that their opponents should have a weak leader, because then they would try to keep him right there. We do not try to disparage the leaders of the NP. [Interjections.] For us they are exactly right where they are, and we want them right there, because that will guarantee us a victory. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is always a privilege and a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Lichtenburg has spoken. He did a lot of fancy footwork, but he could not give the hon the Minister an answer. [Interjections.] He did his best; he turned this way and that. The hon member complained that the Minister of the Ministers’ Council had not replied. Is that not what he said?

But that is true.

Yet the CP has full confidence in these Ministers.

How do you manage that? [Interjections ]

The hon member will remember that the motion of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the no-confidence debate concerned the Cabinet, not the Ministers’ Council. One can deduce only one thing from that, viz that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says they have no confidence in the Cabinet, but do have confidence in the Ministers of the Ministers’ Council. I must say he did it very well today. He proved his confidence, but has not yet replied to one of the hon the Minister’s questions.

I want to ask the hon member for Lichtenburg a second question. I want to ask him whether he knows that the CP is a party that stands for reform.

Not your kind of reform! [Interjections.]

I should like to read to him from Die Noordwester of Friday, 19 February. A very esteemed, distinguished member of the CP, Mr J H L Visagie of Sterkfontein, said the following in a full-page advertisement:

A true policy of constitutional reform! Let us take a look at that policy! According to Hansard of 20 May, col 105, the hon member for Lichtenburg said, during the election campaign last year, that 10 to 15 years after the CP had come to power, 70% of all Black people would be living in their own homelands.

Now he complains about the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare, but does not say how those 5 500 people per day are going to be transported. [Interjections.] The hon member for Turffontein said the following about the hon member for Pietersburg in respect of this reform policy. I quote the words of the former from Hansard of 29 July 1987, col 2635:

It is a reform policy which says that no White farmer in South Africa can trust his title deeds, because when the hon members of the Official Opposition come to power, they will change the boundaries as they like.

The hon member did not reply to the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare when he spoke about the AWB either. It is true that according to col 3893 of Hansard of 14 August, he said he was in favour of the deliberate “verswarting” of cities such as Durban, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and other metropolises to promote the “verblanking” of a White state which should secede from the rest of South Africa.

It looks as though the reform policy—I must say it also looks as if that state has no coastline or harbour—has not quite been thrashed out by people on both the inside and the outside.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, I have another point to make.

There are mere incidental remarks in respect of constitutional reform from last year’s Hansard.

Did you quote Chris?

Leave me alone; I am innocent!

I was referring to the hon member for Bethal.

I want to broach a matter that is important to all of us in the House. I think I am talking on behalf of everyone in the House in saying we have immense sympathy with the families of the seven people who died recently and the two who are still missing in the disaster in the Orange Free State.

So far 650 people have been saved by helicopter and 350 tents have been pitched in the Orange Free State. As far as we know, no one in the Orange Free State was in serious danger by twelve o’clock this afternoon. At Jacobsdal the water level of the Riet River dropped by 2,5 metres overnight. Conditions have been stabilised, but they are still a long way from being normal.

I want to congratulate the JMC of Bloemfontein and that of Kimberley on their work, as well as the SA Defence Force and the SAP, and particularly want to thank the civil defence organisations for their co-operation.

I want to thank the hon member for Lichtenburg for what he said in the earlier debate in respect of the people who are working in the disasterravaged area. It means a great deal to those officials who are working night and day to normalise matters. I appreciate what he said about them.

There is really cause for concern in the Cape, because at this stage 304 houses at Ritchie along the Modder River are under water, and at Douglas the water level is still rising. By eleven o’clock this morning it was only 80 metres from the police station, which had to be evacuated. At this stage it is 300 metres from the prison. In Douglas 50 White houses are under water already. Another reason for our concern is that 10 500 cubic metres of water per second are going to reach Upington early on Saturday morning.

There is no doubt that what we have here is damage on an enormous scale. In Natal the damage already amounts to R400 million. I do not think it is going to be as bad in the Northern Cape and the Free State, but nevertheless we are faced by damage on an enormous scale.

†In closing I would like to reply to the hon member for Pinetown who said that we were not paying out the money that had been applied for, and that the application form had 11 pages. Is that true?

Yes.

The fact of the matter is that it has three pages. It did consist of 11 pages, but it is now an application form consisting of three pages. [Interjections.]

The other point is that we have already paid out 12 200 applicants, and we have posted 6 031 cheques in Natal, cheques to the amount of R7,2 million. I think therefore that the allegations that he made—I have his Hansard in front of me—are not only inappropriate, but also totally untrue. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville is not in the House…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to answer a question.

The hon member for Yeoville said that we should have a committee dealing with the disaster, consisting of members of the various political parties. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that he did not do his homework. He was in this Parliament when the fund-raising legislation was passed in 1978. In terms of that Act, disaster fund applications are scrutinized by a board. Seven of the 12 board members are from the private sector, and only five from the public sector. That is the first point. He was wrong. There are 25 committees in Natal which operate locally. They are all run by the private sector. That means that the private sector is being utilized to the full. [Interjections.]

I should like to ask the hon members of that little party if they would be so kind as just to do their homework before they start making allegations against us. I shall close by saying that that little party is unfortunately so occupied with their internal squabbling that they cannot do their homework. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, what the blazes that hon smiling Minister has to smile about as a Minister in this Cabinet, I do not know.

Be that as it may, however, I too came from Johannesburg yesterday and sat with the pilot while he flew over the Southern Free State and the Northern Cape. I was shocked and horrified by what I saw down below. As has been done in the past, I wish to say that the sympathy of this party goes to the people who have suffered, and our congratulations go to those people who are trying to bring some form of assistance to that area.

I want to thank the hon member for Parktown who was going to enter the debate at this stage for agreeing to stand back for me so that I could deal with something which I believe is of major significance to this Parliament and indeed to the country. I want to refer to the events of yesterday, and particularly to the proclamation of a new set of emergency regulations, and the decision of the hon the Minister of Law and Order to act in terms of them.

I am appalled that Parliament was just bypassed. I would have thought that an announcement should have been made in this House. I believe this is the place where that kind of announcement should have been made—not the kind of pie-in-the-sky or mother-love announcements that are made from time to time.

I want the attitude of this party made very clear to the situation that has arisen as a result of those regulations. We are appalled by this new restrictive regulations. We are appalled not only at the Draconian content of the regulations but also at the implications that they have for the future of our country. My immediate reaction yesterday to these regulations, without having had an opportunity to study them in detail, was that the restrictions were horrific in their content and very disturbing as far as their implications were concerned. I said they were a massive step towards authoritarianism and make a mockery of the Government’s claim that it was trying to broaden the basis of democracy. I said they were stark evidence of the failure of this Government to stop the process of polarisation or to provide any democratic alternative that could win the hearts and the minds of the people of this country.

I must say this. My colleagues and I have now had an opportunity to examine these regulations still further. We find that they are even worse in their content and implications than we thought they were yesterday. The ugly reality is that behind a facade of democracy this Nationalist Government is busy turning a once proud South Africa into a third-grade banana republic where the real power is not in the hands of Parliament; where the real power is not in the hands of the courts; where the real power is not in the hands of the people as a whole, but where the real power is in the hands of a restricted political clique who operate the security apparatus in this country. That is what is happening in South Africa, we should face up to it.

The restrictions of yesterday do not only deal with 16 organizations, one trade union movement and a few selected members of the public. The new regulations hang like a sword of Damocles over every organization and every individual who is concerned with the politics and the future of this country. They hang like a sword of Damocles over this Parliament. We as MPs should understand this.

At the stroke of a political pen—without a hearing, without a warning, without an advice— political expression, political activity, political association, even if that is lawful in terms of the current laws of South Africa, can cease to be a basic right of the citizens of this country. What is lawful in South Africa can cease to be lawful at the whim of the hon the Minister of Law and Order. Basic rights—I am not talking about privileges or hand-outs—of people to speak up and to mobilize themselves have been taken away. People can now be told they can do nothing, except what the hon the Minister permits them to do upon their requesting him to do so.

The Government in dealing with its reasons for the restrictions says it is dealing with the problem of the creation of a revolutionary climate in South Africa. Let us look at this for one moment. There may be many factors, internal and external, that are contributing to the creation of a revolutionary climate in this country, but even the hon members opposite will understand that nothing is a more potent creator of a revolutionary climate in South Africa than the failure of this Government to scrap apartheid and its persistence over 40 years in denying basic human and political rights to the majority of the citizens of this country. That is the cause of the revolutionary climate. There are other people exploiting it, there are other people using it; but this is the fundamental malaise, the fundamental problem and the dilemma of South Africa.

So far from ridding South Africa of a revolutionary climate we believe that this Government, not by banning illegal organizations, not by banning unlawful activity, but by banning legal organizations and lawful activity in South Africa is preventing what is today a perfectly legal expression of views. We believe this is going to fan the fires of conflict that exist in this country. Far from leading them into the hands of negotiators and moderates this Government is driving the people of South Africa into the hands of the revolutionaries. What is otherwise open, acceptable, legal although necessarily opposing political philosophy and action is now going to be driven underground in a way that we have never seen in the past.

As far as the restrictions on Cosatu are concerned I have no doubt that whatever the Government intend to do they will further polarise and politicise the trade union movement in South Africa. They will do that and they will assist those people who are trying to convert the political struggle in our country into a class struggle. This Government will be responsible for it because they do not have the common sense or the wisdom to understand that people must have a way of expressing themselves when they do not have the vote. How in heaven do they expect people to express themselves if they do not have a vote and when they are not allowed to come to this House? What self-respecting Afrikaner would have sat there and just allowed Lord Milner to say: you must come to me and ask what you may do, but you cannot have a vote or a say?

What this Government is also doing, is undercutting in a massive way those people overseas who are opposed to sanctions and who are still desperately hoping for peaceful progress towards democratic and representative Government in our country. I can imagine Neil Kinnock turning cartwheels of joy when he realises he has to face Mrs Thatcher in the House of Parliament tomorrow or the next day. What the blazes does this Government think it is doing? It also attacks Parliament because when it has laws which are beyond Parliament and beyond the jurisdiction of the courts, when a Minister can illegalise legal activities how can one expect people to have respect for the law? Does this kind of law deserve respect under these circumstances? How can one have respect for the moral authority of a government which acts in this way? Are we trying to play into the hands of revolutionaries or are we just busy playing Schweizer-Reneke/Standerton politics while our country is in a state of conflict? What respect can there be for a constitution or a constitutional process which permits this kind of action in the name of democracy? Is this the image of democracy that must be held up to the majority of the people of this country? Is this the kind of image the NP wants of “broadening the base of democracy”? Is this the face of democracy which the majority of our people see? How can Parliament operate under such circumstances? Parliament cannot operate in a vacuum. It has to take note of the feelings of people and the views of people. It has to try to be a reconciler. How can it take note of the views of the people who are not represented here if they are not allowed to express their views, if they are not allowed to mobilise or organise? How can Parliament fulfil its function against the background of these regulations?

Unless the Government Whips give me more time, I must conclude my speech on this serious subject. I say that these regulations are a monument to the failure of the NP.

Hear, hear!

They are a monument to the failure of a government that is incapable of winning the hearts and the minds of the majority of the people of this country. They are a monument to the failure of a government that has lost its way, its moral authority and its faith in a democratic future.

We are not prepared to see our country go down the drain while people in this House play Schweizer-Reneke/Standerton politics—serious though this may be. Yesterday was not only a dark day for democracy in South Africa; it was also a dark day for all of us and those individuals in this House—there are such individuals on the other side—who believe that our future has to be a future in which we are committed to peace and to fundamental and equal basic rights for all the citizens in our country.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I listened to the speech of the hon member for Sea Point and took note of what he said. While he was speaking, I tried to analyse certain accusations he was making against this side of the House. I do not agree with that hon member. The proof that the majority of White South Africans do not agree with him lies in the size of his party today.

Can you prove that of the majority of South Africans?

We are coming to that. We are trying to solve that problem.

You have been trying to solve that problem for 40 years!

Of course we are trying to solve that problem. [Interjections.] What is happening here today has successfully demonstrated the problem we have in South Africa as far as both opposition parties in this House are concerned. On the one hand we have a voice overemphasising the rights of only one part of the population. The Official Opposition emphasises only the rights of the White population. On the other hand another opposition party overemphasises Black rights in this House.

Everybody’s rights! Human rights!

Between these two we have to find a solution. [Interjections.] Because we are looking for solutions we cannot agree with them at this stage. The opposition in this House are part of the problem, because whatever change they want to effect in South Africa, they will have to have the approval of the electorate for. Up to the time that they can convince the majority of White South Africans…

White South Africans.

… White South Africans to give them a mandate to make that change, we shall be subject to the accusations which are made here because they are losing the battle in the field.

You are a racist.

No, I am not a racist, neither is my party. We are busy trying to sort out the problems among the races in South Africa. [Interjections.] Our whole record proves that.

If they disagree, you shoot or ban them.

I do not want to go any further with that, because I want to get round to the Official Opposition. The hon member for Lichtenburg accused us of not replying. I checked up on the speech the hon member made here, and also on the questions the hon member for Witbank asked in regard to agriculture. I was quite surprised when I heard this here for the first time, but in reading through it again to acquaint myself with the precise facts, my amazement grew, to be replaced ultimately by a sense of regret at having to reply to that aspect in this House.

What happened here was that although agriculture was specifically the theme of his speech, it was not specifically dealt with. The drought conditions were not actually brought into focus as a fact, emphasis being given to the so-called failure of the Government’s campaigns to help the farmers. No mention was made of the efforts of the various bodies and committees at finding a solution.

The hon member for Lichtenburg said that last year’s R400-million scheme to save farmers from sequestration was a complete failure. He did not, however, mention the other aid schemes. He did not thank the Government for having succeeded, under difficult circumstances, in keeping the rural areas going for seven years by way of expenditure totalling R2,4 billion. In his third reading speech he simply cast that aside. There is no expression of gratitude for all that assistance, but mention is made of the failure of the R400 million scheme. That scheme was not a failure, because if we had implemented it successfully, we would have sequestrated all the farmers who had participated and had them off their farms. So that is the success he is advocating. As the hon the Minister pointed out, our other schemes succeeded in keeping farmers in production, and 2 685 farmers, who would otherwise possibly have been sequestrated, were helped by way of production loans. That is not, however, what the hon member for Lichtenburg means. As a solution he referred to the establishment of a so-called consortium here. He said the Government was not able to solve the problems, but that this consortium would do so.

I said I was not commenting on that.

I find it quite surprising that he said he had read about that in other newspapers. Does he not read his own Patriot? A front-page headline in that newspaper reads as follows: “Gebrekkige hulp aan boere laat Transvaalse Landbou-unie ingryp.”

That is a good publication.

A good publication?

I am glad you acknowledge it.

I noticed—and was amazed—that they specifically mentioned the Transvaal Agricultural Union. Why do they not mention the South African Agricultural Union which has helped plan all the aid campaigns in regard to agriculture in the past? In the past we planned an orchestrated campaign including agriculture, the Ministry, organised agriculture, the co-operatives, the restructuring committee and the special restructuring committee. They, however, now suddenly mention only the Transvaal Agricultural Union.

In discussions with the President of the SA Agricultural Union this morning I asked for particulars about the consortium, because if there is a plan we can use to save agriculture, we must implement it.

He said he knew nothing about that; he simply read about it in the newspaper. So we are back with the Transvaal Agricultural Union. Why specifically the Transvaal Agricultural Union? Why is the Transvaal Agricultural Union mentioned in the Patriot and not the South African Agricultural Union? There is a reason for that.

And what would the reason be?

The reason involves an old recipe that the CP cooks up whenever it cannot get its way. The CP is a party which is not very fond of facts; facts confuse them.

And they confuse the facts.

Facts get them all mixed up. That is true, Sir! Let us, for example, take the facts about the removal of Blacks in this country. As far as they are concerned one must not come to light with the facts, but rather adopt an emotive approach—“We shall have a White country and on the other side there will be a Black country.” That is how the CP does things.

In agriculture we are faced with difficult conditions. It is difficult to make any plans. These facts mean that one cannot always put the plans one has devised into practice. The SA Agricultural Union weighs up these facts and devises meaningful plans for the solution of various problems. That is why we cannot, as the hon member for Lichtenburg says, write off debt, or imply that we should do so. In this context there are responsibilities that have to be met. No, Sir, that is not good enough for the CP, or in fact it is perhaps too good, but because the facts confuse them, they adopt a second strategy, an emotive one. They say that when they come to power they will, in some way, do away with the farmers’ debts. That is what they will do! It is not stated how they will do so, but there is a strong emotional overtone. So because they cannot take over the SA Agricultural Union, the following strategy begins to manifest itself: If I cannot take it over, I shall split it; if I cannot split it, I shall rend it asunder. That is the blood-trail in the CP’s history from the very start. When it could not take over on the political front, it split the NP.

We are going to take over.

They want to take over the AWB.

The CP divides and rends asunder. When the CP did not gain support in the rural areas, it shifted its attention to the cultural organisations. We have heard here how that party devised plans to take over the FAK. When it could not do so, it rent it asunder and established its own organisation, destroying everything that stood in its path.

You people drove us out! [Interjections.]

Let us go further. That was not good enough. Then the Churches were also involved. When they began messing around with the Church and could not get their way there, they started splitting it up and rending it asunder. That is the truth, and that is the blood-trail discernible there.

Now we come to agriculture, because the support of agriculture must also be obtained. Now politics is being used to isolate a fraction of the whole. All attention is focused there. What will ultimately happen? Agriculture will ultimately suffer. Agriculture will ultimately be destroyed because of inconsistent approaches within our ranks. The one is the emotional approach that tells pretty stories, whilst the other deals with the facts and struggles with the realities of the situation. That is the harsh irony of the situation and those are the problems we have in this country.

I want to go further with this discussion and attempt to answer a few of the questions. In this proposed consortium—and I take it that this also has the approval of the CP, because it is in the newspaper …

You said we did not have the facts. We shall therefore not comment.

Very well, but in regard to what is stated here, I should like to have facts to indicate how this will work, because it is interesting.

In this article specific mention is made of debts being taken over. I quote from the Patriot:

Please note, Sir, that their debt will be taken over by that consortium. Then, Sir, they come to light with the following statement:

That is precisely what is stated here, Sir:

The CP therefore wants to privatise agricultural credit. They want to take over debts. They want to privatise debt. That is actually what they are saying here. [Interjections.] But I thought they were opposed to privatisation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

No, Sir, I do not want to reply to questions now. [Interjections.]

Order!

So the CP now wants to privatise debt, Sir. [Interjections.] That is merely further proof of how illogically the CP sets about things. This Government is trying to privatise economic assets, which could make a contribution to the progress of rural areas—and also to the advancement of the private sector. In contrast, however, the CP wants to privatise debt. [Interjections.] To whose benefit do they wish to do so? They state:

They are referring here to the Transvaal Agricultural Union—

He is one of their spokesmen. Does this mean that here they want to involve the private sector more intimately in the farmers’ problems? Is part of our problem not specifically that the private sector has granted credit to people in the agricultural industry far beyond their ability to repay the loans? Now they want to make more of a sacrificial victim of agriculture. That is nevertheless condoned, and what is more under the Patriot banner, because here it is a question of emotions, Sir. It is a question of emotions. As someone previously said, when something appears in the Patriot, it is draped in a cloak of credibility, because clergymen are at the forefront granting their approval. [Interjections.] Yes, that is true, Sir. [Interjections.]

That is a scandalous remark! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of the Budget is also a clergyman! So what about him? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, we in this party vouch for the truth of our statements. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to a further aspect. In the hon member for Lichtenburg’s speech he made a very interesting statement in connection with the amount of R400 million. This relates to one of the many failures on the Government’s slate, that hon member said. He said that it had angered the private sector because the private sector was expected to write off debt, whilst the Government did not want to do so. That is what the hon member said, Sir. I now want to know from him whether we should write off the debt owed to the State by the farmers. A deathly silence, Sir. When the time comes to give an answer, it is the facts that count, not emotion. The hon member cannot reply to this question. He cannot reply off the cuff, because there are certain consequences involved. It is therefore not that simple a matter.

So if it is not that easy to reply, why is it so easy to make such statements? This aspect of writing off debt is a dangerous little game the CP is playing, because in doing so they create expectations that cannot be met. There are no methods for doing this whilst, at the same time, being fair to either the taxpayers or the other farmers who do not have any debts in this country. We cannot continue with these subterfuges. So what the hon member for Witbank says is perhaps true, ie that in talking to the maize farmers in the rural areas he has found that the NP is losing support. That is perhaps true. The NP is losing support because this emotional onslaught is perhaps gaining votes for the CP in the short term. Farmers, however, are people who deal with facts. They can be misled by emotive appeals for a time. In the long run the realities and the facts of the situation will nevertheless put paid to the misleading politics and strategies the CP is engaged in. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon members on this side of the House who took part in the debate for the answers they furnished. I think many of the loose threads were drawn together in this way and that conclusive answers were furnished to the allegations made by the opposition parties.

The hon member for Lichtenburg’s reaction here this afternoon was clear proof of the CP’s vulnerability on the question of the AWB. [Interjections.] The hon member was agitated. He launched attacks on several fronts. I could not keep up in my attempts to write down everything he was referring to. He neglected, however, to answer the one important question I put yesterday. Apparently it is the hon member’s standpoint that when one cannot win one’s argument, one simply keeps on talking. Just keep on talking! I should like to ask the hon member rather to come forward with a few simple questions about things on which we cannot differ with one another. Will he answer my next question? Are any of the statements I made about the AWB yesterday wrong? No reaction. Are any of those statements wrong? Sir, the hon member is shrugging his shoulders. [Interjections.] He is shrugging his shoulders. If they are not wrong …

I did not make a study of the AWB!

If the hon member has not made a study of the AWB, I suggest he do so, and quickly too.

The question I want to the put to the hon member is the following: If the statements I made are not wrong, why does the CP indulge the AWB? Why do they protect the AWB; why do they accept the AWB as being their own? Surely the CP does not approve of an anti-parliamentarian standpoint. No, it does not, but it does approve of those who want to introduce an anti-parliamentarian system in South Africa, ranging themselves quietly alongside the CP. The AWB, as an anti-parliamentarian party, wants to use the CP’s access to Parliament to destroy the parliamentary system. [Interjections.]

I believe there was a time when the CP did not want to break with the AWB; now they cannot. The hon member must analyse the questions I put once again. He and his party would do well to justify their conduct to themselves as far as that aspect is concerned.

†The hon member for Sea Point advanced certain arguments in regard to restrictions introduced by my colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order. The arguments advanced by the hon member can only be debated in full in a broader debate in which the present security position can be analysed and explained, and where the reasons for the restrictions can be fully debated. I would, however, like to make one point. [Interjections.]

Will there be an opportunity to do so?

I want to say that without law and order no reform is possible in this country. I am sure the hon member for Sea Point will agree with that. There are forces in this country which would like to make South Africa ungovernable. I am sure the hon member will agree with that statement as well. He will agree that there are forces in this country that would like to make South Africa ungovernable, people whose only objective is to destroy whatever chance of reform there is in this country. [Interjections.]

They would prefer democracy.

The hon member says they would prefer democracy. The kind of democracy they prefer would not be acceptable even to the hon members of that party because it is their kind of Marxist democracy that they would like to introduce into this country. [Interjections.] All I want to say is that the Government cannot allow the situation in South Africa to reach a stage where the country becomes ungovernable. Should that happen, any hope remaining that peaceful change is possible in this country would also disappear.

Mr Chairman, I should like now to deal with a matter standing over from the Second Reading debate. I promised the hon member for Yeoville that I would reply to his questions and I shall do so now even though the hon member has tendered his apologies for his unavoidable absence here today.

The hon member for Yeoville asked a number of questions in relation to the funds allocated to the Administration: House of Assembly in respect of special work creation projects and which were not fully utilised. Since this matter has also been referred to in the Press I should like to make a full statement in this regard. Insofar as this is a rather technical explanation, I trust that hon members will bear with me.

The questions followed the report of the Auditor-General in respect of general affairs for 1986-87 which was laid upon the Table in Parliament by the hon the Minister of Finance on 11 February 1988. In the Auditor-General’s Report it was stated that an amount of R16 million had been allocated to the Administration: House of Assembly for a special job creation programme, and that only R10,5 million thereof had been spent. It was reported further that an amount of R17 million had been made available to the Administration: House of Assembly for housing and housing-related projects, and that only R8,5 million of this amount had been spent.

The report of the Auditor-General does not contain all the facts in regard to these matters. I therefore wish to outline the factual position so that any possible misunderstanding in this regard can be eliminated.

Although an amount of R16 million was allocated to the Administration: House of Assembly for job creation, the full amount was not appropriated in the administration’s estimates for 1986-87.

An amount of R15 million was allocated to the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply for job creation while provision was made for a net amount of only R10,2 million on the department’s Vote for this purpose. The balance of R4,8 million had to be recovered interdepartmentally from the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and was reflected as such in the printed estimates of the Administration: House of Assembly for 1986-87.

As constant care has to be taken to prevent too much money being budgeted for, the hon the Minister of Finance decided on this method of providing the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply with allocated funds for job creation. The balance of R1 million was divided among the other departments of the Administration: House of Assembly.

In the meantime it has been confirmed that the Administration: House of Assembly actually spent R15,9 million of the allocated amount of R16 million, which leaves an unspent amount of only R100 000. This indicates exceptionally good financial planning, and I am sure that hon members will not have any objections about that sum.

Concerning the amount of R17,7 million provided in 1986-87 for housing and housing-related projects and the reference to the amount of R8,5 million which was spent, it must be remembered that this project was announced only after a large part of that financial year had already elapsed. The Administration: House of Assembly was only informed on 28 August 1986 that the amount of R17,7 million had been allocated for this purpose.

The Department of Local Government, Housing and Works succeeded in launching sufficient projects. As the department received its allocation after five months of the financial year had already elapsed, the projects could not be completed during 1986-87 due to various factors, for example the time necessary for planning and construction.

In this regard, the following aspects should also be pointed out. According to the procedure followed during 1986-87, it was not possible to complete the final planning of projects before funds had been allocated. Final planning consists of the compiling of working drawings and building lists. Depending on the nature of a project, planning can at times take longer than six months, while the calling for tenders is a timeconsuming process because tenders close six weeks or longer after the publication of the relevant advertisements and are valid for a further three months, during which period they can be considered for acceptance. After a tender has been allocated and a contract concluded, the building contractor has to arrange for guarantees before the building site is handed over to him. Depending on the capacity of the construction firm and the quantity of work on hand, it can take another month or more before the actual building operations commence.

Other elements which can delay the completion of a building contract are, for instance, the builders’ holiday in December and January and weather conditions.

All the abovementioned factors make it difficult to determine in advance what the actual expenditure on a building contract for a specific period will be.

There were additional complications in respect of most of the projects financed under this special provision for housing because they were approved a long time ago. This resulted in tender prices in general being much higher than those submitted when loans were approved, and replanning was therefore necessary to keep expenditure within limits. Furthermore, the allocations in the relevant financial year could not be utilised by local authorities because payments are coupled to the progress of the building operations.

The unspent balance of R9,2 million was reallocated in the 1987-88 financial year towards projects which could not be completed in 1986-87. This means that the total amount of R17,7 million allocated to the Administration: House of Assembly for this building programme was, in fact, spent. I am satisfied that everything possible has been done to accomplish the objectives of this stimulating package.

*In the time I still have left, I should like to touch briefly on another matter.

I believe that as public figures, hon members will agree with me that any public figure has the experience, at some time or another, of his words being incorrectly quoted, of incorrect deductions being drawn from what he has said, or of an incorrect interpretation or meaning being attached to what he has said. There are few things that upset a public figure as much, and rightly so, because one feels as if one’s standpoint is being falsified and one’s integrity assailed.

For that reason one should be very careful when quoting people. One should be very careful not only to quote them correctly, but to quote them in the correct context. That applies to all of us.

There is another form of quotation which I find just as reprehensible. That is the technique of quoting people in such a way as to create the impression that they endorse or support one’s standpoint. This is usually done in respect of well-known, influential or esteemed people in the community. That person is then quoted or referred to in such a way as to create the impression that he agrees with one’s standpoint. One is left with the impression that if that person had been present, he would actually have endorsed one’s standpoint.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is a master in the art of this latter technique. The hon the leader has the knack of quoting people in such a way as to create the impression that those people, in actual fact, endorse his standpoint.

In the no-confidence debate and the reply to the no-confidence debate, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to Luther and Calvin, and even quoted N P van Wyk Louw.

Anyone who has studied N P van Wyk Louw or has read his works, and read them in context as they were written over the years, will know that the world of N P van Wyk Louw is far removed from the standpoints of the CP. One cannot associate N P van Wyk Louw with the policies of that party in any respect. [Interjections.] N P van Wyk Louw saw South Africa as a country of diversity and of different communities. He also saw a close bond between those communities, however.

Hon members should go and read the three works compiled by Prof Frans van Rensburg, a student of N P van Wyk Louw for many years. Naturally there was growth and development in the thoughts of N P van Wyk Louw. As circumstances changed, he gained new perceptions.

To quote N P van Wyk Louw, however, and simply to apply his words to today’s conditions, is to read N P van Wyk Louw out of context. To go further, and quote a drama written by N P van Wyk Louw, in which different people speak and different people assume different roles, and to ascribe that quotation to N P van Wyk Louw, is truly to read N P van Wyk Louw out of context.

It is very enlightening to look at the works of N P van Wyk Louw, however, and since the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition took the liberty of doing so, I am also going to quote certain N P van Wyk Louw passages for the information of the House. I quote from Liberate Nasionalisme in which Van Wyk Louw spoke about the crisis a people can experience. He described this crisis as “wanneer die volk tussen die engtes kom”. I quote:

Dan kom hy voor die laaste versoeking—om te glo dat die blote voortbestaan verkieslik is bo die voortbestaan in geregtigheid.

This was what N P van Wyk Louw said. In the same excerpt he said:

[Interjections.] Exactly! It looks as though the hon member agrees with us and with N P van Wyk Louw.

Let us listen to N P van Wyk Louw on matters a little closer to the political sphere. In 1960, during a later stage of his life, N P van Wyk Louw wrote a foreword to the book, Die Opkoms van ons Derde Stand, by the then Rev, now Dr, D P Botha. What N P van Wyk Louw said in this connection was very enlightening:

What about his Black brother!

Order! The hon member for Overvaal is making completely unnecessary remarks. The hon member will desist.

N P van Wyk Louw continued:

He also said something that is very interesting, because it concerns our politicians:

Unfortunately time does not permit me to quote any more interesting extracts from this work by N P van Wyk Louw.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also quoted Luther and Calvin, however, and claimed that they endorsed his standpoint about resistance. When one talks about Luther and Calvin with reference to protest or resistance against the Government, however, what is most important, yes, what is most important of all, is the fact that these people did not live in a democratic dispensation. They lived in a time when the public was at the mercy of the desires and fancies of monarchs and kings. There was no way in which the citizens could call the kings to order in those days. Even in those circumstances, both these church reformers, Luther and Calvin, displayed the utmost reticence and hesitation when it came to resistance against the state. It is a distortion of the standpoints of the reformers to pretend that they approved of resistance to the government on the basis of the interests of the threatened people, to use the words of the hon leader.

He distorts everything!

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: When the hon the Minister spoke about “distortion” and referred to my hon leader, one of the hon leaders of the NP, the hon member for Benoni, said: “He …” meaning the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, “… distorts everything”. I contend that he is not entitled to say that and must withdraw it.

Order! What did the hon member mean by that? Did the hon member mean the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had distorted the facts knowingly? That is important.

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Calvin does not mention violent resistance anywhere; in fact, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion he made it very clear that the same honour and respect was due to the good kings as to the bad kings. He wrote this in a dispensation in which he knew the general public had no way of being heard. In contrast, the CP is part of a democratic system in which democracy has expressed itself very clearly on certain matters to which they are opposed.

That hon leader spoke about resistance, and quoted Calvin and Luther in support. Dr Adelberg-Scholtz, chairman of the Kommissie vir Leeren Aktuele Sake of the Western Transvaal NG Church Synod, studied the standpoint of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Hon members can read about this in Die Burger of 17 February. He used references to show that the standpoint of the hon leader differed essentially from that of the church reformers. Yet the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition boasts of having the same views as Calvin and Luther. I am afraid he shares the views of Beyers Naudé and Alan Boesak. [Interjections.] As far as these matters are concerned, I rather want to appeal to all hon members to fulfil the words of Van Wyk Louw, so that “alleen die geregtigheid wat God eis, en die noodlot van ons nasie, Blank en Bruin, sal taal kry”.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal is making speeches from his seat. If that happens again, I am going to ask him to leave the House.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a third time.

Order! Before the House proceeds to the discussion of the hon member for Ermelo’s motion, I want to make the following announcement.

I have been informed by the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs that a fire broke out, at approximately 10h00 this morning, in the roof of the Parliamentary buildings above the main dining room of the House of Assembly. The automatic fire-prevention system was activated by the heat and the fire brigade of Cape Town was on the scene within minutes.

The fire was soon extinguished and the cause of and damage occasioned by the fire are being investigated. A contractor of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs was engaged in waterproofing activities on the roof at the time the fire started.

The dining-room unfortunately suffered water and smoke damage, but mopping up and repair procedures were immediately effected in order to make it available for use as soon as possible. Alternative arrangements are being made to minimise the inconvenience to members.

Thanks are due to all who rendered assistance. It was encouraging to note what quick and orderly action was taken to contain a situation that could have had serious implications.

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

We move this motion in the knowledge that it refers, in fact to what is giving rise to concern among our people who support this party. It is also arousing resistance among them. We move it, too, in the knowledge that it is not only our supporters who are concerned about the crowding-out that is taking place—many supporters of hon members on the other side of the House are also concerned about this.

We believe that this is how the majority of Whites in this country see the matter. When I say this, I also say it in the knowledge that at the recent NP congress in Transvaal, certain hon members on the other side of the House, during the discussion of the Group Areas Act, also expressed their concern about what was happening in their particular areas. I refer, inter alia, to the hon members for Bezuidenhout, Langlaagte and Turffontein. In making this statement, therefore, I believe that there is really no problem about the fact of crowding-out and that we are in agreement about this. We also put forward the idea that steps must be taken to rectify the matter. We believe that we may differ in this regard with hon members on the other side of the House, but we shall put forward proposals in this regard.

I am going to focus mainly on the aspect of residential areas, and other hon members will, for the most part, discuss other related aspects such as separate facilities, the security situation and squatting.

As far as open residential areas are concerned, I wish to say in the first instance that at the time of the proposals submitted by the President’s Council, and the reaction to them last year on the part of the State President, I was struck by two things to which I should like to refer. In the first place, it is mentioned in the introduction that the proposal by the President’s Council that provision should now also be made for open areas, is acceptable. At that stage it was said that there was a reason for making provision for open areas. The reason was advanced that there are indeed people who want to live separately, but there are also people who have the need to live in an open, mixed or “grey” area. I contend that that is not really the reason; that cannot be the reason. That is purely a cloak behind which to hide the failure to implement the Group Areas Act. The real reason for the acceptance of the idea of an open area is to be found in the failure to act in the past; those areas that are already mixed, are now simply being recognised.

I contend that there can be no question of a need for open residential areas. Moreover, the so-called open residential areas will, in all probability, result in nothing if not the complete crowding-out of one race by another. That will be the end result. [Interjections.] The chosen path by which to resolve the problem of crowding-out is the wrong one. I say this, inter alia, with reference to an enquiry carried out in 13 different cities in America. Experts carried out investigations in those 13 cities to determine what happened when an effort was made to have a mixed group of people living together in an area. In Finansies en Tegniek of December 1987 there is an article on the report of these experts. They state, in simple language, that residential integration in America does not work. What in fact happens is that one group moves in and becomes predominant, and that the other group moves out en masse.

I quote a few extracts from the article:

They also make another statement:

The conclusion drawn from the research is that residential integration does not work. The NP wants to create mixed residential areas by way of their proposals. This is an effort that cannot succeed, because the one group will crowd the other out completely.

Secondly, the hon the State President said that until such time as the NP came up with legislation—whenever that might be—the law had to be strictly applied. The acceptance of open residential areas must not, at this point, be regarded as a licence to disregard the Groups Areas Act.

This reminds me of a previous occasion when the then Minister, Mr Pen Kotzé, said that they were going to apply the law strictly. In October, however, the hon the State President also warned that the Act would be strictly implemented. What has happened since 5 October in regard to implementation of the Group Areas Act? I can best reply to that question by way of an example that is indicative of exactly what is happening everywhere in the country.

I refer to a report in Die Vaderland of December 1987—I have referred to this before—concerning a couple by the name of Kruger who were one of 35 families evicted from their flats to make way for Black people. The NP was affected by this couple and reacted to this. If I read the report correctly—hon members can look at it themselves—the NP states, inter alia, through its chairman in Hillbrow—not merely the chairman, but the party in its official capacity—that they, too, are opposed to the crowding-out of Whites. However, what are they doing about it? In the light of what the hon the State President, the most powerful man in this country and the highest authority, had to say, one would have expected the NP to implement the Act immediately, because that was the express warning. What, however, is the official standpoint?

Die NP het met ’n veldtog begin waar ’n beroep op handelaars en eienaars van woonstelle gedoen word om met die opbou van die gebied te help.

That is all; nothing more. They are not implementing the Act now, and they are therefore not doing what people depended upon them to do.

We have already said in this House that we have no reason to have any confidence in the assurances that are given, and this is proved here. The plight of the Krugers is also the plight of innumerable others. We want to know how the interests of the Whites will be looked after after they have been consulted about the future of their residential area.

In view of the total crowding-out which is occurring, in the first place in the urban areas, and which also ultimately takes place throughout the country in the bigger towns, we want to know today what is going to happen in regard to 40 000 Black people in areas such as Hillbrow and Mayfair.

Are those Black people to be relocated, or will the Whites be relocated? What is going to happen? How are they going to be relocated? What about their interests?

Now I wish to state why I am asking this. I asked the hon the Minister of Law and Order to be present, but he has a good excuse, because he is in a different House. However, I am going to tell hon members why I asked that question. Last year the hon the Minister addressed a meeting in Valhalla, which is in his constituency, and I quote how he was reported:

Read a little further:

Do they agree with that?

What is happening now? No one is looking after Mr and Mrs Kruger. No one tells them that they will be evicted because they have no alternative accommodation. They have been sleeping under a blanket in the backyard of the place from which they were evicted for nine nights! Do they have alternative accommodation? That was not asked when they were evicted, but it becomes a question asked when the Group Areas Act has to be applied. The other day the hon member for Langlaagte told me that there was a court case that required this. It is right that that should be so.

However we have drawn up a draft amending Bill which has already been introduced. That Bill will solve the NP’s problems. Now we ask the NP today whether they are going to support us. Before a Black man can be evicted he must have alternative accommodation. What about the White person who is unlawfully crowded out, in that a person who is breaking the law compels him to leave his home without action being taken against this offender? Now we ask whether the NP is going to support us in regard to this simple law. They must make their choice, because this crowding-out is a reality of the times.

It is our view that there is something far deeper behind this matter. We believe that the real reason why action is not being taken here has to do with the difficulties that the Government has in escaping its problem relating to the constitutional solution in this country. The NP’s plans have run out of steam; it no longer has any plans. The NP now simply has to get the co-operation of the other groups. It has to get them around the table, but one of their conditions is that the Group Areas Act must be abolished.

What are the indications? What is going to happen? We say that the indications are clear. A condition for co-operation and discussions at a round-table conference set by the Coloured and Indian parties as well as the other people they want there, is that the Group Areas Act must be abolished.

The Government now goes on to state that it must not be a prerequisite, but that it must be a point on the agenda. What is the third indication of what is going to happen? The Broederbond has already decided, Sir!

Who?

The Broederbond has already decided! The Group Areas Act …

Who told you that?

It is stated in a document I have before me. That hon member can read it if he wishes. The other day I quoted from it. The AB has already decided, Sir! The Group Areas Act is unnecessary. Grey areas may be allowed. This has already been decided. We are talking about a government behind a government. The hon member for Lichtenburg recently asked a question in this regard. Here we have an example of it.

This has already been decided. So there is nothing strange in the fact that while the hon the Minister of Law and Order finds himself in the situation that the hon the State President does not even know what a grey area is—apparently he only knows what a grey hair is—that hon Minister was speaking about grey areas as far back as May 1987. Now I wonder whether he is not perhaps also a member of the Afrikaner Broederbond. After all, it knew about grey areas in advance. We are merely asking. [Interjections.]

What are the further indications relating to the future of the Act? We say that there is every indication that the Groups Areas Act is going to be abolished. There is another reason for that of course, Sir. It is, moreover, the most important reason. On the path which the NP has taken, the path which it has chosen for itself, the path of one South Africa, there is no moral basis for the continued existence of the Group Areas Act.

Correct!

This Act does not have a moral basis, Sir, and I do not say this on my own authority; I say it on the authority of the hon the State President himself. He tells us that once he has brought in the non-Whites—and they are sitting with us here in these highest debating chambers, and drinking tea with us and being entertained by us—the Group Areas Act no longer has a moral basis. When all these things are happening, how can we still speak about a separate community life? How can we speak about that? Surely that is true, Sir. It really is true. Now no one must give me the ridiculous answer that there are certain communal and certain own affairs. That is not the answer, Sir. It is a question of the moral foundation of this matter, and when the moral foundation is not there, the cause is lost.

When I recall that the hon the State President is also to be chairman of the national council, I can imagine what else will happen. He is sitting there, and the other people tell him he must say where they are headed; and what is going to happen— what then? When they tell him that the Group Areas Act must be abolished, they will certainly remind him of his own pronouncement, namely that there is no moral basis for the retention of that law.

Repeal!

Yes, repeal! That is what they will tell him, and he will have to accept it. We therefore contend—and I shall let this suffice— that when, in 1989, the situation has arisen that the general election which must be held, is postponed, we shall be able to tell the public at large that there is one thing they can be sure of, and that is that the Rev Hendrickse has been reassured that the Group Areas Act is going to go, that it will no longer be applied; that it will no longer exist. Only then—either because that Act is no longer to be applied, or because the Rev Hendrickse has been given a promise, or because that Act will no longer exist—there will be a postponement of the general election to 1992. I shall let that suffice, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, from the outset the hon member for Ermelo assumed that there would be unanimity regarding crowding out, as he put it, because the NP has also had occasion to express concern about contraventions of the Group Areas Act in specific places.

Sir, I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon member. I cannot agree with him about crowding out—in any case not in the sense in which he views it. From the speech of the hon member it was, after all, quite clear that he also considered the mere presence of Black people in large numbers in specific areas as crowding out. However, these are the facts, the realities of South Africa. In addition there is not only a difference of opinion regarding the remedial steps which have to be taken to combat this crowding out. There is also a difference of opinion between the hon member and me regarding the forms which this alleged crowding out assumes. There is also a difference of opinion regarding the causes of this crowding out.

There is also a difference of opinion regarding the ways in which this crowding out must be dealt with. I am therefore sorry to say that I cannot fall in with the wishes of the hon member that there be unanimity between us regarding crowding out.

This afternoon the hon member for Ermelo emerged here as a worthy successor to a former member of this House who was good-naturedly given the nickname of Madame Rose because he was always looking into a crystal ball and then making predictions. This afternoon the hon member for Ermelo also made so bold as to make predictions regarding what was going to happen, how the Group Areas Act was going to be abolished and how we would then systematically move in the direction he spelled out. [Interjections.] Of course I disagree with the hon member because this is nothing but daydreaming.

In his motion the hon member alleged that increased crowding-out would take place in the following spheres, namely those of residential areas—the hon member confined himself mainly to this in his speech—as well as recreational facilities, uncontrolled squatting and so on. In my speech I shall concentrate more specifically on the alleged increased crowding-out in respect of recreational facilities. Other hon members on this side of the House will elaborate on the other spheres to which the hon member referred in his motion.

It is a well-known fact that the maintenance and preservation of separate community life for all population groups is NP policy. This side of the House therefore does not need a motion such as that of the hon member for Ermelo to confirm its standpoint in this regard. If, and to the extent to which, an increased crowding-out of Whites may take place, this will indeed be in conflict with the policy of this side of the House.

Let us now take a closer look at this supposed increased crowding-out, particularly as regards recreational facilities. In respect of recreational facilities the following irrefutable facts and realities must be taken into account. In the first place, it is a fact that in the past recreational facilities were developed mainly by Whites to meet the recreational needs of Whites. The recreational needs of the other population groups were considered to be very modest and little, if any, provision was made to meet these needs.

In the process the Whites vested an exclusive interest or right in the recreational facilities which had been developed, and according to the policy of this side of the House, this interest or right should be recognised and protected. Let there be no doubt about that. It is, after all, declared NP policy that vested interests and rights may not be ignored.

A second fact is that owing to rapid urbanisation and the increase in the educational and socioeconomic standards of living of other population groups it was unavoidable that their need for recreational facilities and opportunities would increase sharply.

Equal separate recreational facilities have been and are, if at all possible, being established for other population groups in accordance with the policy of this side of the House. As a matter of fact, it has been shown that the only real protection of White recreational facilities against crowding-out by members of other population groups lies in the establishment of sufficient equal facilities for them. It is, after all, a natural inclination or tendency of members of all population groups, if they lack facilities of their own, to make use of the facilities of another population group, in spite of the fact that they, or the vast majority of them, would also prefer to relax among their own people.

The fact that over the years there have been virtually no problems in the Southern Cape as regards the utilisation of recreational facilities, may be ascribed to the fact that it was realised years ago that the only way of preventing crowding-out by other population groups at White recreational areas was to establish equal and adequate recreational facilities for them.

But that is CP policy!

It is strange that the hon members say that this is CP policy, because it is this side of the House that has been governing this country for 40 years. [Interjections.]

Order!

As regards this matter, it is the NP which has governed the country on this basis for 40 years. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is all very well if this is CP policy. Then it is a good indication of the soundness of the policy of this side of the House.

And what about Durban’s beaches?

Order! I have called for order a number of times, and I mean it. There are hon members of the Official Opposition who are still going to speak, and they can then take the argument further in an orderly fashion. The hon member for Mossel Bay may proceed.

In recent years there have been few, if any, problems in the Southern Cape as regards the utilisation of recreational facilities. The few incidents which did take place were politically inspired and extremely artificial.

It is, however, also a fact that physical and financial limitations prevent us from providing equal recreational facilities for use by members of all population groups in all cases and throughout the country. Simply to refuse to allow members of other population groups to use existing recreational facilities under these circumstances would be neither fair nor tenable.

The unavoidable consequence was that specific White recreational facilities had to be made available in an orderly fashion, and without the crowding-out of the Whites, for use by members of other population groups.

A third fact I want to point out is that in accordance with the Government’s policy of devolution of power, the responsibility for the admission of members of specific population groups to specific recreational facilities, for example beaches, has recently devolved on local authorities to an increasing extent. In this way more attention is given to the attitude of the local community towards the admission of members of a specific population group to specific recreational facilities.

A fourth fact is that the sensible, responsible and fair handling of a sensitive issue did not suit or satisfy the radical elements on both sides of the political spectrum. They made it the subject of their radical politicking.

The left-wing radicals went out of their way to encourage contraventions of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, to hold demonstrations, to bring about confrontation and to create incidents. If that is what the hon member was referring to in his motion, we could live with that as something which did not meet with our approval either.

However the hon member saw his way clear, on the basis of the confrontational politics of leftwing radicals, to try to present this side of the House in an unfavourable light as far as the voters were concerned. That is what the hon member is trying to do in his motion. As a matter of fact, he expressly alleged that the crowding out resulted from the NP’s failure to take action.

In other words, he is blaming the alleged crowding-out on the NP instead of admitting that we are dealing with confrontational left-wing politics and adopting a standpoint against this left-wing confrontational politics. Now he comes along and blames this side of the House, saying that it is because of their failure to take action.

The hon member’s motion requests that remedial steps be taken against the supposed increased crowding-out. However the hon member neglected to indicate what remedial steps he had in mind. I am now asking the hon member specifically whether he agrees that the provision of equal, separate recreational facilities for other population groups constitutes the only effective and fair remedial step. Does the hon member agree?

I only spoke about the one aspect.

Now the hon member is keeping quiet.

No, I am not keeping quiet.

Mr Chairman, if he were to reply in the affirmative, then they could not once again censure this side of the House tomorrow, saying that we did everything for, and gave everything to, the non-Whites. They want to keep all their options open so that they can steal a march to the left and to the right, as it suits them. What remedial steps would the hon member and his party take if they had to deal with the situation?

We would merely implement the laws of the country.

The hon members say that partition is the solution. According to them partition is the solution to all problems. Where would the recreational facilities, and specifically the beach facilities, for Black people be, according to their partition model? [Interjections.] They can surely only be somewhere in Natal or somewhere in the Cape. They must be somewhere along the coastline of South Africa.

The hon members will not tell us where, because their partition plan is nothing but political deception. As a matter of fact, the hon members are not considering a division of the country in their partition plan.

On the contrary, their standpoint is that the partition or division has already taken place in the form of the national states and the TBVC countries. For that reason they are adopting the standpoint that Black people have their facilities in the national and the TBVC states. Why must facilities now also be offered to Black people in what they consider to be White South Africa? This story that partition is the answer, is therefore merely a deception. That is why it is not possible for the hon member to tell me where the recreational facilities for Black people will be when their partition policy is implemented. He himself does not yet know where and how partition will take place. He is not sure whether we are heading for a Boerestaat, while the rest of the country will be occupied by the other population groups. Nor does he know whether we are heading for a Coloured homeland for the Coloureds and an Indian homeland for the Indians.

The hon members are trapped in the“cleft stick” of the AWB’s policy and the policy they initially advocated. [Interjections.] They have not yet reached a decision as to whether the AWB model or the original Coloured homeland model will apply.

I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon member, but I cannot support his motion.

Mr Chairman, I should like to side with the hon member for Ermelo and oppose the idea of anyone, of whatever race, being crowded-out where he lives or where he relaxes. It is never pleasant for anyone who is accustomed to space to find that owing to changed circumstances he must share that space with others, whatever their number or their race.

However, I want to take the hon member for Ermelo to task for approaching this problem of crowding-out, which is a universal problem, from an exclusively White standpoint. It is for this reason that the motion of the hon member lacks moral fibre.

South Africa is a very large country. It is a fortunate country, a country with enough space for all its inhabitants. However, it is also true that there is no suggestion of a fair apportionment of this space, either residential space or recreational space, among the different population groups.

The wording of the motion of the hon member for Ermelo refers to the traditional levels of community life of the Whites, from which they are now being crowded out. I want to suggest that we must not simply accept that what is traditional is either fair or moral. In fact the historic development of the discrimination of apartheid is catching up with us, and increasingly showing how untenable that system is. That is the reason why the hon member for Ermelo found it necessary to introduce such a motion in the House today. A situation which was traditionally acceptable is no longer acceptable owing to the pressure of circumstances, and because circumstances have started to change, without the Government necessarily doing anything about it.

In that connection the Government did not take the lead in reform, but the reform followed upon changed realities. It is as a result of this that the hon member for Ermelo introduced such a motion here today.

I want to tell the hon member why, in my opinion, they are now complaining about crowding-out.

They are complaining because there is such a drastically unfair apportionment of residential and recreational space in South Africa. It created such tremendous congestion and crowding in those areas, and with regard to facilities reserved for people of colour, that when a residential area or a recreational facility which was initially reserved was thrown open, the White who made use of that facility or lived in that residential area very soon experienced the pressure which was originally only experienced by the Blacks or Coloureds who initially had to remain in their own area. So the crowding-out experienced in such an area which is thrown open—whether this is done by law or merely owing to pressure—is the final, irrefutable proof of the gross injustice which apartheid has inflicted and is still inflicting on the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa. This is final proof that the residential areas and facilities created for people of colour are so hopelessly inadequate and inferior that at the slightest opportunity those people move to the open areas, whether or not they are legally open, as I have already said.

One need only read what the law has to say about this. It is important to consider the morality of this kind of thing. I think section 3 of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act gives us a good idea of the cynical approach of apartheid, in spite of the fact that mention is made of separate but equal standards. Section 3 contains an absolutely cynical approach. It is a very long section, but what it basically amounts to is that the reservation of a separate amenity for Whites, for example, will not be invalid simply owing to the fact that no amenity whatsoever exists for people of colour, or that the amenity which does exist for people of colour is hopelessly inadequate or inferior. That is what this Act says.

That is disgraceful.

One should really feel ashamed that in the history of this country such a section ever appeared on the Statute Book, and it is still there. However, I hear the Government does have plans to do something about this at some stage or other, because that is what the hon the State President recommended. However, we must accept that this section in the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act not only appears in the Act, but is also applied in practice, and not only in respect of separate amenities. It also applies in respect of group areas and Black states.

The other day the hon member Prof Olivier issued a challenge to the CP with regard to partition. He said that if they were prepared to divide up the country and give the Black people the opportunity to choose, he would accept that they were sincere as regards partition. I think I can issue the same challenge to the NP, and of course also to the CP, with regard to group areas. If they were to make the division and give other people the right to choose, that would be another matter; then one would see to what extent there was any sincerity in their claim that separate residential areas or own communities—no matter in how modern or fine a way this is described— were in any way morally acceptable, even from the point of view of those hon members.

It was interesting to listen to the hon member for Mossel Bay. He actually tried hard to agree with the hon member for Ermelo. He tried hard to agree, but then said it was actually unnecessary to say so.

The hon member finds himself in a dilemma, and I must say I do not sympathise with him. As a matter of fact, the NP finds itself in the position that it has a reverse-gear ideology. This is a matter it has been faced with for 40 years now, and from which it is trying to escape. It does not know where else to go either. There is no conviction or vision, and there are probably no two hon members on that side of the House who are agreed on what should be done about group areas and separate amenities. I can say this to hon members, because there are some of them who are frank with us. They complain to us about the Group Areas Act because they do not like it. Other hon members in that party act as spies and report people who contravene the Act because of unpleasant conditions, because of pressure or because they have no choice.

At least we do not spy on the Police.

They report those people to the Police so that they can be prosecuted and evicted from their homes.

We do not spy on the Police.

Order! The hon member for Hercules has now made a great many interjections. The hon member for Green Point may proceed.

What about the practical circumstances? There is sometimes crowding-out, and it is a problem. In Cape Town the beaches were thrown open. In practice the beaches were open long before anything was done about this statutorily. This was one of the things which happened because of population numbers. A few lessons were learnt, and I think we are over the worst of those problems. There are still complaints here and there, but basically it is working well. The most important of the lessons learnt is that if one throws open a little beach here and there on a selective basis, one must realise that the tremendous population pressure which the Blacks and the Coloureds have built up, is going to be released in a small area. Everyone must then go to one or two small beaches. A new problem is simply being created elsewhere. We must get rid of the beach reservation process entirely. In this connection I specifically want to issue a warning regarding the Government’s plans to create open group areas here and there. They will be cutting a rod for their own backs. The Group Areas Act must be repealed, because if an open area is created here or there, it is not going to work. If there is an open area in Cape Town, one in Johannesburg and another here and there, the population pressure existing in Soweto will move to Hillbrow, and the population pressure in Guguletu and Khayelitsha will move to Woodstock. That will be of no use at all. It will merely make matters worse. We must get rid of this legislation so that people can find their own level and pull their weight in society. It has been proved that it can work, and it is working in certain places in South Africa, in spite of the legislation.

Last year the hon the Minister of Law and Order denied that a survey had been undertaken by the SAP in suburbs in Johannesburg. Since then he has realised his mistake. They undertook a survey there themselves and there are 20 000 families living illegally in the centre of Johannesburg in spite of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] This is one of those realities they cannot do anything about.

I think we must keep one element of reform in mind. Every time apartheid legislation is removed from the Statute Book or there is reform in South Africa, this is always preceded by large-scale contraventions of that legislation. People have contravened and ignored that legislation on a large scale. I maintain that the Group Areas Act is in that position at the moment. The Group Areas Act is in a pre-abolition state. I hope the Government accepts this, because it realises this is the case. That is why the Government is unwilling to take strong action. It knows that it is fighting a losing battle.

Mr Chairman, I wondered why the hon member for Mossel Bay, the hon member for Innesdal and the hon member for Langlaagte were present in the House today. Now, however, it is clear to me. The hon member for Mossel Bay cannot go to Standerton because the people will believe that he is in fact propounding CP policy. The other two cannot go because they have put us so far ahead by now that the NP simply cannot afford to send those two good workers of ours there again. They propound the NP policy as it is and open people’s eyes.

Hear, hear, Chris! Well done!

The one very interesting aspect of the speech by the hon member for Mossel Bay was that he never referred to a mixed or open beach. He referred to a beach which had been given to the Blacks or to the other population groups, and to beaches or facilities for the Whites. Why did he not refer to the new trend— the beaches that have been opened to everyone? Surely that is no longer the old policy of apartheid for all, which the NP used to propound, but a new policy.

He goes on to say that this is a sensitive matter and that there had been no problems in the Cape. According to him the only problems that had ever occurred here were caused by a few radicals. Was the Rev Hendrickse a left-wing radical when he went to swim there? We should like to hear whether he thinks that the leader of the Labour Party is a left-wing radical.

We cannot hear!

That hon member will never be able to hear anything in his lifetime. If he removes that stuff from his ears, he may be able to hear. [Interjections.] Let us hear whether the Rev Hendrickse is a left-wing radical, who caused problems.

I wish to go on to speak about these open areas that are now being created. I think that the NP, and to a large extent all of us, have a wrong approach to certain aspects. It is not true that we simply condemn everything that those Blacks do on the beach at Durban because they are different. It is nothing strange for them to go and swim bare-chested or even completely naked.

Have you been to Clifton yet?

That may be part of their culture, as Beau Brummel and certain people want to do at Clifton as well. The issue is not whether they are White or Black; there are certain people who want to do that. There are certain people who do not find fault with that, and I do not say that it is a sin. However, there are also people who think differently about it and who do not regard it as the ethical norm according to which we live. [Interjections.]

Order! I have spoken to hon members of the PFP as well. The hon member may proceed.

Those people accept, as certain Whites do, that they can walk around bare-chested. It is not acceptable to our party that this may be done in public. If the hon member is so satisfied with the bare chests and everything that happened there, then he will probably also approve of the sex that took place in the swimming pool.

Oh really, man, you are frightened of everything!

Do you agree with that?

Yes! The PFP have never adapted moral and ethical values to the norms that we as Afrikaners know. We are speaking about the crowding out that takes place at places such as the beaches at Durban and the parks in Ellis Park, which preceded that murder. The children of Mammon then propose that we levy entrance fees at these places. They buy their apartheid. A fence is erected around the park so that the people of colour may not enter. Similarly, fences are erected around the houses and walls and are topped with stakes. Everyone establishes a laager. We are always being accused of a laager mentality, but it is usually the wealthy capitalists who are the first to form a laager in order to protect themselves in their small area. [Interjections.]

Hon members may not like what I am saying, but I have been informed by higher authority that I have the right to say it. I have heard that hon members will also be asked to remain silent, because as long as I do not insult them, it is my privilege to speak in this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

There are people who think they can buy their separateness. They think that by fencing in a park and asking an admission fee, they will get only a certain group of people there. They think that in that way they will keep the Blacks out or get only the wealthy Blacks there. I hope that it does not happen in my lifetime that we in South Africa begin to discriminate on the basis of wealth and poverty. [Interjections.]

That is where this idea of Mammon will lead— how many pieces of silver can you pay to share in certain facilities?

Buy your apartheid!

I just want to refer to what the hon the Minister of Budget and Welfare said in a previous debate. He said “survival must not become so overwhelming a priority that it becomes more important than survival with justice”, that it will take the place of the concept of a just existence. I associate myself with that completely, because I do not think that survival should become an obsession, one of survival at all costs, without taking survival, with justice, into account. That is what we on this side of the House want to devote our energies to achieving—survival with justice as far as the other person is concerned, but for ourselves as well. However there can be no survival with justice if we do not also consider the matter of justice for our own people. We have been elected to this House in terms of the Constitution, and here we represent the Whites. Do not, therefore, always take it amiss of us when we approach certain matters from a White point of view. The Coloured has his representative who states his side of the matter.

And there are a lot of them sitting here, too!

They are paid for it, just as we are paid to state the case of our people. That does not make us racists! We do not begrudge those people their facilities at the sea, but we say that they must be separate, and not open and mixed facilities.

The hon member for Mossel Bay said that the Whites had paid for them and that they had established rights. It really sounds to me as if he may be a member of the AWB, according to what they say about the AWB, because even I am not so extremely right wing.

Hear, hear!

It is true that one should recognise the fact that facilities have been created by the Whites and that the Whites have paid for them. I do not say that the Whites should not also pay for other facilities for the Blacks, but I do say that the Blacks must also begin to make a contribution. We cannot always simply pay for them too.

I wish to go further. As far as this policy of the redistribution of wealth is concerned, I should like to see what is going to happen in the year 2000 or 2020, when nothing more can be divided among the eight million Whites and the 80 or 120 million people of colour. What will be the position then? Will it be possible then to require admission fees to enter a beach or park? The time has come for us to give serious consideration to some of these aspects.

It is said that there has been an unjust distribution of the land. We can debate that, but I want to say to those hon members that 52% of the country’s people live on 3% of the surface area of the country, in the PWV region. Therefore it is not simply a matter of surface area, etc; there are other factors that also play a role. I know that their argument is that only 13% of the land has been given to the Blacks, but as I say, 52% of the people live on 3% of the surface area of South Africa. Therefore let us also consider the potential of a specific area before simply writing the whole thing off and saying that it is too little or too much.

We could debate the issue of numbers and that kind of thing, but if we do away with the principle that every people is entitled to its own territory as its power base, then we as a people in this country have no future and no prospect of survival. We can become part of another nation and become something else. That could happen, but then we cannot survive as we have done up to now, as a people on its own.

Well said, Chris!

That is what we are fighting for and that is why we want to prevent our being crowded out and pushed out in every sphere; why we want to prevent Hillbrow being conquered, and the next day having it spill over into Bezuidenhout, and for Bezuidenhout then to be conquered; so that the Whites are eventually—as the hon the Minister of Law and Order said—moved out.

The Blacks can no longer be moved, but the Whites are indeed being moved. Those areas first became grey; then they became black. Ultimately the Whites had to be moved. Surely that is what is happening. What I ask is that we all give due consideration to this matter. I believe that we must retain separate facilities for all. We must do away with these mixed facilities because in the long run this will be a stumbling block. It will cause trouble.

In a lighter vein, Sir, there is something I wish to tell the House. During the past December vacation, at certain places things occurred that not everyone will associate themselves with. People even urinated on beaches. At one point a Nationalist came to me and said: “Man, I have been urinated out of the NP into the CP by someone who did that against my leg.” [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bethal said he found it strange that the hon member for Mossel Bay, the hon member for Langlaagte and the hon member for Innesdal were not in Standerton. I wonder why he and the hon member for Ermelo are not in Standerton now. It is after all their neighbouring constituency, is that not true? [Interjections.]

I can tell you people now that we are going to win Standerton by about 3 000 votes! [Interjections.]

They are sitting here today and asking us why we are not in Standerton. Does the radical right-wing party have a problem with their presence in Standerton? Or what is going on? [interjections.]

It is also extremely meaningful that two of the authors of Witman, waar is jou tuisland? are the Official Opposition’s spokesmen in the debate on the motion that we are discussing at the moment. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, this radical rightwing opposition has a problem. Less than 50% of all White voters who voted for the CP in the last general election believe that the policy of the CP can work. This is a scientifically proven fact. A survey was done to back up the statement I am making.

Pie-in-the-sky policy!

Less than 50% believe this policy could work. More than 50% say: “Forget it! It cannot work!” They have a problem. The Official Opposition has a problem. Some of the 50% who still say this policy could work are causing yet another problem. They are also divided down the middle.

Who carried out this survey?

Some members of this party say that separation is the answer. Partition is their answer.

What is your source of information?

Others say secession is the answer. They therefore advocate separatism. This party has two faces—the face of partition and the face of separatism. Today we are listening to the face of separatism.

The hon member for Ermelo chooses his words very carefully when he says he is not a registered member of the AWB. In the no-confidence debate he stumbled over his words to make sure that he said he was not a registered member of the AWB.

An appendage!

He first of all said he was not a member of the AWB. Immediately after that, however, he corrected himself and said he was not a registered member of the AWB. I wonder if he is not perhaps the patron of the AWB. [Interjections.] This idea of separatism involves secession from the rest of South Africa and has been brought into this House by the hon member for Ermelo. This all relates to the motion that we are now discussing, because in absolutely every aspect it affects the solutions to the problem that the CP will suggest.

There are two different solutions as far as the CP is concerned. The CP is a party with two policies, and also two different solutions as a result of this. I am going to come to that this evening.

My! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Ermelo, I say, is the one who introduced into the CP the idea of secession from the rest of South Africa. Last year in the third reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill he managed to get his hon leader, the hon surrogate leader of the CP to use the word “secession” four times in that same debate. He never spoke of partition at that stage.

Order! Who is the surrogate leader to whom the hon member is referring?

Mr Chairman, I am speaking of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Order! He is not a surrogate leader; he is the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon member may proceed.

Very well, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

That really was very nasty of you!

Order! The Chair does not need any assistance from the hon member for Overvaal in maintaining order. I shall appreciate it if he will refrain from doing that again. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

The hon member for Overvaal should tell us one day why the executive committee of his constituency took him to court and why the entire executive committee of his constituency resigned.

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE; Order! I cannot find anything on that in the motion.

And now you are lying to the House.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal will withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir, and I say it is a complete untruth.

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE; Order! I am asking for an unconditional withdrawal and nothing else.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

The two hon members of the Official Opposition who spoke are coauthors of the paper Witman, waar is jou tuisland?. The hon members for Bethal and Ermelo uphold two very important standpoints here. Firstly, they say, group areas in South Africa make no contribution. They also say the practical implementation of separate development should therefore be reversed; the White people should be moved. The partitionists in that party say the Black people should be moved out to these mixed areas, but the separatists say the White people should be moved. This is the solution that is being put forward by these two hon members. When they have partitioned off the “Boerestaat” and moved the Whites into it, the rest of South Africa will remain as a large grey area. That is there black on white in the document of which these two hon members are the authors.

The only thing on which the two factions in that party agree, however, is whether one has to move the Whites or whether one has to move the Blacks, if one cannot do so by means of persuasion it must be done using bulldozers and machine guns.

The NP states that it does not help to bluff the voters in South Africa any longer. We must admit that there are mixed residential areas in South Africa that we are not going to be able to separate. There were various investigations into that and that is the standpoint of the NP. There will be the Woodstocks, Hillbrows and parts of Mayfair that we simply will not turn White again, but this must not blind us to the fact that there are thousands of other residential areas where Whites will be able to exercise their vested rights in terms of the assurance that this Government is giving them.

The hon member for Ermelo says that these mixed areas will eventually become Black. I am very inclined to agree with him on that score, and there is not much on which I agree with him. In my opinion there is a possibility that there are probably going to be transitional areas where as a result of socio-economic factors within urban areas, a process is going to take place according to which groups of other colours who belong to lower socio-economic groups will move into these ageing city areas. The NP also states that new mixed residential areas could also arise, but we say to our people in South Africa that their vested rights will not be affected. That is why I cannot support this motion.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Ermelo spoke briefly and very vociferously on the subject of the Durban beaches. He referred to what did and did not happen on these beaches, and to what should and should not happen to restore them to the liking of the CP. In other words, he advocated separate, very White beaches. I believe therefore that it is appropriate that I too address the Natal beach issue today.

Allow me to begin by saying that it is clear to everyone in this House that the PFP is totally opposed to racial discrimination of any type in any circumstances, and this was yet again pointed out very ably today by the hon member for Green Point. Our attitude applies as much to the beaches as to any other aspect of our lives.

The Executive Committee of the Province of Natal recognised the importance of non-segregated beaches as long as five years ago and fortunately, despite a change in the formation, structure and membership of that committee, the policy adopted in 1983 has not changed. That committee’s argument for open beaches was based on the Sea-shore Act, No 21 of 1935, which lays down that the sea within South African territorial waters and the sea shore, that is the area below the high water mark, belongs to the State.

It is held in trust by the State President for the use and enjoyment of all the Republic’s inhabitants. There are two stretches of beach which are exceptions to this rule. One is a stretch of beach at Richards Bay and the other is the Durban stretch of beach from the Umgeni River through to the Point. I will deal with the Durban beaches later on in my speech.

The Natal Executive Committee, quite rightly, in terms of the Sea Shore Act of 1935, has insisted that the Natal beaches be opened to all. It is interesting to note that, after this decision was taken last year, no signs of racial conflict took place on any of the many Natal beaches during the course of the recent holiday period or at any other time last year, other than the one exception at Mtwalumi where a Mr John Ellis—fortunately no relation of mine—took the law into his own hands and tried to bar people from access to the beaches, apparently to protect the rights of the residents of that area. Needless to say, the people who were barred were people who were not White. This obviously led to a great deal of publicity and small demonstrations and, in fact, it was the actions of this Mr Ellis which created a racial issue where no issue would have occurred had he followed the law.

Must we then legislate and must we discriminate to protect the selfish interests of isolated racists? I wish to draw the House’s attention to the statement issued by the Natal Executive Committee on 17 February 1983 and which was reaffirmed by this committee in January this year. It states:

This party endorses that statement, not only with regard to the beaches but also to all areas of life.

The Durban beach issue is a different issue in that the city council does, in terms of the Sea-Shore Act, No 21 of 1935, own a stretch of sea shore from the Umgeni River to the Point. It requires a change in the bylaws to open the beaches to all races because the city’s bylaws had previously reserved different parts of this beach for use by different population groups.

A major decision was taken by the Durban City Council last year to open the beaches from the Umgeni River to the old West Street Pier. This was a decision taken after months of consultation and meetings, held not in the council chamber but in the Mayor’s Parlour, where apparently frank and open discussions took place. In the end the beaches were opened when a full meeting of the city council voted by 26 votes to 2 in favour of their opening.

The opening of these beaches received the backing of the Natal Executive Committee and proved successful despite the fact that a small minority of people, the John Ellises of this world, found it necessary to kick up an enormous fuss and have now called for the beaches to be declared White once again. I note with sadness, but not surprise, that the CP too have called for the Natal beaches to be declared White. This is the same kind of thinking, the same kind of narrowmindedness, which led to this particular motion appearing on the Order Paper—the motion that we are debating now.

The reality of the situation is that the only trouble on the beaches of any real significance over the entire holiday period was the overcrowding in certain areas. There were no incidents of racial conflict and it was generally conceded that the situation was much quieter than in 1986 in this regard. The editorial in The Natal Witness of 28 December 1987 read as follows:

The Daily News of the same date made this comment in its editorial:

Then this very important statement is made:

Certainly overcrowding caused problems, but they were problems of a practical nature and were certainly not racial problems. Practical problems are easily solved; we can, for example, have more permanent facilities provided in order to prevent a concentration of people in small sections of the beaches where the major recreational facilities are found. In addition we accept that the City Council of Durban will have to give attention to the litter problem and the traffic problem, particularly at times of overcrowding. The fact is that overcrowding only takes place on five days of the year, and those are public holidays.

If I may say too, the reality of the Durban situation must also be taken into account. Five years ago only 4% to 5% of the Durban tourist industry was Black; today it stands at more than 20% and is growing rapidly. Furthermore, from Salt Rock on the North Coast to Umkomaas on the South Coast, there are more than 2 million people, in fact, nearing 3 million people, who use the facilities of Durban. Of the economically active people in the Durban functional area at least 50% are Black, and yet the appeal is made to keep Durban’s beaches White.

It is a known fact too that for many years the beaches have been gradually desegregating themselves, and, therefore, to declare the beaches open was simply a logical step and a mere formality. However, it would seem that in the face of an onslaught by a small but vociferous part of the Durban White population, some of the Durban city councillors are retreating from their previous decision to declare the beaches open. This may be in the face of the municipal elections to be held later this year, but regardless of the reason it must be clear to them, as it is to by far the greater part of the Durban population, that there can be no going back on the decision to open the beaches, and it is merely time and common sense that will see to it that the remaining beaches reserved for use by Whites only are opened as well.

It must be accepted that much of the problem of the overcrowding of the beaches must relate directly to the Government’s policy on Black housing, Black residential areas and the provision of recreational facilities in these areas. The Durban Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce summed up the situation to some extent when they said in their weekly newspaper, The Information Digest of 23 January 1988—

The truth of the matter is not only that these people wanted to taste the hitherto forbidden fruit, also that they were at last given some recreational facilities which they could actually use, because certainly back in their townships they had none whatsoever. The Government has been grossly negligent in providing worthwhile facilities for Blacks. I should like to know how many swimming-pools, tennis courts, squash courts, sports fields, picnic areas etc exist in Black townships in the Durban area, and in South Africa. Where they do exist, they are extremely few and far between and totally inadequate for the large population in the areas concerned. Living in such conditions the people are obviously going to be attracted to the magnificent facilities suddenly open to them.

As my colleague, the hon member for Green Point, has stated, Cape Town experienced these exact same problems when its beaches were opened for the first time. These problems do not exist in Cape Town today, and they will not in Durban either once the people have learnt that racial harmony, rather than racial friction, flows from open facilities.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban North attempted to justify what took place on the beaches of Durban, and he will pardon me if I do not follow him in that argument. The CP is not able to follow the logic of the hon member for Durban North with regard to what happened on the Durban beaches. [Interjections.]

What is perhaps more important is to react to what the hon member for Sasolburg was saying.

I want to refer to two quotes in connection with this. In the first instance he says: “The NP realises that it can no longer bluff the voters”. This of course implies that at one stage the NP was bluffing the voters and now all of a sudden it has come to the realisation that it can no longer do so. I therefore ask the hon member with all respect whether he does not want to go and state that standpoint which he made here in Standerton, in Schweizer-Reneke and also in Randfontein. Then while he is about it he can go and tell the voters to what extent the NP has been bluffing them. [Interjections.] In the second instance the hon member for Sasolburg has made the significant concession that mixed residential areas will eventually become black. In other words we have a situation in which these residential areas which will become mixed residential areas will not remain mixed, but will become Black residential areas. I want to make this point, and I do not think the hon member for Sasolburg or any other hon member on this side of the House can deny it, that this is a typical example of this crowding-out which this side of the House referred to. If a mixed residential area becomes a Black residential area, it means that total crowding-out of the Whites in that mixed residential area is taking place.

I now want to discuss squatting as a form of crowding-out. With the arrival of reform the Government not only placed South Africa on a destructive course as far as the constitution is concerned, but it also abolished measures in the social sphere as a result of which deficiencies have been caused and chaos has resulted. One particular example in this connection is the abolition of the influx control measures. Surely no one can deny that Blacks can now go where they want to, live where they want to and work where they want to. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the following in a speech which he made on 23 April 1986:

He also said:

If the influx control measures are abolished surely there is no alternative but that it must of necessity result in the crowding-out of the Whites.

What is the cause of this state? I want to mention a few Acts that have been abolished or amended by that side of the House. The abolition or amendment of these Acts has been the direct cause of the crowding-out of Whites taking place. They are Act No 25 of 1945—the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act—Act No 18 of 1936, Act No 29 of 1972 and Act No 67 of 1964. These are Acts that have been abolished or amended by that side of the House under the policy of so-called orderly urbanisation, however, today we want to know, and it is with urgency that we ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning whether squatting is also orderly urbanisation.

You are talking rubbish now!

What rubbish is that? I asked the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to say whether squatting was also orderly urbanisation. If there is such a thing as orderly urbanisation, I assume that there is also such a thing as disorderly urbanisation.

With squatting we are not only dealing with an ecological problem, but also with a social problem.

The official figures that were published last year were that there were 1,35 million illegal squatters living in South Africa. [Interjections.] The figures that have been published by other institutions such as the Inkatha Institute …

What is the source of your information?

I shall still come to my source of information, in other reports it has already been stated that in Natal alone there 700 000 illegal squatters. Last year the figure 1,3 million was given to us in reply to a question. Some sources even allege that there are 1,5 million to 2 million illegal squatters in South Africa at present. The question is, what is the NP going to do about this? What is their intention as regards this illegal squatting? Is it going to be cleared up or is it not?

Unfortunately the hon the Minister of Law and Order is not present to hear the disturbing announcement I want to make. However, the hon the Minister of Justice is present. I have in my hand a telegram which was sent to the police of Vereeniging. “Col Van Kasterhof aan Vereeniging”—the heading of the telegram is “Plakkers”. It was also sent to Grasmere and Pinetown. In it the police are told:

This is the way in which the Government encourages the crowding-out of Whites in this country, to say nothing of combating it. We want to ask that side of the House if it is their policy to send telegrams to the police in which they are called upon to refrain from prosecuting people with regard to squatting.

Who sent the telegram?

What is its context?

The telegram was sent by Col Van Kasterhof to the police of Vereeniging, Grasmere and Pinetown. We on this side of the House now want to know if the contents of this telegram are correct.

Who is the sender?

I have just said it was Col Van Kasterhof. Do hon members on that side of the House deny that instructions were given to the police not to act against squatters? If what is contained in this telegram is the truth, we want to ask the hon the Minister of Justice who is present here, and also the hon the Minister of Law and Order, to reply to this at some point. They should tell this House, the general public and those who are affected by this whether instructions were given to the police not to act. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Justice should say if I am wrong, but the impression that I got from the answers given to questions is that no instructions are being given to attorneys-general or to any other institutions to take action. [Interjections.]

What were the circumstances? [Interjections.]

Order!

What do you think are the consequences, not only of the NP’s weakness with regard to taking action but also their clear instructions to the police not to act against squatters? [Interjections.] The result of that is the inundation of the White area and the crowding-out of the Whites.

You probably have the wrong end of the stick as usual.

In the Western Cape there is mention of some thousands of Blacks who stream into the area every month. Indeed, it is a fact that it is the standpoint of many Coloureds—we are also speaking now of the members of the House of Representatives—that action should be taken against Blacks who invade the Western Cape. A second consequence resulting from this is lawlessness and an increase in violence. The SAP has made figures available to us that indicate that crime in these areas which have been inundated with Blacks, has increased by between three to four hundred percent. We ask the Minister of Law and Order and that side of the House whether they approve of this way in which the Whites are being driven from their traditional residential areas.

In this way various places in South Africa are being turned into squatter camps. Already there is evidence of squatter camps throughout South Africa, such as those in well-to-do suburbs in Johannesburg, and also in Leeudoringstad in the Schweizer-Reneke constituency. The question is what is that side of the House is going to do to clear up this squatting?

Hoist the white flag! [Interjections.]

I want to refer to a document which was issued by the NP Government on 30 March 1966. In it the following questions are put to the voters:

That took place while the old United Party was in power, and that side of the House issued a document only 20 years ago in which they pointed out to the country that dirty and squalid slums— shanty towns—will be our fate if we do not control the influx of people to our cities in this country.

It is true that hon members can ask us what our standpoint is on the crowding-out that is taking place in this way. I shall refer briefly to our short- and long-term policy. In the short term it is absolutely essential that all squatter camps in South Africa be frozen, because if that does not take place the crowding-out will grow greater.

How does one freeze it?

Simply in a refrigerator!

Where do the people go to then?

Order!

Those squatter camps must be fenced in. Surveys must be carried out of those who live there and every inhabitant must be informed that he is living there illegally and that he will shortly be moved.

Where to?

Back to where they came from!

In connection with this telegram I also want to suggest that the SAP should have more powers made available to them to act against squatting. During last year’s session I referred to the tremendous problem that existed at Suurbekom and Wheeler’s Farm, the squatters camp in the Losberg constituency. Until now nothing has yet been done to rectify this situation in any way.

That is not correct at all.

The hon the Minister may shake his head. He is losing votes because he is doing nothing about a situation which is threatening the lives of our people. [Interjections.]

What are you going to do?

The hon member is asking what we shall do. We shall give the SAP greater powers to take action, to fence in the squatters camp and to put a stop to the squatting and to clear it up.

In the long term this problem will have to be examined comprehensively. If the 1951 legislation, which is the legislation involved in this connection, is being used as something to hide behind we suggest that provisions be incorporated into that Act to prevent squatting.

One of the most important points that I should like to make is that the existing policy of forced removals will have to be reviewed. Is it the policy of the Government that the forced removal of squatters may not take place? We have already heard a great deal about forced removals, and the Government has often said that they will no longer take place. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is here today and we want to know from him whether or not he supports a policy of forced removals with regard to squatting. If he does not support it, he has to tell us how these squatter towns can be cleared up.

We have touched on quite a number of facets of crowding-out. Surely there can be no doubt that the Whites are being crowded out of their traditional living space by the envisaged abolition of the Group Areas Act. Surely there can be no doubt about the fact that Whites are being so crowded-out that they can no longer even attend a rugby match and get home safely.

Whites are also being crowded-out by squatting and we now call upon the Government at least to withdraw this telegram and to give the police the power to act against squatting.

Mr Chairman, it will be my pleasure in due course to deal with some of the underlying philosophies behind the address of the hon member for Losberg. Before I do so, however, I want to suggest that the motion before this House is, firstly, based on false premises.

Let us look at what the hon member for Ermelo bases his motion on. In the first instance he assumes that there are certain traditional levels of community living, and then he assumes that there has been a crowding-out of White people within these traditional areas. First of all I think he should examine exactly on whose tradition these privileges are based, and secondly whether it is in fact a tradition.

I would suggest that the essence and strength of a tradition lies in the voluntary acceptance of that tradition by the people who choose to have their daily lives regulated by that tradition, and I want to ask the hon member for Ermelo and the hon members in the Government benches too whether any area of racial segregation in South Africa can meet this test. Is there a single group area in this country which actually has the blessing of the people of this country? Is there a single segregated beach in this country which has the blessing of the people? Are those forms of segregation in fact traditional segregation in the sense that they are accepted traditions in this country? They are not. If they were, why is enforcement by legislation necessary? Traditions are accepted by people. One does not have to force traditions down people’s throats. I would therefore suggest that the first premise on which this motion is based, is false.

Secondly, the motion suggests that there has been “verdringing”. We have heard this word throughout the debate. I would suggest that in order to have a “verdringing”, a crowding-out, there has to be a position in which one person is forcibly removed from his dwelling, or from the facility which he uses, by another person. One cannot have a situation, as in South Africa, in which merely through upward mobility—through people’s paypackets and lifestyles improving— they voluntarily elect, albeit against the Group Areas Act, to move into another area and then enter into a contract, either of lease or of purchase. That is happening, in spite of the Group Areas Act. The person who lets or sells the property to them does it voluntarily. Where is the “verdringing”? Who has been forced out? Who has been crowded out?

If it is suggested that the neighbours are being crowded out or that the community has been crowded out, I want to tell hon members that they make their own choice to move, purely because they cannot countenance that sort of racial mixing. They are racists and they choose to move, and if they want to do that, let them do it, but I simply do not believe that there is any forced removal of White people in this country other than the sort of things we have had to a very limited extent in the past under the Group Areas Act, where the Government had to move small groups of White people in order to implement their grand plan.

However, I know of no instance in this country in which there has actually been “verdringing” of White people.

Mr Chairman, I want to address myself now to the whole question of squatting, because this is a matter on which the hon member for Losberg spent quite a lot of his time. I want to ask him who is to blame for squatting. Is it the man who cannot support his family in Transkei and who then comes to Cape Town to seek work? Is it the woman who comes to live with her husband in Cape Town because she wants some sort of family life? Are they to blame for squatting? Nobody wants uncontrolled squatting. Nobody wants all the problems that flow from uncontrolled squatting. I want to suggest though—I do not believe it is even something I should have to tell the Government—that the problem does not lie in squatting; the problem lies in having a Government in control of this country, which does not recognise that one has to provide housing and facilities or the means for a man to provide his own housing where he works.

What is happening in Kuils River? What is happening in Kraaifontein? In all those places where squatting occurs, it occurs very simply because the Government refuses to permit a man to live where he works and where he is able to support his family. The Government will simply not permit that man to live there. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have great pleasure in supporting the motion moved by the hon member for Ermelo. I wish to concentrate on the deteriorating internal security situation. Before I do so, however—I am sorry to see the hon the Minister of Law and Order is not in the House—I just want to clarify the situation as far as this telegram is concerned. I want to tell the House that this telegram comes from the “Afdelingskommissaris, Wes-Rand,” and was sent to the “Distrikskommandant, Vereeniging”

*If there were any doubts in this regard, I hope that they have been removed with these words.

How did you get hold of that telegram?

Where did you get that telegram?

Yes, you would really like to know, wouldn’t you?

The telegram is dated 7 December 1987. We have excellent sources of information, Sir, just as the NP does.

It is even better than theirs!

Mr Chairman, allow me to say at the outset that I should like to thank the Commissioner of Police for a very pleasant surprise which I discovered on my desk recently in the form of a beautiful miniature flag commemorating the 75th anniversary of the SA Police Force. I want to assure the members of the SAP that I will very proudly display that miniature flag on my desk.

Furthermore, Sir, I want to express the sincere gratitude of my party to the members of the SAP in South Africa, in particular to those in Krugersdorp, the constituency in which I live, and also to those in Roodepoort. I have been specifically asked by the hon member for Roodepoort to thank them because he is unable to be here today. I also thank the members of the SAP throughout the Republic of South Africa in general for their many successes in spite of the lack of co-operation they experience on the part of the NP Government. [Interjections.]

Ten years ago in South-Africa crime did not pay. Today the NP allows criminals into our country and gives them permanent residence. The Government has one priority task before it may levy any taxes on the population of the country.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I am not quite sure what the aspects that the hon member is dealing with have to do with the motion before the House.

If you would only wake up! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, I shall do so with pleasure.

†As I was saying, Sir, a government has one basic priority task to fulfil before it may in fact levy any taxes on a population of a country. It must ensure the existence of a state of law and order. Nothing can effectively happen anywhere with any certainty without this. Following on this, I believe, there are four pillars of government essential to ensuring a secure, stable, prosperous and safe co-existence for the people of the Republic of South Africa. These pillars are those of defence, security, education and health care. Without these pillars the house of state cannot stand. It is interesting to note how the NP Government skimps on the maintenance of the pillars of education, health care and security, and indeed on the state house generally. [Interjections.]

I wish to discuss the deteriorating security situation in particular. Time and time again speakers on that side of the House have praised our public servants in flowery terms. I was present last year when the hon member for Krugersdorp moved a motion expressing great praise for the SA Police Force. It was fully supported by this side of the House, but I suggest that the members of the SAP judge the NP Government not by their words but by their deeds and by whether they put their money where their mouths are. It is then that State officials can see what the NP Government really thinks of them.

What is the state of security in our cities and suburbs today? [Interjections.] Our senior citizens are no longer safe, even when they live behind bars like prisoners in their own homes, because of the deteriorating security situation.

*What did the NP boast about in the past? I am also referring to the pamphlet which my hon colleague used, namely 30 March—the Future, which was issued in 1966. In that the NP boasted with good reason about what they had achieved in only a few years. The following words are written in this pamphlet: “But there is peace and tranquillity again in the Republic—South Africa is a safe place for young and old and everyone.” I wonder if the NP can still boast about peace and security for everybody, especially the aged and the youth and our children. [Interjections.]

†It is no good advising senior citizens on how further to secure their prisons with more bars, more locks and more alarms. The cause of the problem has yet to be removed; that is the essential problem. The NP has lost the will to govern, and in doing so they have also lost the will to remove the cause of the problem. They are simply letting it develop even further. [Interjections.]

For that reason our children can no longer safely go down to the suburban café alone. Our wives and daughters are jostled and insulted when they shop on their own. As a result of the deterioration in the situation, no motor vehicle is safe parked on our streets at night. Young lovers can no longer safely park under the trees in an isolated parkland without being viciously attacked. [Interjections.] Women joggers can no longer safely jog through beauty spots like The Wilds in Johannesburg without being pounced upon and raped in broad daylight. Even a stroll by a middle-aged couple seeking some relaxation in the cool of the evening has become a hazardous occupation.

This situation has not come about overnight; it has been developing for years. As the NP Government becomes weaker and weaker in its resolve, so the situation deteriorates even further.

I am glad to see the hon the Minister of Law and Order is now in the House, because it is a little difficult for me to have to address my attack regarding the deteriorating law situation to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

The hon member for Ermelo has already mentioned the situation that has developed in Hillbrow as a result of the non-application of laws. The increase in crime there was already apparent as early as 1983; it is now 1988 and the NP is still talking about reintroducing law and order but doing nothing.

In 1984, when I stood as a candidate in a provincial by-election at Rosettenville against the present hon member for that constituency, she was just as aware as I was of the deterioration in the security situation there. I kicked up a stink about it and so did she, and she has even had concentrated police attention directed there, but with very little effect. The crime rate is escalating, the shebeens still operate and nothing has really changed. There has been an alarming increase in crime in general, crimes of violence against the defenceless, theft—car theft in particular—and housebreaking.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware that the crime rate in the Rosettenville constituency has dropped by 15% in the past three months? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am not aware of that and would like to see confirmation of the figures from the local police commander. I hope it is not because the residents of that area are no longer reporting crimes, as is the situation elsewhere, because they do not want to burden the already overburdened Police Force even further. [Interjections.]

Something that was taboo in the past, the concept of neighbourhood watches, is now being practised. These neighbourhood watches are being used to restore law and order because the SAP are no longer able to maintain law and order with the means at their disposal. Now the citizen, who is already paying the highest tax in comparison to citizens in any other Western civilized country, must go one step further and secure his own residential area. It is disgraceful!

The situation has deteriorated so much that even Indian businessmen in Roodepoort are turning to the CP for help because they do not know what to do. We have had an emergency situation in this country for the past three years now. The bloodbath that the NP warns us will occur when the CP takes over has long started under the NP Government.

We want remedies to this situation. We want to see the following: The SAP should have the freedom to do their work. We want them to receive realistic salaries—the NP must put its money where its mouth is. We also want an increase in the ratio of policemen up to recognized international standards to coincide with the increase in the population of South Africa. We want to see the reinstitution of what we believe to be the greatest cause of this deterioration—the abolition of the influx control regulations.

The CP wants a realistic allocation of equipment, and particularly of transport, to allow the SAP to operate effectively. We are receiving too many complaints of police stations being unable to operate because they do not have a vehicle to send personnel out to investigate crimes.

We want to see the increased use of foot patrols and, above all, we want the Government to stop talking, talking and talking. Until we can effect a change in Government, we want action from the NP. [Interjections.] I want those hon members to listen because it is about time they listened even to their own voters telling them that the crime rate in this country is disgraceful in relation to the level of tax our citizens have to pay.

May I ask the hon the Minister how long they are going to continue to pay the SAP inadequate salaries? How long are they going to continue to equip them inadequately? Is it possible that the SAP are rejecting matriculants who apply for positions? Our information has it that this is the case. [Interjections]

Order! The hon member is rather wide of the mark now as regards the motion. He must return to the motion.

Mr Chairman, I am asking these questions in an attempt to suggest remedies because I think the remedy is contained in these questions.

The hon member may continue.

I should like to ask the hon Minister of Law and Order whether I must table a question or whether he has the information in regard to how many cases are carried over each year in relation to the answer that was given by him to Question 14 on 23 February when he said that 453 complaints in terms of the Group Areas Act were still being investigated? How many old cases are carried forward or do they just throw the cases away at the end of the day?

I wish to conclude by saying that it is a great pleasure for me to support the hon member for Ermelo’s motion.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis has advanced a whole lot of arguments here in support of the motion under discussion. The purport of all his accusations and all the questions he asked is that influx control measures are responsible for the present high crime rate. By implication therefore it is people of colour that are responsible for all of these crimes. This of course fits in beautifully with the motion moved by the hon member for Ermelo which actually comes down to saying that White people are being crowded out by Blacks and people of colour. This is the essence of this motion.

The hon members for Ermelo and Losberg then also discussed the crowding-out of White people by people of colour.

We on this side of the House have come a long way together with the policy of separate development or apartheid. In the very limited time at my disposal perhaps I could just refer to a transcript of a short summary of the colour policy of the NP which was issued in 1948 under the signature of the leader of the party at that time, Dr D F Malan, as well as the signature of the provincial leaders of the party and representatives of other institutions. I should like to read this document to the hon members of the CP:

It continues in this vein. The hon members of the CP are exactly where the NP was when it started, in 1948, with the policy of influx control and other measures in the South Africa of that time. They find themselves in exactly the same position, Sir. They regard Blacks, Coloureds and Asians as temporary guests in South Africa, as people who need not be accommodated. This is why they say what they say. This is why they talk about a White “volkstaat”.

Allow me to quote very quickly the following figures to the hon members of the CP. There are 453 group areas for Whites in South Africa, 341 for Coloureds, and 129 for Indians. When we take note of the percentages of land at the disposal of the various groups, we see that the Whites have 83,6% of the declared group areas as their territory, whereas the Coloureds have 10,8% and the Indians 5,7%. When we compare the group areas for Blacks in our urban areas with these figures, I can tell the CP that with this motion they are simply dealing with the symptoms of the problems we have to contend with in South Africa. However, they are paying no attention at all to the disease itself. The disease we have to contend with at present is a dramatic shortage of a habitat, land, space, etc for people in South Africa.

Millions of people in South Africa do not have a decent piece of land on which to live, on which to raise their families and on which to go to school. In those circumstances there is no way any political party in South Africa can come and tell us that they will be able to deal with the problem of squatters and people that are simply pouring in wherever there is any place to squat. We are dealing with socio-economic problems of enormous dimensions and I should like to tell the hon members of the CP that this motion of theirs springs directly from the tremendous problem they have. Their policy is built on a whole lot of myths.

The first myth on which their policy is built is that the Afrikaner is a chosen person in this country. [Interjections.] We are saying quite plainly to them that their whole idea of a White “volkstaat” and everything associated with that idea is based on this. As Afrikaners we are saying to them that the Afrikaner in this country has not been chosen or called to have the sole say and the sole claim to land and opportunities.

The second myth they cling to—this also seems clear from what the hon the Minister indicated here recently—is that the Afrikaner has a kind of divine calling to perform a task in South Africa. We on this side of the House say that it is quite wrong for any group or political party in this country to claim that it has been called from Above to perform a task in this country. All we have been called to is to live out our Christian beliefs as Christians.

Are you preaching to us again, just like Dawie? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon members of the CP also cling to another emotion; another myth. This is very interesting. I am only sorry I do not have enough time. On another occasion I shall quote to them how that thread, namely that we are a chosen race, also ran through the NP policy. So hon members will hear they are talking about the Whites; they are talking about White South Africa. However, it is not necessary for us to say what we are not. All of us in this House are what we are; it is not necessary to spell it out. Everyone can see it and everyone knows it. What is important, however, is that we should not cling to the myth the CP is clinging to, namely that we are a chosen race because we are White. This is simply not true. The insinuation is that other people are not chosen. Last year I asked the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, in respect of crowdingout, whether the racial diversity in the world was the will of a Higher Hand. He said yes. I then asked whether the Blacks were the will of God, upon which he again replied yes. I then asked whether the White race in the world was the will of God. Again he answered yes. I then asked whether the Asians were the will of God. Again he replied yes. I then asked him whether the people of mixed ancestry were the will of God. He then referred me to a passage in the Bible that I had to read. We have to be careful not to regard ourselves as people with a racial destiny in this country because we will then simply stir up emotions with motions of this nature.

There is another myth they cling to. It is that White “baasskap” will be able to save us. I want to tell the CP that if there is one thing that will destroy the White man in this country completely, it is the concept that “baasskap”—forced on people through the barrel of a rifle or in any other way—will be able to save the Whites in South Africa. They are clinging to the myth that armed force and violence can ensure our survival. This is why they say do not do anything to hamstring the police. This is why they say the police should do various things to deal with the situation. We say to them that we reject this.

I want to tell those hon members that they are clinging to the myth that this country and its assets belong to the Whites. The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis recently discussed taxation. I want to ask him a direct question. To whom does the gold belong that lies buried in the earth of this country?

Answer the question yourself!

Does it belong to the Whites?

You know who it belongs to!

In terms of his definition it does indeed belong to the Whites. I say to him that this is not true. The natural assets and minerals of a country that are in private hands are, in respect of the taxation they generate, for the benefit of ail the people. They belong to everyone. He discussed White taxation with regard to crowding out. There is no such thing as White taxation.

Then who pays it?

Taxation is completely colour blind. Let us tell them this again plainly. A person pays tax according to his income. The richer people become, the greater becomes their capacity to pay tax. This is one of the ways to achieve our objective of lifting the country out of poverty. I want to tell the hon members of the Official Opposition that we have to consider the disease …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

Unfortunately I do not have the time. I want to tell those hon members that the disease in South Africa has to do with the whole historical course of land division. I have mentioned this on several occasions in the House—since I arrived here—and I want to mention it once again today. If a dramatic redivision of land—urban land, rural land, land where people can live, where families can have a healthy family life—does not take place, we are heading for a potential conflict which those hon members, judging by what they said here today, cannot even understand. There is nothing stopping anyone from going to stay in a place where he can find shelter. There is nothing that can stop anyone going to a place where he can find work. There is nothing that can stop anyone from caring for his family.

The whole history surrounding land in South Africa is fraught with conflict and emotion. We can see this clearly when we trace the history from 1913, with the Native Trust and Land Act, to the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936, Act No 18 of 1936. The hon member for Losberg said, incidentally, that Act No 18 had been repealed, but this is not true. This Act has not been repealed; we simply amended it. Let us say this frankly to one another. The reality of numbers in South Africa has overrun the realities of land worked out by the NP. The reality of numbers in South Africa—of Blacks, Coloureds, people are seeking a place to live, a place to settle, a place to become urbanised—is riding roughshod over realities that we brought into operation by way of legislation. The NP will therefore not run away from this. One cannot talk about the crowdingout of a citizen in his own country. I want to ask the hon member for Overvaal whether the Blacks living in Soweto are citizens of South Africa.

No, they are not citizens!

That is one of the most illuminating replies in the whole history of this tricameral Parliament.

They say that the Blacks living in Soweto are not citizens of South Africa. I am now telling the hon members of the CP that if they, as we did with the legislation on the restoration of citizenship, were to restore citizenship to Blacks in South Africa and were to tell a White political party, as the CP is telling those people, that they are not citizens of South Africa, it is a policy that is certain to bring conflict. If they want to come and tell us that this policy will not mean conflict, they are living in a dream world.

But you always used to believe it!

We said that, but we have changed. There was a time when we thought all Blacks could be included politically in the Black states. We no longer believe it, we no longer think it, and we no longer advocate it. There was a time when people on our side thought that a Coloured homeland was a possibility. I was one of those people. The reality of this Parliament showed that this was an absurd idea.

This motion that Whites are being crowded out of their areas is fundamentally a racist motion. How can a citizen of a country be accused in his own country of crowding out other people when he looks for a place to live? I therefore want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and his department on their phenomenal attempt to identify land where people can live. They are coming along with fine attempts to help us live with these realities.

We are not afraid to say we are a pragmatic party with high principles. [Interjections.] If a government in South Africa with all these realities cannot also display pragmatism in the midst of its principles, and cannot realise that it has to deal with those realities, that government is sending its people along the path to disaster. We reject this motion. It is fundamentally racist and tells other people in South Africa that they are not citizens and that they have no rights. They fail to appreciate the future possibilities of those people and we therefore cannot agree with this motion.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by speaking to the hon member for Ermelo about statements he made and specific philosophic formulations he used.

In his vanity, the hon member states in the course of a speech that the acceptance of an undivided South Africa implies that the existence of the Group Areas Act has no moral foundation.

The hon the State President said so!

The hon member said that, and I ignored it.

Yes, he did say it.

I now wish to ask the hon member for Ermelo whether this standpoint of his only applies in regard to the Black people who have to live in that undivided land, or whether it also applies to the Coloured and Asian communities. Until recently—when his party broke away from the NP—the hon member supported the 1977 proposals. Those 1977 proposals implied that there was no independent country for the Coloured or Asian communities. They further implied that they had to share the same undivided country with the Whites, and on that basis they propagated three parliaments. I therefore ask that hon member what the moral basis for the retention of the Group Areas Act was at that stage.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, I am sorry but I am not going to answer any questions now. I have too little time. I had hoped that in the course of this debate we could really have discussed the problems that the motion seeks to encompass. What has happened now? We have not really discussed with one another the problems that form the basis of this motion. Do those hon members appreciate that we are speaking about people here? Do those hon members appreciate that we are speaking about human needs and about South African communities? Do they appreciate that we are speaking about people who live in the same country and who are citizens of the same country? The hon member for Overberg replied …I beg your pardon, I mean the hon member for Overvaal replied …

Over the wall?

He says that the Black people who live in Soweto are not South African citizens. In terms of the South African Citizenship Act of 1949, people who were born here are South African citizens irrespective of the people or race to which they belong, and they remain so until this Parliament changes those citizenship rights.

The answer given by the hon member states their standpoint. Their standpoint is that only one group of people has citizenship in this country and that is the Whites. As long as one’s standpoint is in conflict with the facts and the legal system of one’s country to that extent, surely one cannot make any progress.

The hon member for Losberg contends that we have abolished laws and that as a result a process of urbanisation or crowding out has taken place. Let us examine this on the basis of the facts. Let us examine this on the basis of the effectiveness of influx control, which is the short-term solution in this regard.

The fact is that urbanisation has taken place notwithstanding influx control. In 1983 and 1984 there were 262 900 and 238 900 prosecutions respectively in terms of the Act. Despite this the urbanisation process continued. It is calculated that since 1916, when the Act was passed, more than 20 million people have been arrested in terms of this law. Notwithstanding this, the urbanisation process has continued. Between 1980 and 1985 the Black population in the Cape and surrounding areas grew by 14% per annum while the increase in the Black population was approximately 2,8% per annum. During the same period in the PWV area it grew at a rate of 4%.

The fact is that laws cannot change economic laws and people’s needs. This has meant that despite the law and the implementation of the law, the process of urbanisation has proceeded.

Then the laws were summarily abolished.

They were meaningless.

Do hon members not understand that urbanisation is a phenomenon that is not occurring in our country only? Are they not aware that it is related to the changing economic structure that has taken place every 30 to 40 years? The fact that our country was first an agricultural country, then became a mining country and is now an industrial country is the reason for urbanisation. This means that in order to satisfy economic and ordinary human needs people move from a place where there is no work to a place where there are job opportunities and where the quality of life can be increased.

Can you channel urbanisation?

The hon member should just give me a chance.

No country has yet succeeded in checking the process of urbanisation, and I challenge any hon member to prove the contrary.

Then you must channel the people.

Let us see what this entails. The true facts—not as we would wish to see them in our flights of imagination—are that 80% of the country’s industrial production takes place on 4% of its surface area.

That is a mistake.

Of course it is a mistake. Fifty four per cent of it is provided in the PWV area. Is the Government now to suspend all further development of industrial areas in the PWV area? That is my question. Can the hon member answer me?

That is very easy.

He says it is very easy to stop it. When one develops additional industrial land, one creates additional job opportunities; when one creates further job opportunities, one creates movement of people.

What about the decentralisation programme?

I am coming to that.

As a positive step we said that we wish to deal with the causes of urbanisation. If the cause was a lack of development and job opportunities in specific regions—that is indeed the case—then we must examine the causes, and we did.

Since 1 April 1982, when the regional development programmes with the emphasis on industrial development were accepted, until the end of January this year, there were 6 290 applications to establish industries on the basis of regional development. Had that become a reality, it would have involved an amount of R7,6 billion. I hope that figure is correct. If there were further development this would have created job opportunities for 427 000 people. If one takes into account that for every one job opportunity in industry, 2,3 other job opportunities are created as a result of the multiplication effect, we gain some idea of the success of the positive steps needed to achieve a balanced economic distribution. If one also takes into account the fact that it is calculated that one job opportunity makes provision for six people, we gain some idea of the extent to which this policy has succeeded in providing people with job opportunities where they live, with the result that it has not been necessary …

And to relocate them.

Just a moment, please. Sir, we are not talking about removals. We are talking about opportunities where people have settled, people who would otherwise move to the few limited metropolises. Why do we not hear about that?

It is further calculated that if we could maintain the success rate, the concentration of 80% of the people on that 4% of the land would decline to 71%. It is further projected that in that case, the 54% of industrial products produced in the PWV area today would decline to 49%. Instead of artificial statutory steps to make offenders of people who seek jobs and a place to live, a positive effort is therefore being made to review those laws and satisfy those needs. That is why I ask that when we debate, we do so on the basis of the facts. Let us debate on the basis of the economic laws.

I want to go further, Sir. The second important matter which must be considered when we speak about crowding-out and penetration is the position relating to land. Therefore, let me say here today that it is an idyllic dream to imagine that there is a country somewhere by the name of South Africa in which there is a majority of White people compared with the other groups. As long as we dream that idyllic dream, as long as we refuse to take the economic laws and the inevitability of human needs into account, we shall not find answers to the problems of our country. For that reason it is pointless talking about what someone said yesterday. No one can change yesterday. All we can do is to do our duty today. However unpleasant that duty may be, it remains the task of leaders to carry it out. I make no apology to anyone when I perceive the human needs of all the people in this country. I make no apology to anyone when I seek a place in the sun—in the social, economic, political and educational sphere—for every South African citizen, whoever he may be. I certainly make no apology for that.

In fact I am asking for more than that. There are intelligent people sitting opposite. There are people sitting opposite who can take the facts into account just as well as I can. Nevertheless there is a difference, Sir. My earnest request is that we in this House speak to people’s minds. Let us also speak to the hearts of people. However, let us refrain from arousing people’s emotions. After all, people are capable of making war on the strength of emotions. Often, however, we need reason to keep the peace; to preserve development. There is one thing I want to say to those hon members today. Whatever we do in this country, the fate of this country will be the fate of all. The success we achieve will be shared by all. I make an earnest appeal to all hon members in this House to become part of a team that seeks to extend the success so that there can be more to share. Let us work as a team and develop the prosperity of this country so that there can be more to share and so that we need not become impoverished.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis speaks about stability. There can be no stability when people deny the ordinary needs of other people. There can be no question of stability when one group of people ignores or negates the needs of other people and groups. When one seeks to deal with the question of crowding-out, this requires the identification of a need for land. When people fight over the utilisation of recreation facilities, this emphasises the fact that recreation facilities are inadequate.

If there is too little land, housing or recreation facilities, there is going to be crowding-out of one group by another. If the hon member is so interested in community facilities I ask why, when they are created for other communities so that the Whites can keep their own, he says that the Government is giving everything to people of colour…[Interjections.]… because by saying that we contradict ourselves.

Of course it is true that various groups are living together in certain residential areas, but is it not also true that there is an oversupply of housing for one group and an undersupply for others? [Interjections.] Surely, then, the answer is that we must make provision for that, and we have in fact done so. It is calculated that the natural increase in the Black population represents 60% of the total population growth.

Are you therefore abandoning this provision of housing?

I request the hon member to be patient for a moment.

Migration causes 40% of that population growth. It is estimated that we need 15 000 hectares every year to make provision for the growing needs of the existing population in South Africa, without even taking migration into account. We are dealing with this. From 1 January 1986 to the end of 1987, 24 000 hectares of land were identified for Black occupation in terms of the Development of Black Communities Act. Moreover, 11 500 hectares were approved for industrial use, and an additional 15 000 hectares are being investigated.

I think we have done extremely well within a period of only two years. That process is continuing. Now hon members on the other side of the House are reproaching us. There are hon members on the other side who are asking me to identify and buy up White land in the PWV area for Black occupation. [Interjections.] Those are the facts, but they want the people moved. [Interjections.] Those are the hard facts.

I do not accept that the State is responsible to provide everyone with a house, but since the State is developing a planning process for urbanisation on the basis of the group structure of the population, it is the responsibility of the State to identify land for all the population groups. We are proceeding with the development of this land. Time does not permit me to elaborate on this, but I may say that we have also made phenomenal progress in regard to the involvement of the private sector in the provision of housing in our country. This is a second aspect of a positive standpoint in dealing with the issue.

I now turn to the issue of squatting. The hon member for Losberg mentioned that the official figure was 1,35 million. My information is that 780 000 of those are not illegal squatters, but people who live in slums. There is one point I want to concede at once, however I do not think we have the precise figures.

But if the conservative figure is 1,3 million …

Quite probably this was in fact so; let us concede it. However, then we really must appreciate that a squatter is a person who occupies land unlawfully. Is that not true? The hon member for Losberg agrees. The people who are living in backyards are not occupying that land unlawfully; they are merely living in squatter conditions. Therefore much of the housing that we must provide, must go to those people.

I have to conclude. The hon member says we are doing nothing. Surely that is untrue. In Langa and Kabah—just ask the hon member for Uitenhage—46 000 people who were living in squatter conditions have been resettled.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 30 and motion lapsed.

Mr Chairman, I listened yesterday to the hon member for Bryanston and I was astonished at some of the things he had to say. I suggest that the hon member obtains some information from the department or from the fishing industry first before he quotes the way he did yesterday afternoon. In Bryanston he certainly does not know what goes on at the seaside.

I wish to make a few comments in support of this Sea Fishery Bill. The Republic of South Africa has been blessed with probably the greatest number of natural resources of any country in the world. Our massive coastline of some 3 000 kilometres is washed by two of the great oceans, namely the cold Atlantic on the West Coast and the warm Indian Ocean on the East and South Coasts. This sets the scene for an incredible variety of marine life.

The South African coast is well known to international scientists and to the great fishing nations of the world. Unfortunately, over the years, greed and modern technology have all but depleted our priceless heritage. Fortunately the Department of Environment Affairs has been able to introduce legislation over the years that has curtailed overexploitation by the commercial as well as the private sector.

Unfortunately, any legislation that prevents individuals and the large commercial organisations from harvesting the riches of the sea is not popular and over the years the lobbying has been intense.

I have been a seagoing man—a sport fisherman and conservationist—for most of my life and I can assure the hon members that it is very difficult to accept that the mighty seas can be overexploited, but we have seen it happen in most overseas countries and it is happening here.

I witnessed the great battle that my predecessor, the late John Wiley, had in pushing through legislation to close False Bay to commercial interests as well as restricting the traditional line and trek fishermen as well as the private fishermen.

Had it been election year when some years ago he introduced strict control measures on crayfish and perlemoen, he would probably have lost his seat due to overreaction on the part of angry voters in my constituency. Fortunately, today, the majority of South Africans accept that strict, scientifically controlled conservation measures are required to rebuild our once world-class marine resources.

The Bill, as tabled, is a compromise between the commercial fishermen, scientists, conservationists and the man in the street who, within reason, has every right to enjoy the fruits of the sea.

It is estimated that there are over a million sport fishermen in the Republic of South Africa and, unfortunately, this group and the commercial fishermen do not see eye to eye. I often hear rumblings from the commercial sector that their living is being threatened by this massive army of individuals.

I would like to make it quite clear that our marine resources are endangered mainly due to over-exploitation by the commercial sector, but I also concede that private individuals are not blameless. The harm done by illegal netting and the black marketeering of rock lobster and perlemoen will never be known as there is no statistic for this despicable industry which is very difficult to control.

The hon the Minister, in introducing this type of legislation, is in a very difficult situation. On the one hand he is being pressurised by the commercial sector, which produces much needed protein, creates thousands of jobs and earns valuable foreign exchange. On the other hand the scientist, conservationist and man in the street is each lobbying for his rights. I believe that if we do not work together on this vital issue, South Africa will be the loser in the end.

I would like to make a special plea to the hon the Minister to ensure that his department will assist wherever possible, in looking after the interests of the small commercial fisherman. We are looking towards the small businessman to solve many of the unemployment problems in our country. When one considers that each small boat has a crew of between 15 and 25 men, this section of the industry is capable of supporting thousands of breadwinners as well as producing a variety of seafood, not only for home consumption, but also for restaurants and hotels in our very important tourist industry. The many small businesses that maintain and service these fishing boats is also very important to our economy.

The legislation tabled must be brought to the attention of all who enjoy the riches of the sea and it must be made quite clear that we need the co-operation of all sections of the community.

The remoteness of large areas of our coastline makes patrolling very difficult. The present inspectorate, including harbour masters, consists of fewer than 100 men who have the unenviable task of patrolling the area from the Orange River mouth to Richards Bay. If we are to be successful in our conservation efforts we shall have to train and equip more inspectors who could help introduce a voluntary coast watch system, similar to that recently established in Natal by our MP for Umhlanga and other concerned persons. This method, like the very successful crime watch being introduced in South African suburbs, will involve hundreds of volunteers living along our coastline, and I am sure it will help improve relations between the public and the inspectorate.

I have fished on the coasts of Australia and Canada, and their coastguard system which also makes use of light aircraft, has been most successful in getting the co-operation of all users and in bringing transgressors to court.

I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister, his department and the standing committee on tabling the Sea Fishery Bill which I believe will have far-reaching, long-term benefits for our country, and will safeguard one of our greatest natural assets, the sea.

Mr Chairman, obviously the hon member for Simon’s Town knows what he is talking about because his constituency is largely dependent on the sea.

I should also like to react to a few of the remarks made by the hon member for Bryanston yesterday. I was rather surprised that he, in his support for clause 15 of the Bill which refers to the Quota Board, made some rather sweeping remarks about the existing procedure of granting quotas. It is unfortunate that the hon member created the impression that the existing procedure of granting quotas is unfair because there are only a few participants.

[Inaudible.]

I said that that was unfortunately the impression that the hon member created.

That is not exactly correct. The hon member admitted that the fishing industry—especially the white fish and pelagic industries—is a capital-intensive industry. He also admitted that the fishing industry is rather small; in other words, one cannot have a large number of participants. Another reason why such a statement is not exactly correct is the fact that the general public of South Africa are not excluded from exploiting the marine resources for domestic purposes anywhere. Therefore, it is not really correct to say that the quotas granted to a few individuals was like a licence to print money. That is not quite correct, and it is unfortunate that the hon member made that remark.

Why then did Diemont say what he did?

Yes, all right, but the new arrangement…

…is better!

Of course it is better! We have no argument about that.

That was what I said!

The hon member created the impression that the previous dispensation was grossly unfair; something I do not agree with.

Furthermore, the hon member is a free-marketeer. I am glad about that, but it amazes me that when it comes to the affordability and the price of rock lobster and perlemoen, he steers away from the free market system and wants more control. I have to disagree slightly with the hon member where he referred to the excessive prices. I agree with him absolutely that it is unacceptable to pay enormous prices for rock lobster and perlemoen. Rock lobster and perlemoen form part of the culture of the Western Cape, the West Coast and the South Coast. I agree with him that those products should be available on the local market at reasonable prices. However, the previous Minister, together with this hon Minister, took very strong steps to try to make rock lobster and perlemoen available on the local market.

One still can’t buy them at reasonable prices.

Yes, I do not argue with the hon member on that fact. The point is, however, that the Government tries to make those products available, but it is an inescapable fact that the hon member as a free-marketeer must concede that the domestic price of a scarce commodity, like rock lobster and perlemoen, follows the price of the international market.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

Mr Chairman, I am not being impolite, but unfortunately I have very little time. I would rather answer the question outside or afterwards. I am not being impolite to the hon member.

*I think I should leave the hon member at that. I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on the legislation. In this regard I wish to refer briefly to research.

The perception is often encountered in the fishing industry that the success of research is measured in terms of the degree to which the quota can be increased. This is often regarded by fishermen as the criterion for success in research. However, research is surely aimed at optimum utilisation of the resource and the stabilisation of the exploitation of our marine resources in the long term. In this regard I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister’s department on the outstanding research work done in the past. I think that this is an appropriate occasion to thank Mr George Stander, on the occasion of his retirement, for the work that he has done as an oceanographer. We are grateful that his services will still be available to the department on a different basis. We on this side of the House wish to congratulate him on the work he has done in the past.

We also wish to congratulate Dr Louis Botha who succeeded him and wish him everything of the best for his activities in future. We are grateful that the hon the Minister has a large number of outstanding scientists under him, men such as Dave Pollock and several other excellent scientists for whom we have the greatest appreciation.

It is also gratifying that in terms of clause 28 of the legislation the hon the Minister is being empowered to make more funds available for research. In this regard I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to consider, as far as the abalone industry is concerned, making substantially more funds available for research to develop this part of the marine resources. The information on the abalone resource collected over the past two years is more than has been collected over the past 25 years. The reason for this is that a dedicated effort is being made with regard to research. It is true that the hon the Minister and I myself, as a representative of the constituency in which the greater part of the abalone resource is to be found, receive representations from members of the public every day. We received letters from taxpayers’ associations that expressed their concern about the resource which appears to be over-exploited. Now, it is true that the scientific data are the only criteria on the basis of which the hon the Minister and his department can base their decisions on the quota or the extent of the exploitation of the abalone resources. Accordingly one cannot argue with the scientists without anything to go on. We are grateful for the good work they are doing, and I ask that they do more. However, I want to tell the hon the Minister that I think it would be a good thing if he would consider monitoring the total exploitation of the abalone resource in future with a view to reducing it. The fact is that over-exploitation is definitely taking place in the area within the 185 metre line. The country will be grateful if the hon the Minister could appropriate a little more money for this.

Mr Chairman, South Africa’s living marine resources are regarded as common resources belonging to all the inhabitants of the Republic. I made that statement in my second reading speech. We must see to it that these resources are not over-utilised, and that is why we are introducing this legislation.

In the past the sea, and everything in the sea, has unfortunately been regarded as common property. Everyone thought he could take what he wanted from the sea and that the supply would never be exhausted. We have discovered that with modern technology and modern methods of exploitation it is, in fact, possible—and it is already happening—for marine resources to be destroyed completely.

We have seen that in overseas countries where too many people have been entering the industry—we can refer here, in particular to the American fishing resources—the entire industry collapsed owing to action not being taken in time. Action was not taken in time to protect marine resources. I think that this legislation, which is a perpetuation of the old legislation, with a few improvements, has come at a very opportune time. It will enable us to preserve our marine resources, not only for this generation, but also for succeeding generations.

The debate commenced with a speech by the hon member for Nigel, who apologised for the fact that he was not able to be present here this afternoon. The hon member supported the legislation. He said that he was aware of the overutilisation of our resources and that he felt that the control we instituted would, in fact, be necessary. The hon member did have one cause for concern, and that was that there were no experts serving on the advisory committee. I want to put that hon member’s mind at rest. One need only look at who served on the Fisheries Development Advisory Council, which is now coming in the place of this committee. I am not going to mention any names, but the people who served on that council were university professors who had made fisheries research their life’s task, representatives of the CSIR, representatives of the various sectors of the industry, managers of factories in the industry, ex-chairmen of commissions of inquiry into the fishing industry or marine industry, and a large number of other experts. Since this advisory body has to advise the Minister, it is surely only logical that the Minister would appoint people whom he knows to be experts. I want to give the hon member the assurance that he need not concern himself about that.

He also referred to the Quota Board and asked for experts to be appointed on that board. In its wisdom the standing committee decided to impose certain restrictions in regard to the Quota Board. The standing committee, for example, decided that the chairman of the Quota Board should be a retired judge, a retired magistrate or someone in legal practice with at least 10 years’ experience. I can identify wholeheartedly with these qualifications. At the same time it was also accepted that no persons who had any direct or even indirect interest in the industry would be allowed to serve on this Quota Board, which is to be a completely independent body. This makes it very difficult for me to constitute the Quota Board. I must tell hon members this. I am now subject to a great many restrictions with regard to this Quota Board. If one wanted to appoint an expert in the fisheries industry to that board, it would not be all that easy to find an expert who had no interest in the fishing industry. I promise the hon member for Nigel that I shall do my best to constitute the best possible Quota Board.

The hon member for Uitenhage, who is the chairman of the standing committee—I want to thank him for the good work he is doing there— said amongst other things that the guidelines that had to be laid down for this Quota Board were very important. I agree with the hon member wholeheartedly. The guidelines determined in consultation with the Quota Board, the department and the industry are very important. The guidelines in accordance with which this Quota Board must act will have to be drawn up very carefully, because one cannot allow any future uncertainty or ambiguity about how quotas are allocated.

In the past the Minister unfortunately had to apportion the quotas. This put him in a very uncomfortable position, because pressure was exerted on him from all sides, the political, the industrial …

By his wife. [Interjections.]

Thank you very much. Pressure was exerted on him from all sides to grant people quotas. I am very grateful that this difficult task of allocating quotas will now rest with an independent body.

The hon member for Uitenhage also referred to clause 33 which makes provision for the protection of our fish resources. He was particularly interested in the line fish of the Eastern Cape and asked me if we could not introduce certain restrictions for the protection of this resource. We are aware of the fact that this resource is under pressure. There are many people who make a living from these line fish, but there are also many problems involved in the restrictions that can be imposed. The hon member suggested that we could possibly introduce closed seasons or that we could close alternate portions of the coast.

The Line Fish Committee has already undertaken a very thorough investigation into the very situation he referred to, and they have made recommendations. Line fish regulations have been laid down making provision for bag limits, restrictions in regard to size, restrictions in regard to certain areas, restrictions on commercial and semi-commercial line-fish catches and many more. These regulations have actually been in operation for only a very short period now, and the hon member will probably know that the fish resource we are now talking about needs a relatively long recovery period. I request the hon member to give us a bit of time to evaluate the success of the measures which have been introduced. I assure him that we are watching the situation very carefully.

†The hon member for Bryanston apologised for not being able to be here this afternoon. Certain aspects that he dealt with were answered by the hon members for Simon’s Town and Caledon.

*The hon member touched upon a few matters I should like to refer to. The hon member referred to the fact that the industry we were dealing with was a rather capital intensive one, and he also referred to the fact that we should grant a certain degree of security to those involved in the industry. He also said we should not exclude certain people from the industry. It has never been our intention to exclude anyone from the industry. If the particular resource can tolerate it, we shall also admit newcomers to the industry, but we have to be very careful that we do not have too many people entering the industry, because we would then destroy the resource.

He referred to the price of fish. I think the hon member for Caledon has, to a very large extent, replied to that. I think it would be completely wrong for the Government to impose price restrictions on a luxury item such as rock lobster. We make enough rock lobster available for the local market. In fact, I have an idea that the local market did not even absorb the total amount of rock lobster we made available last year.

I concede that there are anomalies in the trade. I am not going to dispute that question with the hon member. That could be the case. It is a very difficult situation to control, but—I think the hon member for Caledon also pointed this out—if one speaks of high prices for this luxury item, one must nevertheless bear in mind that the public does have access to those rock lobster and may catch them free of charge. I intend reintroducing the permits. I have said this before, and I am saying it again to the hon member for Caledon who, I think, mentioned it.

Why?

We are also going to reintroduce permits for perlemoen. We are going to reintroduce the permits. In the last year in which we issued the permits for rock lobster, 34 000 permits were issued. We have roughly estimated that with the very average use of each permit, rock lobsters to the value of approximately R43 million were caught by the public. People really went to town. Those were rock lobsters caught by members of the public, not the industry. This shows one that these matters must be carefully dealt with. People who tell one that the few rock lobsters caught by the public are really nothing, do not know what they are talking about.

It is not that much. The figure you have given is much too high.

The hon member can confirm these figures with the department.

*As for the price of fish in general, I must say that if one compares all sources of protein with one another, fish is still by far the cheapest.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon members who participated in the debate and supported the legislation. I think we have taken a step forward as far as the control of marine resources are concerned. I am sorry I did not have time to reply in full to the hon members for Simon’s Town and Caledon, and also to elaborate on aspects the hon member for Bryanston mentioned.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, it is with regret that I have to report to this House that this morning a fire broke out in the roof of the Parliamentary building above the old diningroom this morning. We incurred great expense regarding the combating of fires which may break out in the Parliamentary building and luckily the automatic fire extinguishers went into operation immediately and the fire was brought under control.

The Cape Town Fire Brigade was on the scene within a few minutes and we succeeded in extinguishing the fire quickly.

Unfortunately, the furnishings and the carpets in the old dining room were damaged. I want to apologise to hon members for any inconvenience they may experience in this regard. We have already made alternative arrangements for hon members who want to make use of these two restaurants, however.

I can also say that we started with repairs immediately and that we are also almost sure of the cause of the fire. I do not want to expand on this, since it is possible that it may become a legal matter. I merely want to give hon members the assurance that we shall repair the building and have it operating again as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, in the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill, I welcomed the statement made by the hon the State President at the opening of Parliament that the Government intends to bring both the size and the composition of the budget back within affordable limits within a reasonable period of time. One welcomes this intention and I believe that it is sincere.

However, there is clearly a need for strong discipline to be exercised on Government spending as well as higher budget deficits as a percentage of our gross domestic product. I have no problem with Government spending per se, especially in unforeseen circumstances and in times of need such as natural disasters, and particularly in respect of expenditure appropriated to stimulate the economy when there is a lack of consumer spending. However, I do have a problem when additional expenditure is incurred which could have been budgeted for in the main appropriation, such as the improvement of conditions of service for the public sector. This makes a mockery of the budget as a planning instrument and brings the credibility of the budget into question.

One must give credit to those State departments which could, stay within the ambit of their budgeted amounts—with only marginal deviations, of course. I am concerned as to whether this country will be able to sustain the economic recovery which the hon the Minister of Finance mentioned in his Second Reading speech. The hon the Minister said that in the last quarter of 1978 the gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of about 4 and a half per cent. However, the growth rate for the 1987 calendar year was only 2,6%. The hon the Minister said that this was nonetheless much better than the 1% for 1986. Unless we attain a growth rate of closer to 5% per annum, we will not lessen the unemployment level and set about the reallocation of this country’s economic cake.

Our structural unemployment, which the President’s Council estimated at 3,3 million, can only get worse. This is a country of wasted economic opportunities—and I am not trying to be malicious when I am saying this. The managing director of First National Bank, Mr Chris Ball, had the following to say in a special international edition of Leadership in January 1986. I quote:

I agree that inflation must be fought tooth and nail. It is deep-rooted and has become endemic. We have had double digit inflation in this country for over a decade.

To my mind the significant and sustained reduction in inflation can only be achieved by the prolonged application of disciplined fiscal and monetary policies. I should like to know from the hon the Minister what his reaction will be to a combination of pressure from a weaker rand, buoyant demand in the economy, and a tougher attitude from the trade unions in particular. That could obviously have the effect of accelerating the rate of inflation.

Fighting inflation effectively involves short-term sacrifices on the part of the entire population of South Africa. There must be a willingness to make sacrifices, and it is in this regard that we have a problem in South Africa.

Because of the fact that Blacks have historically been disadvantaged, there is this resistance to making sacrifices. There must be a will on the part of all the people of this country to want to make sacrifices in order to reduce inflation. That is precisely my problem, however. By virtue of the fact that Blacks are not accommodated politically, they perceive themselves to have the shorter end of the stick as far as economic sacrifices are concerned, and unless we accommodate them politically we shall always have this problem,.

Yesterday the hon the Minister of Law and Order announced restrictions on 17 organisations in this country. I believe that our political situation must obviously have a bearing on our economic policy and our economic situation as a whole. I believe that this type of action against organisations within the Black community will further strengthen that resistance to the making of sacrifices in order to reduce inflation in this country. I believe it is important that the Government address the causes and not act against the effects. What is happening in the Black community is that the people are expressing their dissatisfaction in terms of certain basic grievances; and the Government acts against these effects that manifest themselves in the Black community and does not address the fundamental and underlying causes. This is a fundamental problem which we shall have to address in this country if we are going to solve the country’s economic problems.

I should like to make my contribution to the debate on the Additional Appropriation Bill and, more specifically, in respect of Vote No 4: Commission for Administration.

It was with great disappointment that I had to take cognisance, when listening to the hon the State President’s opening address, of the drastic decision not to effect a general increase in public servants’ salaries. Already they have to struggle and tighten their belts against the inflation bug which bites virtually only members of the Public Service. We have an increase of R24 650 000 in our Additional Appropriation. Last year, just before the adjournment of Parliament, there was gratifying news from the hon the Minister’s Office. That was the announcement concerning parity among officers in the Public Service. It satisfied everyone in the Public Service. I should like to know whether this parity has been introduced. If it has, is it retroactive? Furthermore, does the non-White personnel also come into consideration for administrative evaluation? How many people are receiving training from the institute at present? What has the percentage growth of the Commission for Administration been over the last six months?

How many members of the Administration: House of Assembly have been transferred to the Administration: House of Representatives? Is there a disciplinary committee where members of the public can report members of the Public Service or lodge complaints? If there is such a committee, where can members of the public lodge their complaints? Once again I want to lend my support to the idea of privatisation. I trust that the directorate for this purpose has already been established.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to inform hon members that the Chairman of the House and I have settled the difference in the House, if there was a difference, in his office. I apologise for causing problems in this House at times.

Order! The hon member must please merely present the facts and not make a speech.

Sir, I want to welcome the Cabinet members who are here today. I do not know whether a coup d’état…

Order! The hon member for Mamre asked to make a statement regarding what had happened in the House earlier. Has the hon member already made this statement?

Sir, I merely wanted to inform hon members that the Chairman of the House and I had settled the matter in his office.

Order! If that is the case, the hon member may proceed.

I want to welcome the Cabinet members who are present here today. It is gratifying to see so many hon Ministers in this House.

As concerns the Vote: Commission for Administration I want to start by referring once again to one of our old grievances which is raised here every year. That is that we still object to the fact that no one has been appointed to the Commission for Administration at this stage to represent our people there. The Commission for Administration is the pillar on which every administrative system in the country rests. Our people form a large percentage of the people employed in the Public Service …

Sir, on a point of order: I am quite surprised and I do not know what is going on. As far as I am concerned the Second Reading debate should take place before the House goes into committee.

Order! The Secretary and I had intended to call in the Whips to solve the problem. From the list which they gave us, we can conclude that there is a misunderstanding here. Before the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition put a point of order, hon members raised matters that are to be discussed during the Committee Stage. They deal with the increase in funds and so on and we have an hour and half available to us for this discussion. Will the Whips please come to the Table? The hon member for Mamre may proceed.

Sir, I have no objection to the fact that the Commission for Administration has applied for additional funds. If we look at the recent course of events in South Africa, such as the droughts and the flood disasters in Natal, one realises that no administration in the world can budget for disasters such as these. For this reason we support the additional funds which have been requested.

Mr Chairman, I should like to respond to the hon member for Schauderville’s few remarks. Firstly, the hon member made a correct statement when he said that our growth rate should actually be in the vicinity of 5% in order to cope with unemployment in South Africa and, at the same time, to catch up with certain backlogs which have developed over the years. That is absolutely true.

However, the hon member then quoted a banker who commented on South Africa’s growth pattern in the past number of years. He quoted the banker as having used the word “absurd”. Sir, I should like to say, with great respect, that “absurd” is the term to be used—it does not matter whether this particular quotation qualifies in this regard or not, because one will only be able to evaluate it when one sees it in its entire context— if one believes that the authorities can manipulate any economy into a rate of growth that is satisfactory for the needs of that particular country. If it were possible for the fiscal and monetary authorities to engineer a country’s growth rate to suit its demands, not a single country in the world would have had a growth rate any lower than a very comfortable percentage. That is simply not possible; it is not reality.

In the case of South Africa, we are very much dependent on trade with the outside world. Right now we find ourselves in an environment where the OECD-countries have all adjusted their expected growth rates—hon members should note that I say expected and not engineered growth rates—to a substantially lower figure. This means that countries who normally buy from us—primary and other goods, but basically primary goods such as our raw material exports—do not have the same need for the goods which they bought from us before as they would have had if their growth rates had been higher. That is simple logic. In other words, if they buy less from us, it means that we sell less to them, with the result that our revenue is lower and, if our revenue is lower, it inhibits our ability to grow in our country. That is logical.

There is no way in which we can force anyone to buy more from us. If, within those parameters, we are compelled to look towards the internal economy in South Africa more than ever before in order to support the growth rate—that is the nature of the situation in which we now find ourselves—we would have to generate the forces of growth within South Africa. Those forces of growth represent, at this moment in time, increased private consumption expenditure. In the past number of years—the hon member also referred to this—through public consumption expenditure, and also through public investment, though to a lesser degree than before, the Government has stimulated the growth in the economy. Now that there is a certain momentum of growth in the economy, it is time for the Government to step back and to leave the momentum to be taken forward further by the private sector. These are the simple facts, Sir.

There is no way in which we in South Africa can change the nature of our growth if, right now, it is dependent on consumption expenditure. That is a dangerous kind of growth though, because if one allows one’s money supply to get out of hand in these circumstances, through inordinate credit being granted to the public, one will just have a repetition of the growth pattern we had in 1983-84 when, in retrospect, the growth rate of 5% was quite comfortable.

However—I have often said so in this House and I want to repeat it—cancer is also growth, but cancerous growth kills one.

Unless we grow internally on the basis of sound economic policies characterised by fiscal and monetary discipline, the kind of growth that we find ourselves in at the moment can be an extremely dangerous affair. I would just like to conclude by saying that it is absurd to think that the authorities in South Africa can engineer a growth rate to satisfy our demands, if external and certain internal circumstances do not contribute towards making that possible.

The hon member posed a most important question. He asked what the result would be of interaction between a weaker rand, buoyant demand and pressure from unions for higher salaries. I would like to leave the third variable out. I would not like to speculate about union activity. However, the first two are enough to respond to. A weaker rand, coupled with buoyant demand, will make the possibility of inflation very real, unless one can impose the necessary curbs— through strict financial discipline in respect of fiscal and monetary policy, to keep that demand within reasonable limits.

At the same time, to prevent imports from getting completely out of hand, traditionally a growth rate of approximately 3% in South Africa resulted in increased demand for imports. We have to be very careful, because we may find ourselves in a spiral where we get ourselves into trouble on the current account of our balance of payments, resulting in a drain on our reserves. This would further result in a weaker currency and could lead to an increase in the cost of our imports. In other words, one might find oneself in an inflation spiral. We therefore have to be extremely careful to avoid that kind of situation.

In conclusion, the hon member said that everyone must be willing to sacrifice. He talked politics as far as Blacks are concerned. I do not believe it is true to say that Blacks are not involved in the political system, because there are many millions of Blacks who are involved in the political system—adequately, as far as they are concerned. However, there are also millions of Blacks who are not politically accommodated at the moment. That process of negotiation—it has to be done in an orderly fashion—is certainly under way. It is not something that can happen overnight.

*Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal expressed his disappointment at the drastic non-increase in the salaries of public servants. I just want to remind the hon member that there were no general increases in 1984-85. There were no general increases in 1985-86. This year there will be no general increases either. Last year there were general increases, but during all these periods fairly substantial amounts were spent on occupational specific adjustments from time to time.

The relevant hon Minister will no doubt react to this presently during the committee stage if the hon member requires any further details in this regard. I have very interesting figures before me. In 1986-87 the per capita increase in the remuneration of public servants was no less than 20%. In other words, it is not correct to say that there has been a salary freeze. It is not correct to create the impression that the public servants will not receive any compensation or increase this year. More than 99% of all public servants are on scales. More or less half of them are on their maximum scale. The rest will however receive their scale increments, and that represents an increase, does it not?

If we had had a salary freeze they would not have got anything. Consequently there has been no salary freeze and therefore those people who are still on scales and who are entitled to notch increases will receive their notches. Secondly, we have repeatedly stated that there is R215 million in the next Budget for occupational specific adjustments. There are many professional groups which will qualify for this in order of priority. That priority determination will be carried out by the relevant Minister, together with the Commission for Administration.

With all due respect, when one adds this up, it amounts to nearly 4%.

Admittedly this is not a dramatic increase in the payroll or in the per capita income, but in his address the hon the State President stated clearly that if we did not do this, there would be tax implications. We have a choice. We do not want tax implications at this stage and that is why the hon the State President is going out of his way to obtain the private sector’s co-operation in moderating their demands for salary increases.

More than that is involved, however. The other part of his plea is that very strict discipline must be enforced when it comes to price increases. That is what the hon the State President is involved in and that is why he deserves support from all of us.

If there are any further questions about parity hon members may address them to the relevant Minister. I am pleased about the hon member for Mamre’s support of this measure.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

Vote No 4—“Commission for Administration”:

Mr Chairman, I apologise for the earlier misunderstanding, and request the hon the Minister please to react to the questions I put during the Second Reading debate.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal for his comments. The hon the Minister of Finance did me the favour of replying to the hon member very effectively and competently. I merely want to add a few things.

The hon member referred to parity. Hon members will remember that when my Vote was discussed in this House last year, I became rather emotional about parity. The reason for this was that it was I, when I was Minister of Internal Affairs during the late seventies, who introduced the system of parity, because I believed it was only right for this principle to be implemented. There are a number of reasons why it has taken so long, but the point is that because I initiated this system—I suppose this is egoistic of me—I was emotional about it and wanted to perfect it. I could not make a definite promise last year that this would happen. I did promise to do my best, however.

Thanks to the hon the Minister of Finance, an extremely competent Minister—I also find him very friendly—R135 million was allocated for the absolute, final achievement of parity.

Unfortunately, because of the prevailing conditions—which are not over yet—we could allocate only R6 million for the present financial year. This will commence on 1 March 1988. It will have the effect of a transfer, however, in that the full R135 million is available for the new financial year, and as a result there will be full parity, financial parity as well as parity in dispensation measures, as from 1 March this year.

Sir, when one thinks of how many Coloureds still earn less than R15 000 per annum, this equalisation is making a big contribution. Those who earn more than R15 000 per annum are going to be the ones who benefit most, however.

There has been talk of great disappointments because public servants are not going to get any salary increases this year apart from ordinary notch increases and occupational specific adjustments for which R215 million has been made available. The State President thought fit, however, to call in all professional groups for consultation. The hon the Minister of Finance and the relevant Minister are consulted each time. It was my privilege to take part in the discussions with the Public Service staff associations, the FTCSA and the nursing profession, which extended over two hours. I had consultations with the Coloured staff associations last year and was present when the hon the State President addressed them. I can say that they are people who fight unceasingly and fiercely for the interests of the Coloured officials. I shall not say that they agreed, but they were extremely reasonable once the hon the State President had explained fully why we could not grant general salary increases this year. Hon members must remember—I admit this and make no excuses—that there are many Coloureds who are still on low salary scales. Hon members must remember, however, that indirectly we are fighting for them too, because they are the people who are suffering most as a result of the high inflation rate.

Reference was made to staff utilisation. I do not have the exact figures available concerning the utilisation of Coloured staff. Nor do I have the figures for the attendance of courses just at the moment. I can give full details in this connection by means of a letter or a question for written reply, however. I want to say that the Commission for Administration is proud of what it is doing as far as the training of the officials in all population groups is concerned.

With reference to complaints, I want to give the hon member the assurance that if he was referring to complaints regarding the Public Service, the Commission for Administration is accessible to all officials and employees who have complaints or grievances. I think hon members who have made representations to me or to the Commission on behalf of their voters or individuals, must admit that their complaints always receive prompt, objective and honest attention, and that they are accommodated as far as possible.

Hon members must forgive me if I have left anyone out. I was a little confused about the procedure, and may have neglected in the process to write down a point made by an hon member. Hon members are free, however, to ask questions if there is anything else they want clarified.

Mr Chairman, while I am standing, please permit me to reply to the hon member for Mamre. He broached the issue of the appointment of a Coloured member to the Commission for Administration. The law is colour-blind as far as the appointment of a Coloured or Indian member is concerned. Appointments are made on merit based on experience, and one must reach a stage at which one will have a Coloured director-general with the necessary background. The matter can be considered at that stage. There is no question of a door’s being shut in the hon member’s face. A time will come for favourable consideration to be given to the matter.

Mr Chairman, may I please put a question to the hon the Minister? I take cognisance of the hon the Minister’s standpoint in connection with the appointment of a Coloured representative in the Commission for Administration. My question to the hon the Minister is whether it is not possible to follow a programme of affirmative action as far as the appointment of a person to the board is concerned, since, thanks to the political system in the country, members of our community have never had an opportunity to reach senior positions in which they could acquire experience in these spheres.

Mr Chairman, the hon member mentioned a board. Did he mean the Commission for Administration? I want to put it this way. It is not a question of affirmative action on the part of the Government; it is a question of affirmative action on the part of the Coloured people. Bring the qualified person who has merit; place him by using the channel of a director-general. Sir, hon members can accuse the Government of many things, but not of dragging its heels when it comes to the political and administrative levels. I mentioned one thing, viz parity. Is that not a sign of willingness to work purposefully toward equality? Is the fact that hon members are sitting in the House and have own Ministers not proof that we are moving towards a point where they will become more and more effective and will acquire more and more cooperation and co-responsibility?

The Government will regard the question of future appointments in this light.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it is possible at this stage to include the employees of Parliament under the jurisdiction of the Commission for Administration, since they do not receive any of the benefits an ordinary public servant receives. They are worse off than, for example, an ordinary security guard at a school. Does the hon the Minister not think it is time we looked after the employees of Parliament as well, while we are discussing this portfolio?

Mr Chairman, let me tell the hon member that obviously I cannot give him a final answer to that today. It is not only the Commission for Administration and I who are involved—and that applies to the other Houses too. If we do not have uniformity and comparability, of course the Commission will consult with the other authorities involved and see what can be done. I shall make a note to the effect that this matter must be taken further and shall give the hon member a full written reply in due course.

Mr Chairman, I want to say something, and perhaps the hon the Minister can reply to it.

Our problem in connection with the promotion of our Coloured people in these posts can perhaps be explained as follows. On the one hand the Government says it is a question of group representation. When one looks at the system—as our people call it—however, one sees that a Coloured person can enter that system only by means of group politics. He cannot be promoted there. The hon the Minister must not misunderstand me, since I have no ulterior motives in saying this. Before I go on, I merely want to tell the hon the Minister that we appreciate what he has done in connection with parity. I realise what he has done in connection with parity in Parliament and in the President’s Council. I quite understand that.

We are talking specifically about the promotion of Coloured people in order to attain a certain objective in the Commission for Administration, however. We can mention other Houses as well. I do not want the hon the Minister to think I am using the argument of non-racialism on purpose. We do have a problem with this approach, however.

†On the one hand the concern is with the representation of the group. A Coloured teacher, for instance, will only get a post in a Coloured school. We know that. He does not have a snowball’s hope in hell of getting a post in a White school, let alone promotion in a White school. There are various reasons for this, one of which is that there is an oversupply of White teachers. When, however, we use this argument—and this matter has already been raised today—the argument of “non-racialism” comes to the fore. You see, Sir, we are told then that we must enter the race “equally”.

*When the referee blows the whistle, everyone must start on the same touchline. That is the problem we have with this affirmative action. This is the respect in which the hon member Mr Lockey has my support. We want the Cabinet to discuss this, and we do not expect the hon the Minister to give us an answer today, but we want an official to be appointed under us, because he must attain our purpose of representation in the Commission for Administration. We sometimes regard this Commission for Administration as the Government, because if a decision has to be taken, the Cabinet is compelled to consult with the Commission for Administration. This happens in the case of the creation of a new post, a new department or a new ministry. All these things come under consideration when we talk about these matters.

We merely want to do what other countries do.

Some democratic countries talk about non-racialism, but if they work with certain groups, there is a concerted attempt to help a certain group to get into the flow. I should like to tell the hon the Minister that I was a member of the former CRC for 10 years. I was also a member of the executive for five years. Every time a merit committee visited the department with a view to promoting officials, I saw how the question of merit works. Coloured clerks struggled to be promoted by that merit committee, because in the former Department of Coloured Affairs they had to compete with White as well as Coloured officials. White officials had an advantage, because they had acquired experience in other departments. All we are asking today is for the hon the Minister and his Commission for Administration to consider these things. Sometimes a Coloured official is not promoted because he was excluded from another department previously. He has never been able to acquire the necessary experience, therefore, yet this lack of experience is held against him. It would be like telling my daughter she cannot get the car keys, because she cannot drive. I never give her an opportunity to learn to drive, however, and now she is being punished because I have never given her that opportunity.

These things happened in the past. I do not want to claim that the Government does not go out of its way to do certain things or to promote people in certain posts. All I am asking is that there should be just representation in the Commission for Administration so that our officials can have the necessary qualifications to take their rightful place in the political order. This Department of Coloured Affairs was established shortly after the 1948 election, in 1950, and some of our Coloured officials can definitely take their place anywhere in the political system today. We work with them. We merely want the Government to cast an eye in this direction as well, so that our officials can take their rightful place in the political order.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. I enjoyed listening to him because I have great respect for him. I want to give him a word of advice, however. He must please not teach his wife or his daughter to drive, because a man is never reasonable when it comes to teaching his wife or daughter to drive.

Surely I am one of the Whites in this House who cannot be accused this afternoon of unreasonable or discriminatory practices. In fact, I can support that by saying I was chairman of the committee that had to determine the salaries of Ministers, Deputy Ministers and members of Parliament. Unfortunately the recommendation I made could not be implemented fully, and hon members and I are making the same sacrifice today. What happened, however, when we got to the issue of own affairs Ministers? I told the Committee that there could be no difference or any discrimination between own affairs Ministers and Cabinet Ministers. I did this because I took into account the fact that most own affairs Ministers are not White. That is what I did in this connection.

What else did I do? In the President’s Council, where I acted as chairman, there was a very good man who was there on the basis of the recommendation of hon members of this House, and I provided him with some political finesse. I want to add that in other respects he was my superior, particularly once he began to quote Shakespeare and Van Wyk Louw. Whatever the case may be, I gave him a little political finesse. Where is he today? He is the ambassador for Whites, Blacks and Coloureds in Holland. This also applies to the Indian gentleman who is with the IMF at the moment. Attention is being paid to these things, therefore. We are serious about this. To tell the truth, the right-wingers call us liberals because we look at these things honestly.

I do want to add, however, that hon members must remember that there are officials and officials. This own affairs administration has the right to make the majority of the appointments itself. It is only in respect of the top cadre that the Commission for Administration can make recommendations to the Cabinet. If that is a mistake, we can reconsider the position. I cannot give any assurances across the floor of the House. Hon members must remember, however, that they already have extensive powers in this regard. [Interjections.]

Not any more.

We now come to the question of compartmentalisation. My hon friend, the Minister, implied that Coloureds, Blacks and Indians are pushed into compartments and can make progress only in those compartments. That is not the case, however, Sir. I have just indicated that as far as foreign representation is concerned, the fact of the matter is that a Coloured official can be appointed in all the general Government departments and—on merit—he can progress to the highest position. There is no group representation as far as the Commission for Administration is concerned.

When it comes to own affairs, it is true—all things being equal—that we give preference to a person from a specific population group. A Coloured person would receive preference in this House, for instance. I want to ask hon members with all due respect to understand the position of the Commission for Administration. The Commission for Administration is an expert body which tries to advise objectively and knowledgeably; it is not a representative body.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 5—“Improvement of Conditions of Service”:

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate on the Additional Appropriation I indicated that I had difficulties with the large additional amounts which are voted during the course of the year. I should merely like to determine why the additional amount for the improvement of conditions of service was not included in the Main Budget for 1987-1988. Why was this amount only requested in the course of the year?

Mr Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the hon Minister sincerely for everything that he has done in respect of parity. I think we also have our problems, but I am thankful that we have someone like the hon the Minister of Local Government, Agriculture and Housing. I am not going to take this matter any further.

Nonetheless there is appreciation in our community for all the attempts that have been made to introduce parity. If we differ on one point or another, the hon the Minister should bear in mind that to differ forms part of our participation.

I want to thank the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Representatives for his work. My sincere gratitude also goes to the Public Service League which has over the years fought for the Coloured officials.

I also want to thank the hon the Minister of Finance. I can understand why this additional amount has to be approved. It is part of the improvement package. I merely want to ask that we guard against the problems which exist in respect of the public servants’ pension fund. I do not expect the hon the Minister to reply to me here. I merely want us to give the public and all public servants the assurance that they are not going to suffer losses in the end as a result of problems the fund is experiencing.

Furthermore, I want to make an appeal that the needs of women in the public service be considered. Can consideration not be given to earlier retirement for women? Many of the older women in education are no longer physically strong enough to continue teaching up until the age of 60.

I also want to appeal for a greater attempt to be made on our part in realising the policy of opening up general affairs.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply in a nutshell to the question put by the hon member for Schauderville. It will not take long. If one summarises Vote 5, Improvement of Conditions of Service, it looks as follows: The additional amount of R116,8 million which has been requested, is required for the following: A reduction in expected savings on departmental Votes, which therefore will have to be made good on this Vote—R50 million; the elimination of disparities—R6 million per month or R135 million per annum; increased expenditure as a result of taking over personnel of development boards, 15 267 members of staff, plus the railway police, 6 185, and growth in the personnel corps, especially of teachers, nurses and service personnel, as well as various additional debits which have been included in to this Vote—R60 806 000.

Sir, it is very easy to say that one ought to predict correctly to the last R10. How on earth can one correctly predict the number of teachers, nurses and service personnel?

We would be able to predict correctly if we were to freeze those posts entirely, but of course we would not survive that. All kinds of constitutional developments take place in the course of a year, which one cannot envisage beforehand. The question of the take-over of staff from the development boards as well as the railway police is one such example. In this way one could show that the increase of R116,806 million was in fact an extremely reasonable amount despite all these variables.

I want to assure hon members that we have not let the matter rest there. The Commission gave very serious consideration to the matter and made a recommendation to the Cabinet. The recommendation—which was accepted—was that posts should be frozen, except in certain departments such as Defence, Police and certain sections in the Justice Department etc. We are therefore going to apply even stricter discipline. Naturally, there is also the issue of function evaluation. Each department has to perform its own function evaluation. The Commission for Administration only initiates, guides and co-ordinates this evaluation.

I do not think hon members can accuse the Commission for Administration or the Government of not doing everything in our power to keep expenditure within limits, in the year gone by or in the year ahead—also as far as the increase in expenditure is concerned—and restricting ourselves to the allocated amount as far as possible.

Mr Chairman, I should like to place further emphasis on a question the hon member for Mamre raised. It concerns the question of retirement age, especially as far as our women in education are concerned. There was a time when female teachers were much needed, and the Commission for Administration moved the retirement age up to 65. In the present climate the situation in education has changed considerably. White female teachers have been descending on our schools. They may be welcome there, but this is definitely causing a bottleneck situation. In the years ahead it is going to create an even greater problem. By way of an example I can tell the hon the Minister about a high school that had six White teachers three years ago, but in January this year there were 17 Whites.

On the other hand, the situation in education has changed to such an extent that some of these women have become tired of the obligations with which they are burdened. I ask the hon the Minister whether he will come back next year and tell us whether the Commission for Administration can shorten the period by five years so that the retirement age will be 60 once again. In this way employment opportunities can be created so that the youth will be more of a driving force.

In one way or another this problem prevents young people from getting positions. Secondly, many of these women are the breadwinners of their families, and they are tired of not having the prospect of receiving a pension one day, as is the case with men.

While I am speaking, I want to ask the Commission for Administration one year ahead of time to come and report next year on what they did to place our people on the lower levels in positions. I want to tell hon members that many of the banks place many of our sons and daughters behind their counters. In that way they are promoting their own cause. Last Friday I spoke to the manager of a certain commercial bank and I was delighted to hear—the hon the Minister of Finance should take cognisance of this—about the high productivity of my people in those banks. When four o’clock comes, our young ladies are not too tired to finish typing out a statement. Not only does this mean a lot to the bank, but to South Africa as a whole.

I do not want to find fault, but for the sake of our image I should like to say that more of our young people, especially our competent young women, should be employed in the broadcasting services. People can say what they like, but they could have moved more quickly in employing some of our young people there. That would present this House and the general public who are positively disposed with the opportunity of saying that reform is indeed taking place in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to eliminate any misunderstanding. I merely want to tell the hon the Minister that I was not criticising the amounts per se as set out in the explanatory memorandum. My criticism was aimed at the fact that an additional amount over and above that which was allocated in the Main Budget was not taken into consideration when the Main Budget was drawn up.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I also omitted to refer to another matter, viz the question of pensions. Hon members will realise that pensions are not my responsibility and that I can make no authoritative announcement on the subject. I understand, however, that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development made a reassuring announcement in this connection. Hon members must read his Hansard. I believe it was a reassuring announcement.

To the hon member who appealed on behalf of women in education I should like to say that I am a pro-feminist—obviously in a positive way—and if it depended on me, I would have jumped in immediately to see what I could do. It is an education matter, however, and specifically own affairs education.

The Commission for Administration does not have the jurisdiction. However, the Commission for Administration is always willing, if necessary, to help with advice or recommendations of some kind. If there are any hon members who want to make further representations concerning matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission, they are free to address them to the Commission in writing. We shall reply or give advice in that regard.

I appreciate the explanation the hon member for Schauderville gave. I tried to explain why one cannot budget accurately in such a huge organisation. Furthermore I want to ask him whether he knows that we are asking for less than 1% extra in the Additional Appropriation. The budgeted amounts were that accurate. I think the hon the Minister of Finance deserves every praise for this. Hon members see him sitting here. He is a very charming and friendly person, but he is a terror when it comes to our department and when he wants to force us to save.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 14—“Public Works and Land Affairs”:

Mr Chairman, the last sentence under Programme 6 reads as follows:

That gives me the impression that the administration saved R100 000 under Vote No 14. If that is so, I would like to quote a passage from the last report of the department, as follows:

If that is the case, I would like to ask the following questions: How many functions, if any, have been privatised? Has devolution taken place and, if so, to what extent? If the answers to the above questions are in the affirmative, is R100 000 not then a minimal saving for a department that appropriates billions? Perhaps the hon the Minister can answer those questions.

I now turn to the question of housing aid. There is a decrease of R44 280 000 in housing aid. It is well-known that housing is the biggest short-term need of our people. I would like to know whether the South African Housing Advisory Council, whose members were appointed in June 1986, has made recommendations on land affairs and township establishment—which is one of their briefs—perhaps with a view to acquiring land or identifying affordable land with this saving of R44 280 000 so that affordable housing can be built, especially for the lower income groups. If that money is taken back and put into the general account of the department, it will be lost to housing forever.

The hon the Minister is already asking for a nominal amount of only R1 000. The way I read it, that means the department is offsetting a loss of R41 181 000 against provision for building structures and equipment.

I must agree that the purchasing by the State of land and buildings comprising private prison outposts was a step in the right direction, for those private prison outposts were not only abused by those people who owned them, but the taxpayer was also being disadvantaged.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think it is an absolute disgrace that we cannot maintain a quorum in this Chamber.

Order! It has been established that there is a quorum present in the Committee. The hon member for Retreat may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to continue making the point I was making when I was so rudely interrupted by the opposition, who wrongfully claimed that there was not a quorum present in the Committee. One would have expected them also to form part of a quorum since they should also be present in this Chamber. I see only one of them at the moment, however. Allow me to proceed, Sir.

I want to refer now to the ex gratia payment of R60 000. What I should like to know is why the builder did not appoint an electrical subcontractor. The builder would then have been responsible. I know, Sir, that in terms of the Institute of Architects’ rules relating to lump sum contracts, the architect is the one who goes out and finds the subcontractors. He then tells the builder to appoint them. The builder, in turn, is then responsible for the subcontractor. I see that in this case, however, the department had gone out and done so. I consider that to have been wrong since the department was also the client in this instance.

Lastly, I want to express my full agreement with the sentiment that money can never compensate for the South Africans who paid the supreme price in defending our country. I agree that they should be honoured. My reservation concerns the Republic’s share of R1,1 million, which makes up only 2,07% of the total cost of approximately R55 million incurred by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. This, of course, does not include the Republic’s contribution to the United Nations Memorial Cemetery at Puscine in Korea. What I should like to know is this. In the department’s 1986 annual report it is stated that:

Surely this cannot be correct if we were asked to contribute an added R200 000 this year. We were also told that the commission submits its reports to member nations annually. How are we able to verify whether these reports are true and accurate now that we are not part of the Commonwealth? Is the hon the Minister in a position to query these reports? I await his answers. My committee and I support the additional budget.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to react to the points which the hon member for Retreat made here. Firstly the hon member raised the question of the privatisation of certain functions of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs. I can tell the hon member that in my opinion, this department is the Government department which has been privatised to the greatest extent. Whereas in former years this department undertook all its own building projects and had its own architects, engineers and other workers, it has now dispensed with these functions and is using architects and planners from the private sector. This department gives most of its work—approximately 90%—to private contractors.

We have even privatised certain maintenance services. At the moment we are considering the Government nurseries and there is a possibility of privatisation there as well. I want to emphasise that the majority of this department’s activities have already been privatised.

The hon member asked me to explain the decrease of nearly R44 million in the specific Vote. Those funds were borrowed by the National Housing Commission on the capital and money markets. When this budget was drawn up, an estimate of the interest rates was made and the only function this department has with regard to housing is to transfer those funds to the three own affairs administrations. Our function in respect of our budget is to service those loans in areas where the administrations concerned need money. They lend the money, they sell or let some of the houses, but the income derived from those funds goes back to the Minister of Housing in the respective own affairs administrations. The money can be used again immediately. This means that that money does not have to be repaid to the Department of Public Works. In this case, interest rates dropped drastically with the result that we had less interest to pay. That does not mean that we cut down on funds which were made available for the construction of houses, however. That is not the case at all. To the best of my knowledge some of the own affairs administrations cannot pay out all the money that was allocated in the present financial year. Some of the loans we incurred have a floating interest rate and there are only a few loans that have a fixed interest rate. That in effect means a saving in interest. As a matter of interest, I can tell hon members that the amount we borrowed came to R1 154 million all together. This is a phenomenal amount and is the main reason for the drastic decline.

The hon member also mentioned the fact that an ex gratia payment had been made to Dura Construction (Pty) Ltd. I should like to answer the hon member’s question thoroughly. In 1979 Dura Construction was the successful tenderer in respect of construction work over a period of three years at the naval base in Simon’s Town. The contract price was R7,3 million. As far as the electrical work for the same project was concerned, Crown House Engineering (Pty) Ltd was the successful tenderer with a contract price of R1,2 million. This company was on site with the construction company. The electrical contractor however, neglected, in terms of his contract, to programme his activities properly to fit in with those of the building contractor. The result was a considerable delay. The electrical contractor was fined R59 521 which was shown as a loss in his final account and which he forfeited. The delay caused by the electrical contractor brought about an extension of the building contract which led to additional costs of R59 483 for the building contractor. This amount was claimed from the department.

The department was of the opinion that the electrical contractor should have been held responsible for this claim. A legal opinion was sought concerning the possible right of recovery against the electrical contractor. According to this opinion, the money was not recoverable. In the meantime, as a result of the time that had elapsed as a result of the investigation and the negotiation process, the building contractor’s claim had become prescribed. In accordance with legal advice and on the merits of the case, the building contractor had a legal claim, however. It would have been immoral to reject it on the grounds of prescription. It was appropriate, therefore, that a grace payment of R59 483 was made to this firm. Briefly that is what happened in this regard. What is important, however, is that the amount we paid out was more or less the same as the amount we kept back when the electrical contractor was paid. It did not cost the State any more money, therefore. According to the contract the price was the same.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 16—“Prisons”:

Mr Chairman, because of the limited time available to me I shall keep my speech very short. I want to tell the hon Minister however, that I shall have quite a lot to say during the next debate on Prisons.

Firstly, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister. Last year, at a very inconvenient time—it was 14 December—I contacted the Commissioner of Prisons because I wanted to speak to him urgently. I want to thank the hon the Minister, because thanks to him I was able to solve a very delicate problem very easily with the help of certain generals.

Suffice it to say that we on this side of the House support this Additional Appropriation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I was warned by my hon colleague, the Minister of Finance, that I would have to come here and explain why a considerable amount had been allocated for Prisons in this Additional Appropriation. I noticed that the specialist in the field of the prison system, the hon member for Robertson, and also the hon member for Mamre would be participating in the debate. It is general knowledge that the hon member for Robertson is probably the member in Parliament—not only in this House—who knows most about the prison system.

From the outside! [Interjections.]

I want to tell him that he is becoming a specialist, but I hasten to explain that his knowledge is based on interest and not on experience! [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to confine myself to thanking the hon member for Robertson for his contribution. I want to thank him for his understanding, which is apparent from the fact that he did not elaborate further on the matter. I therefore believe we need not take up any more of the House’s time.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 23—“Transport”:

Mr Chairman, we should like to support this Additional Appropriation. I merely want to ask a question with reference to Programme 6. What was the reason for the increase of R7 058 000 under the Vote Auxiliary and Associated Services?

Mr Chairman, I want to sincerely thank the hon member for Vredendal for his support of this Vote. He asked what had given rise to this tremendous increase. The increase of R7 million under Programme 6, Auxiliary and Associated Services, was concerned in the first place with the provision which is being made for Search and Rescue Services. All of this relates to the Mauritius air disaster. We are therefore providing for R7,412 million.

Perhaps I could add, just for the information of the hon member, that more than R7 million was paid for the services of the John Ross, the Wolraad Woltemade and the Argo navigation equipment, Safair and Court Helicopters, the Department of Environment Affairs, the American navy and the German government.

Accounts to the value of approximately R0,5 million are still expected. I think that should answer the hon member’s question.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 27—“Police”:

Mr Chairman, I think I have a few minutes at my disposal. I should like to make use of them. I took cognisance from the explanatory memorandum tabled by the hon the Minister of Law and Order that an additional amount of R2,469 million was being requested under Programme 1, Administration.

I know that the overall objective of the administration is the organisation of the SA Police. This objective also includes the financing of recreation, welfare and official functions of the SA Police. I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether the additional amount of R2,469 million is needed for the 75th anniversary celebrations of the SA Police.

Quite probably, the hon the Minister will say that not all the money will be used for the celebrations, but only a part thereof. Should some of the money indeed be used for the celebrations, I want to tell the hon the Minister today that we do not begrudge the SA Police Force this money. They deserve to celebrate! For 75 years they have maintained law and order. For 75 years they have assisted and protected the inhabitants of South Africa,

For 75 years they have investigated crime and tracked down criminals. In recent years the Police Force has combated urban terrorism and ensured the safety of the individual in South Africa. We are very grateful to the Police Force for the services they have rendered in times of distress and disaster. We take cognisance of the tremendous help they are giving to people in the flood-stricken areas of the Northern Cape and the Free State.

To the hon the Minister of Law and Order I want to say: “Enjoy your celebrations and congratulations on your 75th anniversary. Good luck!” [Interjections.] The hon member for Border makes the most controversial remarks in this House. Now he is saying that I am a member of the AWB, but today I want to tell him …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I said nothing at all. [Interjections.]

I want to tell those hon members that they must leave me alone. They must not come near me!

Order! No one threatens anyone in this House.

I shall set the AWB on them, Sir. I want to tell the police that I wish them prosperity and strength for this year.

Under Programme 2, I note a saving of R52,8 million. That is gratifying, but it is also disturbing to know that the saving was brought about by the suspension of achievement and merit notches as well as the fact that vacancies are not being filled. We all know that every policeman has to perform his daily tasks in circumstances which are not always pleasant. We also know that regardless of the circumstances, the public expects a policeman to act in a disciplined fashion. Furthermore, we know that a policeman is exposed to the most vehement criticism if he puts a foot wrong. Not everyone in the Police Force can become a commissioner, a general, a lieutenant or a sergeant. The achievement and merit notches were a good incentive and motivation for the police to perform their tasks singlemindedly and thoroughly. I am afraid that the suspension of achievement and merit notches will have a negative affect on the operation of the Police Force. Will policemen not become careless now? Is the suspension of achievement and merit notches not going to encourage a lack of productivity? I should appreciate and welcome it if the hon the Minister of Law and Order could explain that to us. Personally, I hope that it is merely a temporary measure, and that achievement and merit notches will be reintroduced immediately.

I still wanted to talk about the additional amount of R68,3 million for logistical support. I want to request the hon the Minister to ensure that part of that R68,3 million is used for the police station in Mitchell’s Plain, which has to protect 500 000 people, so that the police can purchase the necessary vehicles and equipment. The commanding officer there did not even have a spare wheel recently. I want to request the hon the Minister to consider all the Coloured police stations so that they can be equipped with the necessary equipment and apparatus. I know the hon the Minister of Law and Order and his deputy want their men to be happy and that is why I am sure that the two of them will do everything in their power to see to the needs of the Coloured police stations in particular. I want to add that they must not forget about Atlantis. I know the hon the Minister is in a position to do that.

Mr Chairman, in the minute I have in which to reply, I should like to start by sincerely thanking the hon member for Riversdal for his congratulations and best wishes on the 75th anniversary celebrations of the Force. I also want to thank him for his positive view and contribution in respect of the Police.

With regard to Programme 1 the hon member asked whether the increase in administration costs, viz R2,469 million, was going to be used for the anniversary celebrations of the Police Force. I should like to tell the hon member that the amount consists of R1,300 million that has to be paid in respect of regional services councils, R969 000 in respect of communications, R120 000 in respect of transport and R80 000 in respect of accommodation. The money is therefore not going to be used for the anniversary celebrations of the SA Police. Members of the SA Police voluntarily agreed to pay for the anniversary celebrations themselves. This money is not for that purpose, therefore, but for other purposes. I thank the hon member once again for his good wishes in this regard.

The hon member also asked me to see to the reintroduction of achievement and merit notches. That amounts to R14 million. I must be quick now because time has run out. I agree with the hon member and we should very much like to reintroduce the achievement and merit notches. In determining priorities for the past year, however, we were of the opinion that that money could be better utilised for more policemen, for example, for which we had a greater need in the specific circumstances. I do, however, share the hon member for Riversdal’s view that we should reward our policemen for good work and excellent achievements and that we should see whether we cannot perhaps reintroduce these notches in the new financial year. [Time expired.]

Schedules, Clauses and Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

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

1. (f) that the judgment is a judgment or order which in terms of any law may not be recognized or enforced in the Republic.

Mr Chairman, the hon members behind me want to know how long I am going to be speaking. They asked me not to speak for a long time and I have promised that I will speak for only half a minute.

We on this side have no objection to the measure. It is a good Bill and it has our approval.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, the standing select committee having considered and discussed the relevant papers referred to it, wishes to recommend that this House approve the proposed exclusion in terms of section 2(3) of the National Parks Act, 1976, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of portions of land. They total approximately 1 900 ha in extent and comprise the remainder of the farm Sigambule 216 JU, Lot 368 and Lots 381 to 383 of the Nsikazi Reserve, situate in the district of White River, Province of Transvaal, from the Kruger National Park.

As hon members are aware, in terms of section 2(3) of the National Parks Act, 1976, land which forms part of a national park may only be withdrawn therefrom under the authority of a resolution of Parliament. With the development taking place in the Kampneaden area, the SA Development Trust requires the acquisition of land to extend the Black township of Matsulu. This Black area was in existence before the park was declared, and as far back as 1962 parliamentary approval was granted for the farm Makhonzizi 215 JU and portion one of the farm Sigambule, which has joined the proposed exclusion, to be excluded from the park. The proposed boundary between the park and the area under discussion has over the years been accepted by all parties concerned as the formal boundary. The area was never fenced off and the boundary that now exists was proclaimed on paper only. This was done before 1923 by a land surveyor who is possibly unknown at this stage.

My committee and I are very strongly opposed to the excision of land belonging to a park. We believe that if the land from a park is excised there should be adequate compensation. We have been assured that when the recommendations of the Commission for Co-operation and Development are implemented in respect of further boundary adjustments of KaNgwane, an almost similar area of land will be incorporated into the park.

The LP believes that there should be equal sharing of not only land but also of all other opportunities that will enhance the social, political and economic lives of all South Africans. This geographic consolidation which has been negotiated is in line with the LP’s constitutional option of eventually having a non-racial geographic federation. Our committee, therefore, recommends that this House approve the exclusion.

The committee also recommends that the House approve the proposed granting in terms of section 15(4)(a) of the Forest Act, 1984, of a temporary right in favour of the Department of Water Affairs, to use an existing road over a potion of the Groendal State Forest, which was set aside as a wilderness area in terms of section 7A of the Forest Act, 1968, read in conjunction with section 89(4) of the Forest Act, 1984, situate in the administrative division of Uitenhage, Province of the Cape of Good Hope.

Mr Chairman, in terms of the Forest Act, 1984, temporary rights over a wilderness area on State forest land may be granted only under the authority of a resolution of Parliament.

The Department of Water Affairs has its radiorepeater site on Vermaakskop which is private property adjacent to the Groendal State Forest. The road in question still exists and is the only available access road to the repeater site. The Department of Water Affairs will use this road approximately four times a year. The Groendal State Forest falls under the management of the Administrator of the Cape, who has recommended that the required temporary right be granted to the Department of Water Affairs. Our committee considered and discussed the matter and is of the opinion that the request is fair and valid and recommends that this House approve it.

Mr Chairman, the transfer of land reserved for conservation or forestry is a very serious matter. That is why the system prescribes that Parliament must be consulted in this regard and this is exactly what is happening now. I am very grateful for the support of this House. What we actually move here is that land which had been used for purposes other than a nature reserve be transferred and that access be allowed to a specific road. I thank hon members for their support.

Recommendations agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to support this Bill on behalf of the Labour Party.

The Municipal Accountants’ Bill establishes a board for municipal accountants in clause 2. This council shall be a body corporate and shall have juristic capacity. The functions of the board are set out in clause 3. This clause determines inter alia the regulating of the municipal accountants’ profession and also lays down certain training requirements for municipal accountants. In light of the Government’s policy of decentralisation— I shall not call it devolution of power—municipalities are working with larger amounts of money to an increasing extent. In the 1984-85 financial year, the hon the Minister pointed out in his Second Reading speech that local authorities had spent a total amount of R9 060 million in that financial year. We also know that large municipalities such as Johannesburg have a budget of more than R1 000 million. To protect the taxpayers it is necessary that very high professional and ethical standards be attached to the profession of municipal accountants since these people work with these public funds within local authorities. The standing committee has made technical amendments to the Bill. The power of the hon the Minister is restricted inter alia. We have no other objections to the Bill and we support it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Lockey gave a very good analysis of the Bill and the surrounding circumstances. The Bill concerned is a very necessary piece of legislation which will in fact contribute to better administration of the country, especially on the third tier. I should also like to express my thanks to the standing committee. Various parties came to a mutual agreement on this Bill and I think this is a very good example of how the standing committee system can contribute to better legislation. I should like to thank the hon member as well as the standing committee.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Order! I have been informed by the hon the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs that a fire broke out at approximately 10h00 in the roof of the parliamentary building above the main dining room of the House of Assembly. The automatic fire prevention system was activated by the heat, and the fire brigade of Cape Town was also on the scene within minutes.

The fire was soon extinguished, and its cause and the extent of the damage are being investigated.

A contractor of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs was engaged in waterproofing on the roof at the time the fire started.

Unfortunately the dining room was damaged by water penetration and smoke, but clearing up operations and repairs were immediately instituted in order to make it available for use as soon as possible. Alternative arrangements are being made in order to minimise inconvenience to members.

Thanks is due to all those who rendered assistance. It was encouraging to see how quickly and in how orderly a fashion action was taken to contain a situation that could have had serious implications.

Mr Chairman, I move:

With the introduction of this amending Bill I want to remind hon members that scientists in our country are scarce and that it is expensive to obtain their services.

As hon members are aware, there are various statutory scientific councils such as the CSIR, SABS, HSRC, MRC and the Council for Mineral Technology. These councils must compete in the open market with other potential employers to ensure the services of scientists in order to function effectively.

As the remuneration packages which the statutory councils can offer are subject to detailed central control, it gets more difficult for the councils to recruit badly needed skilled experts and to retain them.

Representations for greater autonomy and the establishment of alternative co-ordinating arrangements or control structures for scientific councils have been received, focussing on the macrocontext and not on detail in order to accomplish an optimal relation between management independence and essential central coordination.

With the approval of Cabinet, the heads of scientific councils, the responsible Ministers and the Commission for Administration have accepted during August 1986 the application of a system of framework autonomy for scientific councils.

*On the recommendation of the executive committee of Mintek’s council the Minister approved during 1987 that the system of framework autonomy be applied to Mintek.

†In terms of section 9(2) of the Act on Mineral Technology, 1981, the council of Mintek pays the officials and employees appointed by it the remuneration as the Minister may approve, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.

The main object of the proposed amendment, as approved by the Standing Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs, and here I specifically refer to the amendment of subsection (1) and (2) of section 9 of the Act, is to grant, within the framework approved by the hon the Minister, with the concurrence of the hon the Minister of Finance, greater autonomy to the Council for Mineral Technology in respect of the appointment, remuneration and conditions of service of its staff. The greater measure of freedom which will be created for the Council for Mineral Technology by the system of framework autonomy, will enable it to apply personnel and remuneration practices which will be more market orientated than the present system.

As regards the proposed amendments of subsection (l)(b)(i) of section 6 of the principal Act which provides for the constitution of the council, the object is to enable the Minister to appoint an additional expert in the field of mineral technology on the council, by reducing the departmental representation. Such an expert may even be an official of the department.

As a result of the proposed definition of “remuneration” which includes salary, allowance, subsidy or any other similar benefit, it follows that subsections (3) and (4) of Section 9 are not applicable any longer and it is therefore proposed that they be scrapped. For the same reason subsections (1), (3) and (4) of Section 5 are also being amended.

The amendment of section 10(2) of the Act is firstly an improvement of the wording and secondly a mere result of the insertion of the definition of “remuneration”, while subsection (3) can be scrapped as a result of the scrapping of section 6(6) and also as the proviso is covered by the amendment of subsection (2) of Section 10.

*By the substitution of subsection (7) of section 13 of the principal Act the president of Mintek is appointed as accounting officer of the council. This is in accordance with the general policy and involves no matter of principle.

All the other amendments are of a minor and consequential nature and therefore deserve no further explanation.

†Allow, me, Sir, to use this opportunity to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs for the competent manner in which they have dealt with this Amendment Bill.

Mr Chairman, with regard to the Mineral Technology Amendment Bill, the amendment is purely academic. It provides the Mineral Technology Council with greater autonomy in respect of the appointment, remuneration and service conditions of personnel.

The Bill reduces from seven to six the number of members who shall serve on this council and also stipulates that one shall be an officer of the department. The president of this council shall be the accounting officer responsible for the receipt and payment of all moneys, and all accounts are to be audited by the Auditor-General.

The standing committee unanimously accepted this amendment and therefore I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact that there were no problems with this Bill in the standing committee. Speaking from my own experience, I would say that this Bill went through the standing committee in record time. There was absolutely no questioning of the authority of the Mineral Technology Council and their recommendation. It was felt that it was a very reasonable one. The council itself is made up of very highly qualified scientists and technologists and the administrative staff have to be remunerated for their services. They felt that the recommendation from that council was an important issue and that it should be accepted.

We on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we in the PRP have no problems with this particular Bill and therefore we shall lend it our support.

It was interesting to hear the hon the Minister say that this country could not afford to lose any skilled persons who had been trained in any of the sciences. I want to say that we on this side of the House completely agree with that statement. If, however, one looks at the number of people who have left this country—I have some figures in front of me—they make distressing reading. We have just been told that during the year ending 1987, 52 doctors and specialists left this country.

They all packed for Perth!

Eight dentists and dental specialists left this country. One advocate left this country. Ten architects and town and regional planners emigrated, as did five social workers, nine quantity surveyors, 86 scientists and 351 engineers or people connected with the engineering occupation. In addition 142 members of the medical, dental and other related health service occupations opted for emigration. Furthermore, 65 members of mathematical or related occupations also left the country. And so it goes on. There is no doubt that this does give cause for great concern, and I must support what the hon the Minister said in that regard. The question that arises is: Why is there this increase in the emigration figures?

The answer is very simple. People are afraid for their children because of the lack of stability in this country. People are afraid of bringing up their children in a future about which they are not certain. In this regard the Cabinet of which the hon the Minister is a member, is in large measure responsible for this degree of uncertainty. I would suggest to the hon the Minister that he express this grave concern within the Cabinet in order to ensure that we find the solutions to the political problems facing this country so that we will not have this vast drain of skilled and trained people from this country.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank hon members.

*I should like to express my sincere thanks to the hon member for North-Western Transvaal for his support for this legislation. We as Transvalers always stand together.

Hear, hear!

I also wish to thank the hon members for Havenside and Springfield for their support of this amending bill.

I think the points raised by the hon member for Springfield are quite valid. It is very true that there is already grave concern in the Cabinet about people leaving South Africa. I think we are doing everything in our power to see if we cannot possibly find a way to stop this. On the other hand, I do not accept the fact that people leave only because of a fear of instability in the country. It is also an economic matter. If people can enjoy better standards of living in other parts of the world—and we have passed through a very severe recession—they will leave and try and find a better income elsewhere. I do not support the emigration of these people. I think we have lost quite a few people in mineral technology itself. I therefore believe that this Bill is of great importance to try and keep our scientists whom we have trained through the years in mineral technology as long as possible and also create the ability to draw new scientific blood to mineral technology.

I again thank hon members for supporting the measure and the standing committee for accepting it-

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The enactment of the Diamonds Act, Act No 56 of 1986, at the end of 1986 heralded a new era as far as the control of the diamond industry in the Republic is concerned, as it was a movement away from the old dispensation where various Government institutions, namely the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, the South African Police and the Department of Finance, were vested with statutory authority to control one facet or another of the diamond industry in the Republic. This divided control did not only lead to unco-ordinated Government decisionmaking and actions, but also obstructed and hampered the very important diamond industry to a certain extent.

*Mr Chairman, I am pleased to report that apart from certain teething problems, it would appear that both the national interest and the industry benefit by the new dispensation created by the Diamond Act. This Act was well received and the South African Diamond Board which was established consequently, is functioning effectively. Proof thereof is the minor amendments to the principal Act which are proposed and are now before the House.

†The first amendment is purely consequential, due to the change of the name of the portfolio since the commencement of the Act.

As a result of the disbandment of the Diamond Producers Association, it is necessary to amend section 5 of the principle Act which deals with the constitution of the Diamond Board.

It is therefore proposed that paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 5 be amended to enable the Minister to appoint two persons who are either producers or in the opinion of the Minister capable of representing the producers.

I must point out that although the Diamond Producers’ Association no longer exists, there is still an informal arrangement through which cooperation between the former members of the association takes place. Certain functions of the former Diamond Producers’ Association are now being performed by the South African Diamond Board.

If the amendment that I have just referred to is accepted, paragraph (f) of the relevant section becomes redundant and it is therefore proposed that it is scrapped.

Finally I wish to thank hon members of the standing committee again for the efficient way in which they once again handled the amendments. My information is that this committee is functioning very effectively for which my department and I have the highest appreciation.

Mr Chairman, the Diamonds Amendment Bill will amend the Diamonds Act of 1986 by defining “the Minister” as “the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology.” Secondly, section 5 alters the constitution of the South African Diamond Board by increasing the number of persons to be represented on the management board from one to two.

This Bill was unanimously accepted in the standing committee and I have great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, the provisions of this Bill are actually to allow some larger producers to serve on the South African Diamond Board. We on the Opposition side will support it.

Mr Chairman, diamonds, it is said, are forever. We all know that diamonds are valuable because of scarcity economics. Unlike gold, the diamond has no intrinsic value. It does not even emit its own light—it only reflects light. Until the diamond is cut into facets, it is a rather dull piece of rock.

We know what diamonds did to this country. We know that the Orange Free State actually extended at one time into the kimberlite fields of what is now Kimberley, from whence the hon member for North Western Cape comes. We know exactly what the imperialists did. They went and made a little deal with Adam Kok and Waterboer and they committed fraud against the burghers of the Free State. Of course, we also know that a similar kind of fraud was committed against other South Africans in terms of the Group Areas Act. The principle was the same. The imperialists coveted the diamond fields of the Free State so they made a plan to take away those diamond fields from the Free State. History has of course repeated itself in a different guise.

The diamond itself is a producer of wealth in this country, and the diamonds produced in South Africa prove that no matter what kind of international sanctions there might be, those sanctions will always be “busted”, to use an American phrase.

I am told that there are 35 000 diamond cutters who are cutting South African diamonds in Bombay. The diamonds are taken from South Africa and sold by the CSO, the Central Selling Organisation. They are sold to diamond merchants in Israel, Holland and in India. The cutters in Bombay are actually so expert that they can cut the gem diamonds which are too small to be economically cut in Amsterdam or elsewhere— even in Johannesburg.

This shows that the world really is a small place, and when the Government of India talks about sanctions, one could remind them that after all, at least 35 000 families in the residency of greater Bombay depend on the availability of South African diamonds for their livelihood.

While scarcity economics applies to diamonds and some people make a great deal of money from them, diamonds nevertheless contribute to the wealth of our country and inevitably that percolates through into the economy and helps everyone, even the man in the street.

What I would like to suggest to the hon the Minister is that the Board should not consist only of White people. We do not want tokenism. There are suitably qualified persons in South Africa who are not white who are perfectly capable of making a contribution on the Board. I recommend to the hon the Minister that he casts his over a wider area for personnel.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members again.

*I just want to tell my colleague, the hon member for North Western Transvaal, that it does not look as though the people of the Transvaal want to speak Afrikaans to one another. All his colleagues told him he should speak Afrikaans, but he does not want to speak Afrikaans. [Interjections.] I thank the hon colleague for his support.

†I wish to thank the hon member for Havenside for the very brief report. The hon member for Reservoir Hills gave us some statistics on how many cutters there are in Bombay. According to my information I think there are about 300 000 cutters in India. They cut the very, very small diamonds which he referred to. I think India is also the only country which is really prepared to cut these very small diamonds. I think we have started doing this in South Africa and I think there is one cutting industry that does this.

We should bring them all here.

Yes, we should bring them all here to cut them in South Africa. I must admit that we are not sure if they are all South African diamonds, but a large percentage of the diamonds that are cut in India are South African diamonds which they buy from the CSO, as the hon member so correctly said.

Although an uncut diamond is not the brightest possession that one could have I would suggest that none of us here would mind owning a 10 carat uncut diamond. It is everybody’s best friend. I think it is really true that diamonds are forever.

But you will arrest someone if he had an uncut diamond.

No, you may have that diamond legally, because there is no problem today with getting a licence to buy an uncut diamond. You can go to the nearest Police Station and fill in a little form and if you have an expert with you you can go and select a diamond, because I think selecting the right diamond is the crux of the matter. You can buy an uncut diamond and also own it legally.

As far as the representation on the Board is concerned, the point is taken. It is the policy of our department that we do not look at colour when we appoint members to the Board. We look at competence. If we can find someone, or if the hon member or anyone can give us a name of someone who could competently fill that position, we are prepared to look at it. There is no doubt about that. That point is taken.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much once again and I want to thank hon members for supporting the amending Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Export Credit and Foreign Investments Reinsurance Act was promulgated in 1957 for the purpose of indemnifying South African exporters of merchandise and capital goods against risks of loss resulting from nonpayment due to political and commercial causes. Similar insurance facilities are available to exporters in all the important trading countries. The RSA’s reinsurance scheme, established in terms of the Act, can moreover be regarded as one of our first and most important export incentive schemes. The facilities are being used extensively by exporters.

The Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation of South Africa Ltd was registered in 1956 as a company for the purpose of providing insurance cover to South African exporters against commercial or political risks which may cause losses due to nonpayment from abroad in respect of goods supplied or services rendered.

As is customary in the insurance industry the corporation has ties with a number of private financial institutions to provide it with reinsurance facilities for its commercial insurance commitments. As no private business undertaking could be found that would be able or willing to reinsure the corporation’s exposure against foreign political causes of loss, the Government established a mechanism by means of the Export Credit and Foreign Investment Reinsurance Act No 78 of 1957 in terms of which the State could act as official reinsurer against political risks insured by the corporation as well as for that portion of the commercial risks which cannot be underwritten by the corporation’s private reinsurers.

This arrangement has worked well ever since the inception of the South African export credit reinsurance scheme in 1958. Over the years certain adjustments had to be made to the scheme in order to bring it into line with new developments and circumstances in international trade. Again we have arrived at such a point in time.

Certain exporters or potential exporters not having sufficient capital or not being able to provide the security required to satisfy banks or financial institutions in order to raise enough funds to execute export orders, find themselves in a position in which they are unable to accept such orders, which results in lost export opportunities. The problem could be solved by way of an insurance guarantee to the supplier of funds with recourse to the exporter. Such a guarantee by the Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation would mean that the exporter would be able to borrow more funds at market-related rates of interest than his capability of providing acceptable security would allow. Funds obtained in this manner would serve his need for pre- and post-shipment financial purposes. It follows that the risk attached to the insurance guarantee would be higher than that normally accepted by banks and financial institutions, and the CGIC consequently would require full and comprehensive reinsurance facilities from the State. The insurance guarantee by the CGIC would be additional and not a substitute for the services provided by banks and financial institutions.

The purpose of the amending Bill is therefore to amend the Export Credit and Foreign Investments Reinsurance Act of 1957 in order to provide for the reinsurance, with the Government of the RSA, of an insurance contract which makes provision for the issuing of a guarantee to an established bank or financial institution in respect of a loan made to the exporter or potential exporter to execute an export order of a noncapital nature.

It must be emphasised that this amendment is intended as an additional instrument to assist South Africa’s small and medium sized exporters to obtain export orders and thus to increase South Africa’s earnings of foreign exchange.

Furthermore, it must be noted that the facility of credit which this amendment will create, is limited to a guarantee to the banks or financial institutions to the extent of 90% of a loan to a particular exporter. The bank, therefore, must commit itself to at least 10% of the risk. Should the bank therefore, through a raising fee on the exporter, endeavour to lay off this risk, it is obvious that it will price itself out of the market.

Another point to be borne in mind is that the guarantee facility which I have mentioned, is not to be confused with a State subsidy, as no subsidised interest on loans are at stake in this particular instance.

As regards procedures to be instituted to ensure the proper working of the proposed loan guarantee scheme, I wish to assure the House that the necessary criteria have already received considerable attention and are in fact in the process of being finalised for submission to the Underwriting Committee and then to me and my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance, for final approval.

In the final analysis, it must also be borne in mind that a risk element is inherent in all categories of insurance. The disadvantages of this risk factor must of necessity always be measured against the advantages to be gained from increased exports.

Mr Chairman, this Bill encourages certain exporters who do not have sufficient capital at their disposal, or who are unable to provide banks and financial institutions with the required security in order to obtain funds required for the execution of the export orders, and who might as a result forfeit such export opportunities.

The Bill will enable the insurers—the Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation—to provide insurance guarantees to banks and other financial institutions which grant pre- and post-shipment finance. In this way exporters will be able to obtain sufficient funds to execute export orders and to re-insure in full the risks arising therefrom, with the State.

The Kleu Committee stated in its report that similar facilities are available to exporters in countries such as Australia, India, Singapore, the UK and the USA. The Kleu Committee therefore recommended that such facilities also be made available to exporters in South Africa.

In view of the sanctions against our country, this will encourage our exporters to export so that our country may benefit from overseas currency. I therefore support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Deputy Minister has quite ably amplified the reasons for the amendment to the Bill. It will most certainly encourage exporters, for the simple reason that they will now have the necessary guarantees to enable them to export their goods.

We have no problem supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, perhaps the sanctions campaign has something to do with this Bill—I do not know. However, South Africa is regarded as ranking tenth among the industrialised nations of the world, and obviously any industrialised nation must look to export, not only for purposes of earning foreign exchange, but in order to take advantage of production, as well as the economy that will result from production at a higher level.

Therefore, while there are inevitably risks to the fiscus generally and also to the taxpayer in extending this kind of facility to exporters, in the long run it is to the advantage of the country to take that risk. This is so because the greater the productivity of the country, the lower will be the unit cost of the item. Therefore the item can be sold by the industrialist at a more economical and therefore lower price, to the consumer within South Africa. This will help our own people and in addition, of course, the greater the export market, the better the employment facilities for people in South Africa.

We therefore take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the very elaborate explanation given by the hon the Deputy Minister on this amending Bill is very pertinent to present-day trade and industry relationships between countries. This will now ensure that the export-oriented industries will enter those countries which will readily accept their products as on a competent world market. Therefore there is the necessity for some form of insurance so that exporters do not lose money because of incidents or events which may occur. Up to now exporters have relied very heavily on their own resources of insurance plus the banks’ credit ability and insurance, etcetera. The smaller industries may also be helped where they do not have sufficient funds to promote the export of certain commodities. Up to now an industry with insufficient funds has had to carry the burden of an export order relying on the banks or financial houses for funds. This is very costly. Those who are very heavily reliant on promissory notes and bills of exchange as well as letters of credit will also benefit significantly. Letters of credit are established even before the exporter has arranged the export. There is a built-in cover for letters of credit, but in the case of bills of exchange and promissory notes, these only become due upon the due date. When one has a guarantee of this nature it reassures the exporter that, should anything go wrong, he is covered by insurance.

Nowadays, industries quote the prices on the FOB basis and not on the CIF basis. Under normal circumstances CIF would cover cost, insurance and freight. Because of the present world situation, most prices are being quoted according to FOB values.

South Africa is now entering a phase of export orientation and therefore any measures which will encourage exporters are to be welcomed. Therefore this side of the House welcomes the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon members for their support. I must say that it is very interesting to see these hon members discussing matters relating to trade, getting up and talking freely and very knowledgeably without even referring to notes. I have the greatest respect for the background knowledge of these hon members.

The hon members for Central Rand, Havenside and Reservoir Hills and the hon the Minister of the Budget took part in the debate. I do not wish to repeat the sentiments expressed by them, but I would like to emphasise that this Bill as such has nothing to do with sanctions. However, we must take cognisance of the effects and influence of sanctions on our country. We should do everything other countries do to promote exports and protect the balance of payment.

As one hon member emphasised, we are now living in a phase in which the Government must promote the export-orientated attitude of this country. Furthermore, the Kleu Committee emphasised the importance of additional measures to encourage the small entrepreneur to enter the export market. We are therefore promoting exports and we are also promoting the small entrepreneur, he being the person who will make the greatest contribution in future as far as the creation of job opportunities is concerned.

Mr Chairman, with those few words I thank hon members once again for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 15h03 and resumed at 16h05.

Mr Chairman, I would like to commence with congratulations to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance for his very relevant and pertinent speech on the Additional Appropriation Bill. This House recognises the present economic situation of South Africa and within its constraints the hon the Minister of Finance has done his very best to keep the expense of the State within affordable limits. The entire Additional Appropriation Bill emphasises the strong discipline of the State to curtail unnecessary expenditure. When the 1987-88 Budget was presented this House made the point that no Minister can budget in exact detail for expenditure for a certain year. In the circumstances I am convinced that the additional amount in terms of the Bill is realistic and therefore also within the policy statement as well as the hon the State President’s desire for the South African economy to be within limits and within the State’s affordability. In this regard both the State and the private sector have kept within the confines of that policy statement and the hon the State President’s statement. I believe that all of us, as Parliamentarians and as South Africans, owe it to ourselves and to our country to promote a stable economy.

In speaking of the South African economy in terms of world ratings, where some of those economies are so large vis-á-vis South Africa, I am convinced that we have done exceptionally well. This is a forerunner to point out that it is absolutely necessary to arrest unnecessary expenditure. A country should live within its economic means and resources and should not overindulge in unnecessary expenditure. This is vitally important for the economy of any country. We owe it to our country that we as South Africans should help the hon the Minister of Finance and the State by pulling up our socks, rolling up our sleeves and tightening our belts to meet the challenging situation ahead.

As regards the Additional Appropriation hon members will notice an expenditure, over and above the 1987-88 budgeted amounts, of R1 billion.

This is in keeping with the requirements of the country’s expenditure.

May I say once again that the hon the Minister of Finance requires all our co-operation and understanding with regard to the Additional Appropriation Bill. I have tremendous pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, no one in this House could deny that we have been through a difficult period in our economy. We have just had the Natal floods and we have had severe droughts in other parts of the country, all of which have placed tremendous pressures upon the economy and the fiscus of this country. Therefore, I believe that if one views the Bill presented by the hon the Minister against this background one must, in all honesty, compliment the hon the Minister on it because I believe it represents a positive sign that the Government and the hon the Minister are very serious about maintaining fiscal discipline. We all know how important that is in regard to curbing the inflationary spiral in this country.

In the previous financial year spending increased by something of the order of 22,2% and overshot the Budget by approximately 8%. There was speculation in the market place that when the hon the Minister presented his Bill, a tremendous amount of some R1,1 billion would be required in order for him to balance his books.

Some said three billion.

Well, there you are. Once again, I must say that it is to the credit of the hon the Minister that this has not come to pass, and the figures that are indicated in the Bill lend credibility, as I have said, to the Government’s promises of fiscal restraint.

We hope and trust that this will ease the pressure on long term interest rates, for example. We hope and trust that it will lead to a lowering of the tax rates which the hon the Minister may intend to impose in the coming months. We also hope and trust that this will lead to some tax relief for individuals in particular.

I indicated the other day in this House that I believed that this country was one of the most highly taxed countries in the world and the hon the Minister very quickly indicated that that was not so. I was, of course, referring to income tax paid by individuals.

The hon the Minister of the Budget has quite correctly indicated that all of these restraints that have been imposed by the hon the Minister have led to the economy becoming stable, and we appreciate that. It is a great pity, however, that some of his other colleagues in the Cabinet have not taken as much trouble to ensure that the economy remains stable. I refer in particular to the latest restrictions which were imposed arbitrarily by the hon the Minister’s colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, and which, I believe, will destroy and restrict democracy in this country.

One may well ask why I intend to raise that subject during this particular debate. We are talking about stability and I believe that those recent actions could well lead to a heightening of tensions. They could well lead to civil conflict in this country. These are things that we wish to avoid. These are things that caused the economy to enter the doldrums, which it did one or two years ago.

Therefore, whilst complimenting the hon the Minister on the one hand, I must express my disappointment at the fact that he did not influence his colleague to go on those restrictions. I believe that my time has run out, and therefore with these few words I resume my seat.

Mr Chairman, the additional appropriation of approximately R594 million is in fact, I believe, a very reasonable amount. I did mention in my speech on the Budget that we will be looking at something like R50 billion in our main appropriation. I think the hon the Minister beat us in the draw and he has limited this amount to about R47 billion.

One thing which worries me, regarding the speech of the hon the Minister of the Budget, is that he mentioned a figure of R13,4 billion. I do not know to what amount he referred, because I cannot see it anywhere in the additional appropriation. We only looked at R594 million. He must have some other source.

It would appear to me that the major portion of this budget is allocated for the improvement of conditions of service. Something like R116 million is allocated for this. The Department of Foreign Affairs has taken up an additional R27 million, while R22 million is allocated for the Administration: House of Assembly. They did fairly well. The Administration: House of Representatives did very well. They overshot by R50 million. Sadly, the House of Delegates could not spend money. They have been allocated only R7,6 million. They do not seem to get enthusiastic about spending money. I think they believe that our people do not need certain services. Our people are crying out; yet the other two Houses can spend such a substantial amount.

So we must be overspending?

Yes, we must overspend. If the others can overspend by R50 million, why are we not doing something? We should go for it, because our people need these services. Hon members cannot tell me that there are not hungry children crying out for a slice of bread. If they had some money, they could at least go out and do something about it. This is the second or third year this has happened. Maybe they want to be good boys. I wonder whether hon members on the other side are National Peoples Party members or National Party’s people. They want to be good boys.

I am in sympathy with the hon the Minister of Finance. Sometimes the department is called upon to pay for droughts, which they do, and other times they are called upon to pay for floods, which they do. These are natural disasters and I think the Department of Finance has met these demands very well. It is ironic that just the other day during the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill I told the hon the Minister of Finance that there are people north of the Soutpansberg area who are really crying out for help. Within a week a river which I personally saw and which was lying barren and dry, the Limpopo, is now flowing and even in flood. Things do change.

With these words I support the Additional Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, firstly, I want to echo the words of previous speakers who paid compliments to the hon the Minister. In so doing I also want to compliment the hon the Minister for this Additional Appropriation which is the lowest in many years, and rounds off about 2,1% of overexpenditure.

Coming back to what the hon member for Southern Natal said, namely that the House of Delegates should have spent more money, if there is going to be discipline in Government expenditure, I feel every other Ministry must stay within the limits prescribed to it by the Budget and not just wildly spend money which it has not been allocated. We know that we need money, but there are other means of raising additional funds. We should not overspend and then go to the Treasury. That is not how one disciplines oneself as far as Budget-spending is concerned.

As I said before, in real terms the estimates in the Additional Appropriation were well received by economists outside. Even people who are usually critical of the Department of Finance welcomed the hon the Minister’s Additional Appropriation Bill.

The hon member for Springfield mentioned that the vote “Police” required an additional amount of R50 million. I feel it was necessary for the Department of Law and Order to spend this money and I would like to emphasise a few points in regard to this department.

We know that they are in the midst of celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Police. I would like to extend my congratulations to the hon the Minister of Law and Order in achieving this land mark. I want to say that the Police is usually a barometer of the people that they serve. If one has a weak and undisciplined Police Force one would inevitably have a weak and undisciplined nation. It is therefore imperative to have a strong and well equipped Police Force with an adequate membership. The latest figures of June 1987 show that our Police Force has about 60 000 members. When one keeps in mind that the total population of South Africa is approximately 30 million then the present strength of the SA Police Force is 2,1 policemen per thousand inhabitants.

When one compares this to other countries our Police Force is very inadequate. One finds that England has two policemen per thousand inhabitants, the USA has 2,1, West Germany has 2,7 and Israel has 3,5 policemen. It is therefore clear that the SA Police Force should increase its membership considerably. To face the future situation vast expansion is absolutely imperative.

I think the additional amount of R50 million required by the SA Police was well spent and we cannot say that the hon the Minister of Finance has given more money to the Police than it really needs. We also know that it costs approximately R11 000 to train one policeman and with the rising costs of living this figure will increase tremendously in the years to come. Even in this year the cost will be much higher than last year. The cost of clothing, food, logistic supplies etc are rising from day to day.

I do not think there was any need for any one to say that the Police did not need the additional money. In the present political climate and a situation of unrest in the country we need an adequate Police Force. With these words I support the Bill and compliment the hon the Minister once again on the very positive Additional Appropriation Bill that was presented to us this afternoon.

Mr Chairman, I wish to refer in particular to Vote No 23—“Transport” in which the Department of Transport has asked for R80 million. When one looks at the memorandum one does so with a great deal of concern. This is particularly so when R75 million will be dispensed as a loss of revenue from transport levies, wages, fees etc. I think it is matter of concern that R75,65 million from a total of R80 million is for just one department. I am of the opinion that this particular section that is so relevant to the loss should be examined very thoroughly.

I was fortunately reading one of the booklets issued by the Department of Post and Telecommunications in which mention was made of certain areas that caused this department tremendous losses in the past. They were examined so carefully that they have now come up with certain ideas for remedying the loss.

I feel that this particular section, the Overland Transport Section, needs to be thoroughly investigated and I am of the firm view that there must be inefficiency in the management particularly in this section of the Transport Services. I believe that if this Overland Transport Section in particular is not a viable proposition the department should then consider it a matter of concern to have it privatised much sooner than they are planning to do so.

Mr Chairman, I also want to place on record our congratulations to the Minister Finance for the excellent discipline in controlling the finances of this country. When the budget is good people say it is the best plan and call it Barend’s bonanza, but when things go wrong they call it Barend’s blues. Nevertheless from my experiences in the Cabinet and my dealings with the hon the Minister of Finance and the Treasury—my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget and I serve on the National Priorities Committee—we know that the hon the Minister of Finance can be described in the same way as the late State President of India, Lal Bahudar Shastri: He is as soft as silk, but also as hard as steel.

I think a successful Minister of Finance depends on two qualities, namely how good an administrator he is and also how well he controls the finances of his country or department.

Much has been said about privatisation. I think the greatest thing that can happen in this country, especially taking into consideration our abnormal situation where as a result of unusual factors there is a very heavy strain on the economic development in this country, is the country’s programme of privatisation. This is particularly so from the point of view that this programme is being promoted by none other than the hon the State President himself.

I do not have the time in this debate, but I want to recommend to hon members in this House that they study documents relating to privatisation in the UK where Mrs Margaret Thatcher herself took the courageous step to privatise. Within a short period something which had never been achieved in the history of the UK was achieved. The inflation rate was brought down, unemployment problems are being solved and the economy of that particular country is sailing on smooth waters.

We are glad that the hon the State President has taken the initiative himself. Yesterday the country saw details of the mini budget of the SATS and one of the positive comments was not the fact that there was no salary increase for civil servants, but the important consolation that there were no tariff increases. That came out very positively and I think the critics of the Government and that particular department were also astounded.

I sincerely hope that the hon the Minister of Finance will comment very strongly on the point raised by the hon member for Southern Natal, namely drawing comparisons between what the Houses of Assembly, Delegates and Representatives did. I want to say that we must compare an apple with an apple, not an apple to with a pear. The hon the Minister of Finance will confirm that if we deliberately overshoot the budget we pay a penalty for it. Sometimes there are statutory provisions.

For example, if an administration is dealing with a large number of people, and if more than the budgeted amount in terms of a statute has to be paid for old age grants, they have to be paid. One cannot say one is not going to pay old age grants because there is no money in the Estimates. This kind of thing happens. These circumstances differ from House to House. However, there are two aspects that worry us in this country. One is, as I always argue, that as a result of our programme to improve the level of education, to broaden the base of training people in this country, more of our young people are being trained to satisfy South Africa’s manpower needs. At a time when we are training them, as a result of restrictions they are not able to get jobs.

The situation is as follows. In one sector, for example, there are qualified teachers who are unemployed. In another sector one wants to improve the quality of education but there are jobs for qualified teachers, and a fair percentage of teachers within that department are lowly qualified or unqualified. The qualified teachers are not allowed to be of service to that particular institution, as a result of the divisions between Indian, White and Coloured education departments. I think we should sort this problem out.

Mr Chairman, when questions arose regarding the approximately 200 teachers who could not be given employment, the answer was that there were no funds available. Does the hon the Chairman not think that that is a case that could legitimately be taken to the Department of Finance for funds?

In connection with education there is a difference. If the Minister of Housing were to go to the Minister of Finance, we do not have a norm. We cannot negotiate with the Minister of Finance for money for education. There is a norm determined by the National Ministry of Education, and funds are allocated according to that norm. The amount is determined by a formula. That is a kind of restriction.

However, we appealed to the hon the Minister of Finance last year. He virtually gave an undertaking in this House—I regard it as a commitment— to increase the amount by 5%. He will probably do so when the economy of the country improves. I do not blame my hon colleague; we could not foresee that we were going to have these floods. I think he intended to fulfil that pledge. We must understand and forgive him for not giving us the increase of 5%. He needed the money to assist those in distress as a result of the flood disaster.

I also want to deal with underutilised facilities in this country. Why should we spend large sums of money building institutions when there are similar institutions in the country that are underutilised? There was criticism with regard to action the Government was going to take to assist those who were stricken in the flood disaster. The Government has given an answer, the Ministry of Finance has given details and, in the longer term, more assistance will be afforded these people who have suffered as a result of the flood disaster.

The hon member for Springfield touched on security matters. We agree that the situation in the Southern African region is abnormal but for the economy to improve it is necessary to have peace, security and stability. Even in countries such as India it is recognised that security and stability have to go hand in hand. One cannot complain about certain actions. I believe I heard correctly when, during the no-confidence debate when the hon the State President was seated here, the hon member for Reservoir Hills—who is the leader of the hon member for Springfield’s party—took great pains to say that the action taken by the security forces during the time of emergency was justified at the time.

It is there in Hansard. I heard him; I went and checked the Hansard. At that time, therefore, the same kind of sentiment was uttered—there was tremendous criticism uttered by that party when the events took place. Only two weeks ago, however,—long after the events—the statement is made that it was justified at the time and not justified now. [Interjections.] I do not say that, Mr Chairman. I will provide the hon member for Springfield with the unedited version of the Hansard which clearly shows that notwithstanding the criticisms they leveled at the time the state of emergency was declared, they now come along with the conclusion that it was justified at the time.

I am not saying that this is a somersault. I do not want to make political capital out of it; I just want that point to be recorded.

Mr Chairman, I rise with considerable pleasure and gratitude in this House, since in the past we have often had opportunities to differ about various matters. Here, however, we have a measure before the House, and hon members on hon both sides of the floor responded in a constructive and positive manner because the measure before us is something we can be justifiably proud of having achieved in this particular set of circumstances. Moreover, this was appreciated by various hon members.

I wish to thank hon members for complimentary remarks addressed to my person. I should like to interpret them as a compliment to the Government in the broadest possible sense, since this House has also made its contribution. All hon Ministers have made their contribution. One thing is absolutely clear, and that is that had we not succeeded in containing additional expenditure, we would now have had to go to the market to borrow money well in excess of this amount that we now have to deal with. That would undoubtedly have exerted upward pressure, and perhaps even very substantial upward pressure, on long term-interest rates. This, as hon members here have said, we can ill afford at this stage.

Thus, in the Second Reading speech yesterday I also made mention of my personal appreciation of the fact that the State President and also all our hon colleagues responded as they did after we identified in September last year certain tendencies towards a rather large possible overshoot of our target.

However, containing our expenditure to a reasonable figure at this point, does not only contribute towards avoiding additional pressure on interest rates. We have also seen from the figures I presented to this House yesterday that there was considerable momentum in our economy as far back as December last year. Now we must be very careful not to overheat the economy through excessive Government spending. We eventually got the economy going by a very substantial contribution through State expenditure, and now that the private sector has picked up that momentum it is appropriate for us to step down, to avoid overheating the economy and prevent interest rates from rising unduly.

In addition, as was also mentioned in hon members’ remarks, we must create the possibilities for ourselves to be able to consider the reduction of personal tax at the earliest possible opportunity. That is not the effort of the Minister of Finance; that is a team effort. All the hon Ministers of this Ministers’ Council have also contributed in this regard.

I wish to say with great respect that I saw a glint in the eye of the hon member for Southern Natal and I thought he was being rather naughty, but what he said appears in Hansard without the glint in his eye! I want to put what the hon member said into some perspective for the sake of the record.

I want to thank my colleague the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council as well as the other members of the Ministers’ Council for their contribution. The fact that the House of Delegates had a relatively modest overshoot on their Budget is, in the first place, an indication of accurate budgeting. That is the art of budgeting. Any fool can overshoot a budget, but it takes dedicated people with a thorough knowledge of what they are doing to be able to budget accurately in the kind of circumstances and environment we find ourselves in. That is why I wish to thank and congratulate them. In the first place they budgeted accurately and in the second place they stuck to that Budget. Not only my appreciation should be recorded, but also that of this House as a part of Parliament and as part of the people of South Africa, who are now reaping the benefits of our ability to have been able to contain the Budget.

Could the hon the Minister translate that appreciation into a bonus?

Mr Chairman, permit me to say something about my colleague here. He is a relentless fighter for the necessary funds to enable him to do what he knows has to be done for the people who are represented in this House. It is a pleasure to be able to assist from time to time, because I appreciate the manner in which he does it. I also appreciate the manner in which his hon Ministers approach us and because they are on top of their Administration, they know what is going on and their approaches, therefore, are well founded. Maybe we cannot talk about it now, but after 16 March I may refer to a little episode where I had taken a certain decision and, subsequent to certain representations made by my colleague here, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, I reversed that decision. In fact I recalled a letter which I had already signed, cancelled it and changed the contents thereof. That was done because of his representations and I wish that to be recorded. He is certainly doing more than his duty to obtain the necessary resources for the work that needs to be done. What stands in the record with regard to this additional Appropriation Bill certainly stands to his credit and not to his debit.

We are coming for Phoenix Hospital.

Mr Chairman, for starters we will conduct that conversation out of the public eye. [Interjections.]

I thank my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, for his evaluation of the significance of this Budget. I concur with him. From the hon members’ speeches today it is evident that there is a deep understanding of the adverse economic environment in which we as a country have to function when it comes to our economy. I appreciate that understanding, which evidently encompasses both international and local economic awareness.

The recent flood disasters will ultimately cost this country at least between R600 million and R700 million. That is a lot of money and one needs a lot of taxpayers to get that together. We could have done a number of other things with that money if it were not needed for repairs and rehabilitation.

I thank the hon member for Springfield for his contribution, except of course his very last remark. He is following the line of some other spokesmen on finance, asking for a lowering of taxes on personal income. It has already been stated that we are doing our best to achieve a more even and equitable spread of the tax load. Personal taxes will certainly stand right in front of the line when we have the necessary resources for that purpose.

I now come to security and stability matters, to which my colleague, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, has already responded. Let me just add to what he said. There is no question that in circumstances of unrest and instability, the economy of the country suffers along with all the other areas of endeavour that suffer. The economy of the country in many instances comes to a grinding halt wherever, geographically speaking, there is unrest and instability. This has been proved time and time again.

Leadership and the responsibility of government do not entail that one is always in a position to do popular things. It does not even mean that one is always in a position to do what one would like to do. So often it means one simply has to do certain things in order to do the right thing for one’s country in response to a situation that prevails. If we can make a contribution towards stabilising this country, then it is worthwhile doing some unpopular things.

However, we must not forget for one moment that the most important action on the political front, namely the process of negotiation and political reform, is also one of the first victims of an unstable situation. That process cannot at this moment in time afford to be interrupted or inhibited. Therefore, investing in stability and in security matters in a responsible manner—and I have witnessed the agony and the dedication of my hon colleague to do this in the most responsible way in order to be constructive—will yield dividends in the economic field and certainly also in the field of our political negotiations.

I now turn to the hon member for Southern Natal. I have dealt with his remarks with regard to the relative over-expenditures, and I also want to say with great respect that it is unfair to call my hon colleague and his Ministers the “good boys”. When they have their quarrels, they have them around the conference table. That is the essence of the democratic system and the system of government that we must have in South Africa. That is where we straighten out our differences and that is where we try to do the best for our country.

Confrontation with dignity.

It is a matter of confrontation with dignity and responsibility. I should like to add that.

*May I speak Afrikaans, Mr Chairman?

Yes!

I want to respond to the hon member for Laudium in Afrikaans. He spoke Afrikaans so beautifully. He complimented me and I want to thank him for that. I want to thank him for the fact that he always responds constructively to the debates, and he did so again today. I think what he placed on record today regarding the Police and what they do to promote law and order, is a fine testimony of a South African citizen who is aware of and appreciates people who make sacrifices. It was a fine testimony and I thank him sincerely for that.

He also made a plea for more funds for the Police Force and I think he definitely has the support of all hon members in this House in that regard.

†The hon member for Havenside referred to certain expenditures with regard to transportation. We require an additional R75 million. That relates to something which my colleague, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, said earlier, namely that over-expenditure is sometimes occasioned by the fact that one does not know in advance exactly how many people will qualify for a certain subsidy, grant or whatever. That is what happened in one of the other Houses and that is, I believe, exactly what happened here with regard to transportation. I should like to interest him in requesting a proper investigation into that when the Vote is discussed here, if he so wishes.

I conclude by thanking my colleague, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, for his contribution. I also thank him for his support for the entire process of privatisation. He has already acquainted himself with the important findings in the United Kingdom.

We must make sure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the United Kingdom, but capitalise on what they did well by incorporating it into our system.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said something about the overshoot and the penalties following that. That certainly is a fact. There is a discipline following overexpenditure, and penalties will be carried through. Ultimately, the system will not allow one to get away with it. That is what it boils down to. When it comes to financial discipline, charity does begin at home. That is exactly what he did and he was correct to warn in his statement that there are penalties when that happens.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also mentioned underutilised facilities. I think that is a point which can be fruitfully debated when various Votes come under discussion. Let me just say in conclusion that in my own constituency I am pretty sure we will soon have one or two primary schools running empty. In my community, our problem is not the provision of schooling for our children. Our problem is to provide facilities for the elderly. I foresee that the day is very near when we shall have to convert those schools into centres where we can care for the aged. That will be money well spent, because right now the facilities we have in our community are completely inadequate and we do not have any more land on which to erect new facilities. I therefore think this kind of conversion is something we certainly have to bear in mind to cope with today’s problems.

I conclude by thanking hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House fully support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House fully support it.

Mr Chairman, I want to make two points in response to the comments made by the hon member for Southern Natal and it will be a positive response. The first point is that the time will come that our Administration will require additional funds and if we can overshoot the Budget we may try to do so. The problem is that we cannot have a massive training programme encouraging people to train when there are no jobs for them afterwards. In doing that we will be sowing the seeds for bigger trouble in this country. I think we should seriously take note of this.

Secondly, there is a massive programme under way for housing for underdeveloped communities in this country. This is the result of the White Paper on urbanisation. As a result of the history of land allocation there is an artificially high price in our community as well as the Black and Coloured communities.

I want to give the hon the Minister of Finance an example. In 1982 the Department of Community Development paid R4 000 per hectare in Phoenix which will be the biggest Indian area outside Asia. At that stage it was considered too expensive for low-cost development and the Government subsidised it by 50% to make it affordable. In 1988 we need 11 000 units next to this area and the required market value is R35 000 per hectare. It is virtually impossible to make a move for housing at this stage. In addition to the allocation of funds the Government will, because of the Group Areas Act, have to consider very seriously the subsidisation of land prices. This will be in addition to the normal allocation of funds. As a result of the new policy relating to subsidies approved by the hon the Minister of Finance, a large percentage of our allocation for housing is actually an expenditure for subsidies. The House should see the large percentage of our allocation that is used as subsidies for homes already built.

There is only one way in which to solve the problem of high land costs and that is to look into the matter of the subsidisation of land prices.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? I would like to point out to him that up to 1980 the Department of Community Development expropriated Indian farmlands using a set formula of R1 500 per acre. When all the Indian land …

Order! What is the hon member’s question?

Mr Chairman, I want to know if the hon the Minister knows that.

I am fully aware of it but the legislation on expropriation states that one should pay the market value plus 10%. If one’s market value is not accepted, the Supreme Court will provide the arbitration. The municipality tried that in Isipingo and we are still being blamed for what happened there. We therefore cannot take the risk now.

I want to say that if one wants to fight communism one should not give a man a gun, one should give him shelter. I want to tell the hon the Minister of Finance that if we do not have this price problem we can generate a massive housing programme in Durban. We will be able to inject R800 million for housing in Durban in the next few weeks. The problem is the outlay on land. In Ladysmith we have an attitude problem, not a land problem. As long as we are not able to obtain the land we shall not be able to generate life in the economy of South Africa. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we can produce a giant Blue Downs project in Durban, but our biggest problem is our inability to buy land at the price which the norms indicate we should do.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.