Order! Before calling upon the first member to speak, I want to remind hon members that during all stages of the Additional Appropriation Bill the debate must be limited to the subjects that appear in the budget, and the reasons for the increase in expenditures or the savings. The policy issues relating to the original appropriations ought not to be discussed again. Only when an entirely new Vote or item appears in the Additional Appropriation may there be a full discussion of such item.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Will you inform the House whether your ruling will allow hon members to reply specifically to issues which have been raised by the hon the Minister of Finance in his Second Reading speech? In other words, Sir, if he has raised a matter, are we entitled to deal with it if we feel we do not agree with it?

Order! I have given my ruling, and I will listen carefully as the debate progresses. It is impossible for me to give a ruling in vacuo in advance. I shall have to listen to each and every issue being raised individually.

Mr Chairman, we have taken cognisance of your ruling and shall try to abide by it.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister referred, in particular, to the State’s overspending in the past years, something which is now being raised again. The hon the Minister gave us the figures and said that in 1984-85, the amount of overspending was 7,3%; in 1985-86, 4,8%; in 1986-87, 5,3%; and in 1987-88 only 2,1%. I gained the impression that the hon the Minister wanted to boast that the percentage with which the situation had deteriorated, was lower now than in previous years.

Nevertheless the fact remains that the State once again did not stay within its estimated budget. If we take another look at the percentages—the hon the Minister loves percentages when it suits him—we find that last year the hon the Minister budgeted for an increase of 16,2% in Government expenditure, and now he ends the year off with an actual increase of 18,9%. And that is what the hon the Minister is boasting about!

If the hon the Minister had come here to tell us that he had succeeded in reducing Government expenditure by 2,1%, there would really have been something to be proud of, because in fact from year to year—we have already said this in the past—his Main Budget has actually not been much more than a general guideline of expectations of what was to come. This year we find that in real terms Government expenditure has increased once again. In fact, it increased more than the inflation rate. We now sit with the situation that we are paying the price for the previous year’s overspending.

To me it was significant that in his Second Reading speech, which dealt with over-expenditure, but in which the general economic position of the country was also under discussion, the hon the Minister made no mention at all of how he was going to finance this over-expenditure, or has the hon the Minister received sufficient funds to make provision for the amounts which were budgeted for in the first place as well as for the over-expenditure to which he is now referring?

We know what amount the hon the Minister has budgeted for as a deficit before borrowing, and we want to know if the hon the Minister’s revenue, in the form of taxation, has come up to his expectations and, if there is an additional deficit, with what and how the hon the Minister is going to finance it.

We heard the policy announcement by the hon the State President and the hon the Minister to the effect that in future the funds of the Central Energy Fund and the National Road Fund are to be given to the Treasury and are to be treated as ordinary taxation.

I now ask the hon the Minister if that has already happened in this year, which is now drawing to a close. Last year the hon the Minister budgeted for a deficit before borrowing of about R8,4 billion, an increase in one year of 36,1%. What is the increase this year?

Taking a brief look at the figures, I find it interesting, in the first place, that two very important Votes do not feature in the Additional Appropriation at all. I am referring firstly to the Defence Force and secondly—this is important to me personally as well as to the whole country as a whole—to Agriculture. There is no Additional Appropriation for agriculture, and we may come back to that tomorrow when we debate the own affairs budget, since we now have this artificial separation of general affairs agriculture and own affairs agriculture. What is the position with agriculture, the economic sector of our country, which at the moment is having the hardest time of all and does not have an Additional Appropriation?

Must I conclude that the hon the Minister of Agriculture has told the hon the Minister of Finance that the latter has given him sufficient funds to provide agriculture with enough assistance? I am merely asking.

What was the main reason for the over-expenditure in the past few years? I know of an important reason. At the risk of the hon the Minister again accusing me of being a racist, I want to repeat that I am referring to the elimination of the wage gap without a corresponding increase in productivity.

Is that the reason for over-expenditure?

Yes, it is part of the State’s overspending, because the Government is paying people salaries and wages which, in reality, they do not deserve. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister knows what I am talking about. We must almost be at the stage at which that so-called elimination of the wage gap will just about have come to an end. We want to ask the hon the Minister how much further this will still be taken. Must the White salaried employee in the Public Service wait even longer and tighten his belt even further, as the hon the State President put it, so that the others can catch up?

Since we are now dealing with the actual redistribution of wealth in South Africa, as policy of the NP, it is interesting to me to read in this morning’s Die Burger that the hon member for Innesdal is now coming forward with a new concept. It is no longer only the redistribution of wealth, but also the redistribution of the land in South Africa. I should like to quote him, and I assume that Die Burger has reported him correctly:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You gave a ruling that the hon member should confine himself to the figures mentioned in the Additional Appropriation. I contend that the hon member for Barberton is now deviating from that.

Order! The hon member has made a valid point. The hon member for Barberton must now proceed to deal with other matters.

The redistribution of wealth can also be found in this Additional Appropriation.

Where?

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has been trying, for I do not know how long, to get his regional services councils off the ground.

The councils have already been constituted, but simply will not get off the ground and simply will not work. In this Additional Appropriation, in which provision has been made for the Transvaal, we are now being asked—with the hon the Minister of Finance’s consent—to vote R2 million for something for which there was no budget whatsoever last year. No budget whatsoever! This is ostensibly bridging finance. Surely we know by now what that expression means! What does the word “bridging finance” mean when the NP uses it? It is nothing if not a mere gift.

The redistribution of wealth is also found in this budget, although I may not now refer to my friend the hon member for Innesdal’s concept of it. A full debate on this matter cannot be conducted profitably during an Additional Appropriation debate. We shall have to wait for the hon the Minister’s Main Budget, in which he will hopefully be able to give us the complete picture of what the true State expenditure amounts to for this financial year.

In the past few years the Government’s actions, have to a large degree, plunged the Government’s finances into a crisis. To the hon the Minister we concede that it is clear from the Additional Appropriation which he has now introduced that he has tried—we accept that he has—to curtail Government expenditure. However, we are afraid that he has waited too long. In the past, when we warned him, the hon the Minister laughed it off.

If our argument that he has waited too long is wrong, why does one suddenly find this enormous, desperate attempt to curtail Government expenditure and keep it in check? Is not the mere fact that it was the main theme of the hon the State President’s opening speech an admission, in essence, that mistakes were made in this regard in the past? If one now announces the curtailing of expenditure as one’s prime target, one is admitting past failure in that regard.

We wish the hon the Minister success with his difficult task; we concede that we ourselves are not satisfied that the hon the Minister has already succeeded in curtailing unproductive Government expenditure. We shall again have to look into this matter properly the day the hon the Minister decides to return to the good old days, when we budgeted separately for loan requirements and current expenditure. Those two items should, in future, again be separated in the Budget. Since the two have been thrown together, control has diminished and has not been as effective as it used to be.

With these few words let me say that we cannot, without qualification, congratulate the hon the Minister on his attempt, although he has succeeded up to a point to hold some of his hon colleagues in check, and we hope that in the year which lies ahead he will have more success. However, we seriously doubt this.

Mr Chairman, may I at this stage warmly congratulate the hon the Minister on what he has achieved. I shall return to this at a later stage. In the meantime I just want to place on record a few reactions to the statements made here by the hon member for Barberton.

Firstly I want to say that I think the qualifications incorporated here are unfair. There are two ways in which the Additional Appropriation can be approached; the one is purely negative and the other is positive. In speaking of a positive reaction, let me tell the hon member for Barberton that if he would only react to it in a balanced way, he would see that it contained much more for which he should give the hon the Minister his unqualified congratulations than he was prepared to concede.

Let me immediately sympathise with the hon member. He has his problems, and that was specifically the case today. That is why I have a great deal of sympathy with him. When one comes to this Additional Appropriation, of which the hon the Minister and the Cabinet as a whole can be so proud, I think the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition has problems. [Interjections.]

Let us examine specifically the allegations he was making. Let us look at the first point, the budget for the Defence Force. Now my question to the hon member for Barberton is whether he has read his documents for tomorrow morning’s meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts yet?

No, not yet.

He has not. I am pleased that the hon member told me that, because now I understand why he made the point.

You may not refer to that; it is contrary to the Rules.

The statement made by the hon member, when he was referring to that point, was that he could find no amount allocated to the Defence Force in the Additional Appropriation. Is that correct?

Yes.

Good. What I want to say about that is that if he had looked at section 1A(1) of the Special Defence Account Act, he would have noticed why mention was not being made of it now. That is the explanation. What I mean by that is that I think no one should criticise the hon the Minister unfairly when he has as difficult a job as the hon member had here this afternoon. The hon member for Yeoville would agree with me.

The second point I want to make concerns agriculture. The hon the Minister has the statistics on agriculture available to him. According to those statutes at least 75% of all farmers in South Africa have until now been assisted by him and his department in one way or another. That is why I think that the relevant accusation made by the hon member was orchestrated for two days from now and not for today’s debate.

As far as the question of regional services councils is concerned, I just want to ask if the prominent CP member, whom I know has resigned from their ranks as a result of their attitude to regional services councils, is the first one to have done so or whether my information is incorrect. [Interjections.]

I should like to make the following remarks about the Additional Appropriation. Firstly—I want to say this with great acclamation—I should very sincerely like to congratulate the hon the Minister and the Cabinet as a whole. When one examines the figures which the hon member for Barberton himself quoted to us, one finds that since the financial year 1984-85—when overexpenditure amounted to 7,3%—it has dropped to 2,1% this year—that is over a period of four years. My contention is that this is nothing short of unqualified success, which deserves the wholehearted, unanimous support of the Cabinet by the House and which should be unanimously expressed. [Interjections.]

If we go further, there is something we should ask ourselves. Let us now accept that the accusation levelled by the hon member for Barberton has some substance. Surely one should then go a step further and ask what additional funding he would not have wanted to approve. When one looks at the amounts, one wonders if he feels that any of the amounts allocated to the Natal flood disaster should not have been allocated. Any hon member of the CP is welcome to reply to this. This is a fundamental reason for the over-expenditure which led to our dealing with a Additional Appropriation today. I repeat the question, and anyone can reply to it: Which of those hon members is prepared to say that that amount should not have been spent?

No one. Then we go further and ask whether the portion relating to the Defence Force, to law and order, is the portion which should not have been spent. Would any hon member tell me if that is the part that should not have been spent? Would anyone say that as far as public order and safety are concerned, the additional R50 million for the SAP, mainly for logistic support and medical benefits, should not have been spent? I can go on in this vein and also mention the additional amount of R30,7 million for Prison Services. Is there any hon member who can tell me that that should not have been spent?

According to the hon member for Barberton’s own argument, additional funds are necessary for the improvement of conditions of service, already implemented during 1987-88 and chiefly due to the staff increases amongst educators and nursing and service personnel. Is that the amount which they would not have wanted to spend? These are the kinds of amounts and the Votes for which these amounts have been allocated. I am now asking if these are the sums to which the hon members of the Official Opposition are objecting.

I think that in the few years in which the hon the Minister has been the Minister of Finance he has done an absolutely phenomenal job, and he and his department deserve the utmost praise. I once again want to include the Cabinet as a whole. When one examines the over-expenditure during the past four years, one sees that it has dropped from 7,2% to 2,4%. Along with the congratulations to the Cabinet, there is the open question that if it could be done once, surely there is no need for it to worsen again. Surely we cannot but improve from now on. In my congratulations I therefore want to express the hope that in the years ahead there will be an even greater reduction in the over-expenditure and—here I agree with the hon member for Barberton—that it will eventually disappear completely. This is virtually an impossibility, but it should be our aim.

We on this side of the House fully support the Additional Appropriation Bill and wish the hon the Minister and his department everything of the best as far as this is concerned.

Mr Chairman, I must say right at the beginning I do not agree with either the hon member for Vasco or the hon member for Barberton that the objective is that there should be no additional expenditure required, and therefore no need for additional estimates at all. If, in fact, one were to do that, one would probably be overbudgeting, overtaxing and not exercising the degree of discipline required. Fundamentally, what really is the test, is whether the expenditure, which is now sought to be voted, is necessary; secondly, whether it could have been foreseen; and thirdly, whether the funds are available in order to finance the expenditure that is now sought to be voted.

There cannot be no additional estimates ever, because not even the most skilful Minister of Finance can foresee that there is going to be a flood. Nobody can foresee that circumstances may arise that need particular expenditure. What needs to be done, is to ensure that one has the highest degree of foreseeability applied to one’s budget and that one has the degree of fiscal discipline that is required. It is almost—if I may use the term—like a business which has no bad debts at all. That is actually a bad business, because one is not taking any chance at all. One is refusing everything that is remotely risky. To that extent this ideal of having no additional estimates is really one which is beyond our reach.

The second point clearly arising from this is the mere fact that the present situation, in regard to the percentage of overspending and the budgeted amount, is better than in previous years. I grant the hon the Minister that and I congratulate him on it. It does not mean it is good—it is better but it is not good. There are still very important grounds on which there could be improvement. But at least an endeavour is being made to cut down on Government expenditure where it is possible to do so. To that extent one gives the hon the Minister credit.

Let me now, if I may, test it in another way. I asked the hon the Minister, with due respect, whether these figures are reliable. I want to give a simple example. Last year when the additional estimates were presented we were told that the expenditure level was going to be R40,213 billion after the additional expenditure and after the expected savings including the statutory expenditure and everything else. The hon the Minister can check it in Hansard, col 1152, 20 February 1987. That is the figure that was given to us in this House. The reality is, of course, a little different. Instead of spending that R40,213 billion, what was actually spent was R41,042 billion. The additional estimates as presented to the House last year were therefore inaccurate to the extent of R829 million. That is a lot of money in anybody’s terms and, when one looks at the amount for which we are now budgeting, one sees that it is virtually the whole of the additional estimates. The question is: What reliance can be placed on these figures? That is what the hon the Minister needs to tell us, because there his record is not terribly good.

The other thing which is quite fascinating, is that for some reason which is not explained, some R82 million of the 1985-86 figure was actually spent and utilised during the 1986-87 financial year. It should have appeared in the previous year’s estimates, and it was suddenly transferred to the next year’s expenditure. To my mind that also needs some very real explaining.

The other question is, of course, how this is going to be financed. I must tell hon members that I have some very real reservations about this financing. May I point out that I am relying here on the December figures which are the latest calculation that I have available—the hon the Minister may check up on these figures—supplemented by some figures for January and taking into account what he said during his introductory speech. What has happened is that revenue which was collected up to December was some 13,4% higher than in the previous financial years during the same period. The expenditure, however, was some 19% higher, which is near enough to the figure of 18,9% which the hon the Minister now talks about. What we have here therefore is a greater degree of increase in expenditure than in revenue collected, which means the deficit before borrowing is higher, which in turn means that more money needs to be raised from other sources. Here the question I put pertinently to the hon the Minister is how he has managed his financing, in respect of long-term financing, bearing in mind that he would have borrowed the money cheaper two months or even a month ago than he can borrow it today. If he borrows it today the interest factor will be higher and this will have to be borne in the future. I ask the hon the Minister to tell us how he has managed the borrowing, to what extent he has already financed the deficit and where we are in relation to this situation.

There are some worrying features to which I would like to draw the attention of hon members, for example the fact that the gold mining taxation and the payments in respect of leases for gold mines have decreased substantially. Percentagewise it was roughly 13% lower in December as compared with the percentage for the previous year. With the gold price doing what it is doing now, I would imagine it must be creating a further problem in this regard from a financing point of view. If that is so, it will once again have to be compensated for.

The other factor which is most material is that some of the items which have been utilised in order to finance expenditure, are almost nonrecurrent. One example is the use of the proceeds of the sale of property. For some reason more property was sold during the current year than was budgeted for. When one sells property of the State it means that one is selling assets in order to produce money for revenue. That is not a healthy situation. By December we had already exceeded the amount budgeted for in regard to the sale of land by more than R3 million.

In the Budget of last year there was also the question of financing from the Central Energy Fund. Whereas one can take current revenue from the Central Energy Fund, it is now intended to be put into a pool and then dished out. Once one has used up the kitty there is nothing more to keep in reserve for the future.

The question which is posed here is whether the present financial situation does not create certain worrying features in regard to the financing of the Budget for next year. I assume we are obviously not going to have the details today, but there are clear pointers to this situation.

The other question which is included in this appropriation to which I want to draw the attention, is the assistance in respect of the Natal floods. I want to ask the hon the Minister in all sincerity whether he should not actually be moving an amendment to these estimates in order to cover the expenditure which is going to be incurred because of the unforeseen floods in the Free State and Northern Cape in particular.

The Natal flood problems have not been fully solved. They have not been fully covered. It has been publicly announced that the disaster fund in fact did not have enough money to meet all its obligations in respect of Natal. It will certainly not be able to do so in respect of this flood, despite a very generous effort on the part of the public which I think should be commended. Please permit me to say in passing that it would not be a bad idea if, for example, hon members of Parliament as a body, instead of only voting other people’s money for the disaster fund as we are doing today and asking people to contribute to this fund, donated a portion of this month’s salary to that fund.

Have you given yet, Harry?

That hon member and I can compare what we have given and, with great respect, it is really not to his credit to be so stupid when we are dealing with such a serious matter.

In my opinion it would not be a bad idea if MPs as a body decided to donate a portion of this month’s salary to the disaster fund. Even if they only gave 10% of their salary it would be a gesture the public of South Africa would understand— that we do not only talk about it, but that we put our money where our mouths are. I think this particular question is one that is deserving of support by the whole community because all sections of the community are going to benefit from what is being given in this regard.

As I have indicated, I think the hon the Minister should actually move an amendment—we cannot move it, because the rules do not permit it—to vote a sum of money in order to cover this disaster which has not been catered for in these additional estimates. I want to commend to him that he should move that amendment here.

Lastly, I want to touch on something with which the hon the Minister himself dealt and that is the economic position and the confidence which is required in the economy in South Africa. Without confidence nothing much is going to work. When someone says the choice in South Africa is between the AWB and the ANC and this is broadcast and printed abroad in the manner in which has been done as being the view of White South Africans, this is not helping confidence in South Africa.

Order! The hon member is going beyond the scope of the debate now.

No, Sir. I am talking about business confidence. I am saying that that is one of the most harmful things to business confidence that there could have been, and I can also tell you, Sir, that that has already appeared on television all over the world.

Order! No, the hon member must confine himself to the subjects contained in the schedules and the reasons for the increases or decreases.

Well, Sir, I can talk about the police and what the police should be doing about this, because that concerns the question as to whether the R50 million or a portion of it will be used for that purpose. I can also talk about the ability to raise the revenue—that is permitted— because if business confidence is destroyed, if further sanctions are imposed upon South Africa it will affect the ability to finance what we are proposing here today.

Sir, I have only one sentence on this subject, which I put to you. Fortunately we have a choice. There is something else available to us in South Africa besides the AWB and the ANC, but we need to convey it to the world that there are alternatives and that these caricatures are not true South Africans. They are the ones who are doing us harm while we are a people struggling to solve what is an extremely difficult problem.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed an honour to follow the hon member for Yeoville in this debate. I would certainly like to associate myself with his final remarks.

He started off by saying that it had been mooted that the objective of an estimate of additional expenditure should be that there should be none at all. I think he has agreed, however, that this ideal is impossible and that we should ensure—as he said—the highest degree of foreseeability.

I think he was really congratulating the hon the Minister for bringing down the increase in expenditure to one of the lowest levels ever.

*Mr Chairman, I also wish to refer to a remark made by the hon member for Barberton in objecting to the closing of the wage gap and the redistribution of wealth. I want to put only one question to the hon member: Is the policy of partition not a policy of redistribution of land?

Order! The hon member had better come back to the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I believe that this Additional Appropriation is good news. Discipline has been applied. The fact that 2,1% of the sum originally budgeted for has to be appropriated, is a great achievement. The hon the State President and his Cabinet are to be congratulated on the fact that spending could be controlled within very narrow parameters. During the past year growth in the South African economy was extremely sluggish. Confidence in the private sector was low and it was decided as a matter of public policy to boost the economy by way of public spending. This has been achieved to the extent that the public sector can begin to withdraw its stimulatory measures of increased spending and further growth in the economy will now be forthcoming from the private sector.

Criticism from outside has always been that the Government is unable to control Government spending, that we have unleashed a leviathan that is unstoppable, uncontrollable and untameable. The results shown here indicate that this criticism has been unfounded and that the determination shown by the hon the State President in his opening address to Parliament must gain greater credibility.

It is only a strong government that can contain spending. That has been shown in the Additional Appropriation, and this adumbrates the future determination of this Government to curb spending.

It is in this light that we must see the improvement of the general climate for economic growth. It is to be welcomed that the private sector has reacted favourably to these conditions. The estimates in this appropriation bear out the main goals of the Government to stimulate economic growth, and to do so without upsetting our balance of payments or the general decrease in the rate of inflation that we have been experiencing. Economic growth tends to stimulate demand for capital goods, which means more imports, and therefore adversely affects our balance of payments. This extra demand for capital goods also has an effect on demand-push inflation, and tends to push up interest rates.

The dilemma facing us is that of stimulating growth while at the same time reducing inflation. Inflation is an annoying ulcer in society. It affects all of us, but particularly those living on pensions and fixed incomes. It means a decline in their standard of living and a diminishing net disposable income. Inflation is also a disincentive to save, which results in a lowering of capital formation and investment. If we are to grow, we must invest. If inflation does not come down, it goes up. This is a tautological statement, but is inclined to be forgotten, especially by Keynesian economists. Hyperinflation threatens the essence of the fabric of society, and leads to chaos, and chaos is the lowest circle of political hell.

The role of State expenditure is crucial in this equation. We are living in an age of ever-increasing demands for services provided by the State. This is especially so in the face of the tremendous challenge we have in attempting to develop those in the Third World sector of our economy and guide them into the First World economy. At the same time the demography of those already in the First World economy is changing putting extra pressure on State expenditure. People are living longer. The length of life after retirement is increasing. This means demands for more old-age homes, more pensions and more health care are increasing, and all of these cost money. In a country such as South Africa there are limits to these demands. There are limitations as to what can be raised from the taxpayer and as to what can be borrowed. For this reason it is to be welcomed that priorities are being identified through mechanisms like the Committee for National Priorities and the five-year plan.

*There is competition for limited finances, therefore. This means that users of services that enjoy a relatively low priority will in future have to make a greater contribution themselves. Compassionate services for the less privileged are naturally higher on the list of priorities. In spite of this, certain important capital needs have not yet been met. The utilisation of the country’s existing assets must also be investigated, therefore. Hence the urgent investigation of privatisation and deregulation.

Finally, I wish to repeat that this Additional Appropriation Bill is proof of the maintenance of fiscal discipline. It also proves the Government’s determination to continue applying this discipline. The recent budget presented by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs also proves this. I must congratulate the hon the Minister, therefore, and wish him well in his battle to stimulate economic growth, fight inflation and keep Government spending within bounds.

Mr Chairman, I should like to extend my sincere gratitude to those two hon colleagues of mine on this side of the House who played their part in replying to certain aspects of the debate.

†Mr Chairman, I want briefly to respond to the remarks made by the hon member for Yeoville. I thank him for his understanding of the absolute impossibility of budgeting accurately when one is dealing with amounts in the vicinity of R48 billion. With this in mind, one has to take cognisance of the fact that the additional amount of R600 million being asked for is only in the vicinity of 1,25%. That is certainly within reasonable limits of accuracy and I thank the hon member for his support in that regard and for his perspective in regard to this particular issue.

Obviously, we have not yet completed the fiscal year and yet we have been compelled at this stage to submit this Additional Appropriation Bill. Obviously too in this regard we are dealing with estimates and I cannot tell the hon member today that these figures are absolutely reliable because on the very last day of the fiscal year certain moneys will be paid by certain departments. Certain departments are anxiously awaiting the delivery of certain items and, very often, they postpone certain lower priority purchases until the last month of the fiscal year, not only to help in regard to the cash flow, but also to see whether some higher priorities do not perhaps crop up. There are many variables in this particular equation. Therefore, the figures that we have submitted are as reliable as they can possibly be at this particular stage.

The hon member also referred to certain figures contained in col 1152 of Hansard of 20 February of last year. The only explanation I can offer at this stage in regard to the discrepancy that he mentioned is that one of the figures was submitted by the Auditor-General and that in that figure we included the discount on public debt.

Include both of them.

Well, if that is so, we can talk about the accuracy of that particular set of figures at a later stage. I also want to reply at a later stage to some of the other details that the hon member raised because, obviously, Sir, it is not possible for me to have all that information on hand at this particular stage.

The hon member also referred to figures published in December. A number of public commentators merely extrapolated some of those figures and then arrived at horrendous conclusions. I can tell the hon member now that since September of last year the revenue figures have improved vastly. Our estimates at that stage were very much lower than they are now. Nevertheless, at this particular stage it is still very difficult for me to reply to the hon member on the basis of reasonable accuracy. In the past month, we have responded in this regard; my hon colleague the Deputy Minister of Finance has also issued a statement in this regard. We have had the spectacle of people in Johannesburg in particular looking for every means at their disposal to dispose of some of their taxable income. Massive figures have been quoted to me, for instance, taxable income in the vicinity of R800 million being channelled into uncommon partnerships in the direction of forestry; hundreds of millions of rand being channelled into the film industry and the export allowances there; and also hundreds of millions of rand being invested in bloodstock. I have been warned on several occasions about the operation of some very fancy schemes and that it is quite possible that our revenue figures at the end of February will show a substantial drop. We have issued warning after warning and we have cautioned practitioners to be careful. I want to state here and now—I have already told the Institute of Chartered Accountants—that although we loathe passing legislation with retrospective effect, there is no way in which we will allow people to get away with these schemes in order to reduce their tax liability simply because we do not like introducing legislation with retrospective effect.

So I repeat that we will have no hesitation in introducing legislation with retrospective effect in order to restore people’s tax liabilities in those cases where they obviously entered into such schemes for the purposes of reducing their tax liabilities.

While we had very promising indications that we might come very much closer to our revenue total, despite the variations in its various components, I am obviously not in a position at this moment to indicate accurately what it will be. We shall provide that information as soon as possible.

As far as our long-term financing is concerned, we still find ourselves in the unfortunate position this tax year of having to finance certain running expenditure by means of long-term capital, but the reports given to me from time to time indicate that we were able to get most of our financing at times when interest rates were very favourable. I agree with the hon member that interest rates at the moment are much higher than they were some time ago, but he will be informed at a later stage of the exact amount which we will have to borrow in these circumstances.

The hon member was correct; gold mine revenue decreased very substantially. The strikes had something to do with that, as did the whole question of capital expenditure. Many of these mines used times of high tax liability to enter into very high expensing of a capital nature, which can be seen as a postponement of tax revenue or an investment in future tax-generating assets. That is something which was addressed by the Margo Commission, which suggested an alternative to the write-off of 100% in the year following the investment, but we will come to that and our response to it later.

As far as property sales are concerned, we would certainly like to encourage various departments which have property that they are not now using to offer that property for sale, because it is not necessary for the State to have huge chunks of land lying around not being put to any useful purpose. I agree with the hon member, however, that land is an asset which should really only be used for capital expenditure.

The hon member asked why we did not move an amendment in order to deal with the recent floods. We do not regard that as necessary now. One month remains of the financial year, so an amendment is not required now. We do not know exactly what will be needed, so it would have to be a token amount which we would exceed in any case. From our point of view, we are administratively in a position to handle the extent of our contribution in the last month of this financial year without needing an amendment to the Bill right now.

The hon member also suggested that members of Parliament contribute as a group. I would like to tell him, in respect of the NP caucus, that there is already a movement under way to deal with that, and the relevant announcement will be made by the chairman of our caucus in due course. It is not for me to make that announcement. I believe there are also negotiations under way among the Whips of the various parties so that something might be done about contributions on a parliamentary basis.

I want to say, however, that last year on the occasion of the collections for the Natal flood disaster, Ministers contributed a minimum of R500 each. I cannot remember this having been given any publicity. In our particular Ministry we circulated a short list for myself, the two Deputy Ministers, the Director-General and the two Chief Executive Directors in order to get substantial contributions from ourselves as well. We paid that over without giving it any publicity but maybe we should give it the necessary publicity at this stage.

*In conclusion I want to come back to the hon member for Barberton’s speech. I cannot understand that hon member’s logic. He made a great song and dance about the fact that we had exceeded the Budget by 1,3% which, to say the least, is totally ridiculous. It is just the same as my telling the hon member to plant 3 hectares of maize and to estimate the number of seeds required, and then accusing him of stupidity if his estimate is not exactly right. What sort of an argument is that? How can the hon member allege in this House that it is a question of inaccurate budgeting because we were out by approximately 1,3% and because we are now actually requesting an appropriation of R594 million in respect of a total expenditure of just under R48 billion, implying that we are not helping the farmers and the agricultural sector enough in dishing out this extra sum of money now?

Is this to be interpreted as a sign that we are not sympathetic enough towards agriculture because there is nothing for agriculture in the Additional Appropriation? On the one hand he complains about inaccuracy, and on the other he says that one’s accuracy is proof of the fact that one does not care. What goes on in the mind of someone who reasons along those lines, or has he been tainted by the sort of propaganda to which the hon member for Yeoville referred? When one functions at the same level as that hon member, who stood there ranting and raving, one is bound to come forward with such nonsensical statements because then one is trying to exploit every little thing for the sake of political gain.

I cannot understand the hon member. I cannot understand him! I am not angry; I am simply totally exasperated because I really and truly cannot make any headway in my attempts to get through to that hon member and his colleagues.

Why have we had overspending during the past few years? I ask with tears in my eyes why we have had this over-expenditure. I have said this repeatedly, and my hon colleagues on this side of the House have argued this point as well. Overexpenditure took place as a result of several deliberate interim steps which we had considered in order to lend impetus to the economy going.

Included in those figures, which were mentioned in that Second Reading speech and to which the hon member referred, is an additional amount of R1,2 billion which we spent at a stage when we could not do this entirely by way of an appropriation.

I can still remember all the other expenditure which we decided upon, and we had to do a certain amount of manoeuvring because there is a restriction in the Exchequer and Audit Act concerning an excess of 2%. We had to do some manoeuvring in order to accommodate that expenditure. It was deliberate expenditure on the part of the authorities in order to make a contribution towards an economic recovery.

Also at the request of the private sector.

Mr Chairman, my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, has just added that it also took place at the request of the private sector.

Now the hon member is asking, in a tone of complete indignation, why a withdrawal is taking place all of a sudden. Surely we have debated that here umpteen times. Now that the private sector is beginning to show signs of a revival in that sector of the economy in which it is active we, as the authorities, must withdraw; otherwise we would have a total overheating of the economy and a repetition of the situation that prevailed in 1983-4.

At that time you did not admit it!

Oh, I am not so sure!

The facts confuse them. [Interjections.]

The hon member asked me whether the CEF and the National Road Fund levies had already been paid into the Treasury. The answer is no. Those levies will come to the Treasury in the new financial year. In view of the levies that will be paid directly into the Treasury as from 1 April, we are not touching the existing assets of those funds. We are not touching them. In other words, the flow of all future levies will be directly to the Treasury.

The hon member asserted that the over-expenditure could be attributed to the closing of the wage gap. Really, is a logical argument of no value when it comes to appropriations and finance? Must every little effort be made to pass judgment in a propagandist fashion? Are the lives of the hon members of the CP totally dominated by the by-elections? Is there not even the remotest chance that they could become a little more rational and perform their parliamentary function without allowing their work in relation to the by-elections to cloud their thinking? [Interjections.] I do not know.

Then there was the suggestion made by the hon member for Soutpansberg regarding an expert opinion. [Interjections.] Rubbish!

I say you are taking a beating!

He says I am taking a beating. [Interjections.] Oh, really Sir! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg says that I, as a member of the Government, am taking a beating by coming to this House with an Additional Appropriation like this one which makes a positive contribution with regard to the stabilisation of the capital market, an Additional Appropriation which shows that we are serious about restricting our expenditure to within affordable limits. When I stand up in this House and reply to the debate, he tells me that I took a beating at the hands of the hon member for Barberton. [Interjections.]

I just want to draw the attention of hon members of this House to a matter which the hon member for Barberton has just raised again. He asked how long we had to continue with this closing of the wage gap. He said the hon the State President had told the Whites that they had to tighten their belts even further. He interprets this as meaning that the Whites must do so in order to allow the others to catch up with them.

Such a suggestion, once again, is really not worthy of comment. What is more, it does not behove that hon member to say that sort of thing. I really do not think it speaks well of his intellectual integrity to say that sort of thing. [Interjections.]

I want to remind the hon member of something he ought to have learnt in the standing committees. Surely the hon member knows that when one comes to the finalisation of the budget and one knows that expenditure will have to be incurred, even if it is a very large expenditure, one sometimes provides only R1 000, simply to get an appropriation into the budget. There is thus a deliberate utilisation of the facility which the Additional Appropriation provides. The hon member will concede that. He has come across that before. [Interjections.] The hon member says yes, he concedes that.

What the hon member is conceding, therefore, is that when one submits an appropriation once a year, one cannot be 100% accurate. In that case one creates an appropriation of R1 000, in this way using the mechanism of the Additional Appropriation to fund a particular service. If he concedes that, then surely it militates against what he said earlier, namely that he finds it dramatic to appropriate R600 million, which makes up 1,3% of the Budget. Surely that does not make any sense, logically speaking.

There are two points I want to make in closing. Firstly I just want to ask the hon member whether he really thinks—I would appreciate it tremendously if he would just give me an indication of his reaction—we would have been in a position today to forecast a growth rate of even as high as 3%—even if it is small, because we are working within very restrictive parameters—if the State had not incurred excessive expenditure during the past three to four years. Does he think we would have been able to achieve that growth rate if the State had not managed its expenditure in the manner in which it did?

That is debatable. After all, you could have done it by way of tax reductions.

The hon member says one could have done it through tax reductions. However, how many tax reductions have we not made? Surely in the process of stimulation—we have debated this umpteen times—we have brought about tax reductions. The hon member for Yeoville has always spoken about the so-called “supply-side economics”. How many times did we not reply to him when he was still the chief spokesman of the opposition? We told him that we did, in fact, make use of supply-side economics, but we ourselves had to provide another portion of the stimulation because we did not only want to stimulate the economy. Our purpose in incurring that expenditure was twofold, namely stimulation as well as the attainment of certain very specific social objectives. I am referring specifically to special job-creation and housing programmes.

For that reason we have combined Government expenditure and tax reductions time and again during the past three to four years. By implication the hon member concedes that if the State had not played a very specific role during the past three to four years we would not have been in a position to look forward to a positive growth rate in the economy today. In fact—and I told the hon member for Yeoville this by way of a concluding remark—as a policy-determining authority, we must always take care to come forward with our policy measures 6, 9 or 12 months in advance of the actual state of the economy. In that context we must now consider once again whether we should not perhaps permit the economy to become overheated in some way or another, and there are a variety of ways in which this could be done. We are, in fact, achieving something by way of our policies, and for that reason we must look to the future. The danger which is now looming is that of overheating. For that reason we must now bow out by restricting Government expenditure so that the economy may run its course in the private sector.

The hon member made the statement that we should revert to the good old days of budgeting separately for capital and current expenditure. He said that since we had stopped doing this, we no longer had any control. In the first instance he is incorrect in saying that we have not had any control, because I have explained to him umpteen times what the reasons for our over-expenditure were. Here on page XIV of the Estimate of Expenditure reference is made to: “economic and functional classification of expenditure”. All the capital expenditure items are set out here. They are shown separately because, after all, we have a target-budgeting system in accordance with which certain capital and current expenditure items form an inherent package in the attainment of a specific objective. We have taken the trouble to extract this capital expenditure, and here we have it. Therefore, what objection does the hon member have to our method of budgeting? On every page, under every Vote, there is a clear classification as to what is current and what is capital expenditure. We do it in this manner because we are striving towards a specific objective. Here is yet another summary of the capital expenditure. I cannot understand the hon member’s point. However, he wants to go back to the good old days, because in those days everything still worked out fine. No, Sir, I am afraid that it is not going back to the good old days which makes a difference to appropriations. It is simply a question of applying discipline, about which this Government is very much in earnest. We are now able to exercise discipline by restricting our expenditure to within affordable limits because the economy is now in an upswing phase. At the stage at which economic activity dipped sharply and the graph bottomed out, we had to do the opposite. Then we had to spend more than we could really afford at that stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1:

Vote No 3—"Bureau for Information":

Mr Chairman, there is a request for an additional R1,6 million in this Additional Appropriation. On the face of it, that does not look too excessive because that is about 5% of the amount originally requested. However, when one looks at the explanatory memorandum that the hon the Deputy Minister has presented to the House, one sees that there are a number of amounts which have been moved from programme to programme. I want to suggest to the hon the Deputy Minister—although he says that it is only the second year of the activities of the Bureau—that he needs to do a bit more homework with regard to his budgeting. I know a little about budgeting and I believe that he could have been a little more accurate.

I want to discuss one or two programmes and in particular programme 4 where there is an increase of almost R2 million. The explanation given for this is that the increase as a result of a small increase in ad hoc publications. That is a bit misleading, because in the original estimates the amount budgeted for for this programme was R7 million whereas the previous year it was R5,4 million. So in two years it increased from R5,4 million to R7 million and now to R9 million. I think that is a substantial increase. I am aware that this programme is used to issue publications by the Bureau, particularly to promote the NP and I would hope the hon the Deputy Minister will explain to us why it was necessary to increase the amount required for publications by R2 million. Would he tell us which publications in particular are necessary to justify an increase of this magnitude? That is my first question.

My second question relates to the item recorded as “postage”. As I understand it, State departments do not actually pay postage. That was confirmed today when an envelope from the Bureau arrived on my desk with a rubber stamp on it indicating that it had come from the Bureau. It was marked “official” and there are no postage stamps on it. As I understand it the various departments pay an amount to the Post Office each year to cover the postage spent by their departments. Can the hon the Deputy Minister tell us if this amount of R815 000 that has been paid to the Post Office is a reasonable assessment of the amount of postage used by the department? Is a calculation made each year to decide how much should be paid to the Post Office?

My third question relates to programme 5, “Planning”, in which there has been an increase of almost a million rand. The last sentence in that paragraph advises us that—

Mr Chairman, I am sure that you will not allow me to argue whether or not there is a revolutionary climate in South Africa although I have certain views as to how that climate has come about. There is a government that has been in office for 40 years. However, what I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to explain to us is how he hopes to stem the revolutionary tide that is developing in this country by spending almost a million rand on booklets. Does he not believe that there is something more fundamental required like meeting the grievances of the people involved? Does he believe that he is going to stem the revolutionary tide simply by printing books at the cost of almost a million rand?

Mr Chairman, the first question of the hon member relates to the increase in programme 4. This is also related to the question of postage, because the main increase there is due to the shifting of the R800 000 odd from the one programme to the other. This is an estimate of what the relative share of the postage on particular publications like SA Today and Panorama would be. In other words, it makes for better judgment of the real expense of certain publications by also bringing the postage in under the same subheading as the printing of that particular publication. There were, of course, a few additional publications. In general I would like to say that it is the task of the Bureau for Information to inform the public about, inter alia, Government policy.

This is an old debate which we have conducted and which, I believe, we shall be conducting for as long as the hon member and I are involved in this particular portfolio. The hon member also has at his disposal—otherwise he will have very shortly—a list of all the publications which the department has issued. We can motivate each of them and it is very difficult for me to pick out one or two. The total bill for those publications and so forth amounts to that particular amount and if the hon member has any particular publication in mind which he feels should not have been published, we can discuss that.

With regard to his last question concerning the rent and services scheme I agree with the hon member that publications or advertising campaigns in themselves—with regard to the payment of rent and services it is not really a question of publications, but rather of advertising campaigns—will definitely not make any problems disappear, apart from the fact that it has been proven that campaigns that like contribute towards a substantial improvement in the payment of rent and services. This money is therefore very well spent in the sense that much more than this amount of money is gained by the increased payment of rent and services, although that is something which is reflected in a totally different place. From a financial point of view this is money very well spent by the Government. Of course I agree that this does not solve the problem and the Government is doing a great deal— although not under this Vote—towards doing exactly what the hon member has suggested we should be doing.

Mr Chairman, in the post I received, in an official envelope, a publication that looked very much like the type of publication one gets from the Bureau for Information. However, no mention was made of its origin or of who published it. The author is a certain A A Thomashausen, and the title of the pamphlet is The Dismantling of Apartheid. I should like to know, under programme 4, whether it is one of the publications of the department of the hon the Deputy Minister. If it is not their publication, I want to know whether they helped finance and distribute it. I should like further information in this regard.

Mr Chairman, from time to time the Bureau buys publications which, in its opinion, contain useful information that could be sent to certain target groups and which are then distributed. In the case that was mentioned, the publication did not come from the Bureau, but we did participate in its distribution as part of our information-disseminating campaign.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether his Bureau endorses the contents of that publication; how many copies were purchased and distributed; and what the relevant purchase and distribution costs were.

Mr Chairman, in cases where we purchase and distribute a specific publication, we do not necessarily endorse everything that is contained in that publication, but we decide that that publication can contribute to the knowledge about South Africa among decisionmakers who should be informed about South Africa. In such a case, however, the author takes responsibility for what appears in that publication.

With regard to the specific details the hon member wants, such as how many copies of this specific publication were distributed, obviously I do not have the details at my disposal at the moment. If the hon member wishes to put a parliamentary question in this regard, we shall furnish him with that information.

Mr Chairman, if the hon the Deputy Minister is not able to give me the figure, he can at least tell me, because it is a part of these Additional Estimates under the heading “Media production”, what the costs involved in the publication of that document were—what the printing and distribution costs were and what portion was paid to the author, because he said they bought such publications?

Mr Chairman, the hon member probably misunderstood me. I said that we purchased specific publications. That means that a specific publication appears on the market at a specific price and we then negotiate with the publisher to purchase a certain quantity. Therefore we do not pay the author for writing it. We merely buy a number of the publications. That is simply how it works.

The details of exactly how much we spend on each publication is unfortunately information that I do not have available at this stage. However, it can be acquired through the correct channels.

Mr Chairman, in that case I should then like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether those publications were bought before they were printed, in other words was that publication purchased on order? [Interjections.] Sir, I am trying to establish what is happening to the country’s money! [Interjections.] In that publication the author is merely said to be A A Thomashausen. No mention is made of who published and distributed it. Therefore I want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether his department purchased it on order and then had it printed, and I also want to know what the costs involved in that specific publication were. This is something that falls under this Vote.

Mr Chairman, surely the hon member knows that a publication sometimes comes to one’s attention after it has already been printed, and one can then purchase copies of that publication as it appears on the bookshelves, or one can approach the printer or the publisher—the author in this case—and ask him whether one can purchase a number of copies of this fine publication that has appeared.

Perhaps he will tell one that there are not enough available but that he can have a number printed.

Occasionally it happens—also when the subject matter is entirely different to what we are dealing with here—that potential buyers are informed by means of an advertisement before the final number of copies of the publication is decided on, and that they then determine the size of the edition on the basis of the number of orders received before publication.

In this specific case I am not aware, at the moment, of exactly which method was employed. However, we can also make this information available to the hon member. However, if the hon member insists on knowing exactly how much was paid for every publication, it is something that falls outside the ambit of this debate. It is true that this does fall under a programme in which over-expenditure occurred, but I do not think one can be expected to account for every cent that was spent in that Vote and indicate on what every specific cent was spent.

I am asking you about one publication. I am asking you one question. I am not referring to all the publications.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member had given notice, in advance, that he wanted that specific information on that specific publication, we could have given it to him.

That is why you are here.

If only he had displayed that courtesy.

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Deputy Minister tell us whether it was decided to circulate this publication under the title Dismantling of Apartheid as a result of the use of the concept by the hon the State President in a whole series of advertisements in this regard?

Mr Chairman, we did not have anything to do with the choice of the title of the publication. The publication, with its contents and title, was available and we purchased it on the grounds of the total package. However, in this regard I can inform the hon member that the word “apartheid”, as it is used in the vast majority of cases—overseas and in general in the English language—means something completely different to what was originally meant by it. For this reason the title was suited to the context in which it was used.

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Deputy Minister inform us of whether that particular publication was circulated in English-speaking countries only? Was it perhaps also circulated generally, even in countries in which English is not the language spoken? Secondly, could he tell us whether the publication was circulated overseas?

Mr Chairman, it would not have made much sense to distribute the publication in the English language in countries where people did not understand English. Therefore we are of the opinion that, for the sake of proper communication, we send someone something in a language he understands. For this reason we distributed it in English in countries where the official language is English or to individuals whom we know understand English— also individuals overseas.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 4—“Commission for Administration”, and Vote No 5—“Improvements of Conditions of Service”:

Mr Chairman, with reference to Vote No 4, under the head “Functional assistance to the Commission for Administration”, there is an increase of R3,084 million, which can be attributed mainly to the following: The establishment of a Directorate: Privatisation, which is being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the office of the Commissioner for Administration. In this regard I should like to enquire why this transfer was deemed necessary. How many staff members were involved and how much money was involved in the transfer of this Directorate alone. Could the hon the Minister reply to this?

Mr Chairman, I want to provide the hon member for Losberg with an explanation in this regard. At first this matter fell under the jurisdiction of the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry. A few months ago, however, it was decided that I should become chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Privatisation, and that the entire directorate would subsequently be moved to the Office of the Commission for Administration. The only reason for this was that it was felt that because the Commission for Administration was, of course, concerned with a large percentage of deregulation and privatisation functions with regard to the Public Service, it would be better for the Public Service to manage everything. Consequently the directorate was moved, and with very good results. The whole directorate is now well-structured. There is a very good infrastructure and the work in this regard is progressing on a sound footing.

The additional funds that are being requested are in excess of an amount of R510 000. Unfortunately I am not in a position to say exactly how many officials are involved. Nevertheless, it is only a small number of officials.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether this Directorate: Privatisation has also been entrusted with the privatisation of the Government corporations such as Eskom, Sasol, the SA Railways, the SA Airways and the Post Office. Is this directorate also responsible for that privatisation?

Mr Chairman, I can explain to the hon member that the system works as follows: The Committee of Ministers acts in a supervisory capacity and is concerned with formulation of policy. As I said before, as far as the directorate and the Commission for Administration are concerned, both are directly involved in functions and activities concerned with the privatisation of matters in the Public Service, and in fact a great deal has already been done behind the scenes.

To date the policy has been—it might change soon—for institutions like Escom, as in the case of the SATS and the Post Office, to be privatised under the jurisdiction of the Minister concerned, but with the Committee of Ministers and the directorate acting in a supervisory and controlling capacity. They will certainly be able to ask questions to establish why certain things have still not been done or how much progress has been made, etc. That is what the set-up is at the moment, but there is a possibility that a rearrangement will have to be made?

Mr Chairman, with regard to the establishment of an Institute for Training, I should like to know from the hon the Minister what funds were voted for this. I should also like to know how much money was voted for the expansion of the directorate, since we have already been informed of its creation.

Mr Chairman, I am able to tell the hon member that the Institute for Training came into being on 1 January 1986, with a limited establishment and insufficient facilities. It soon became apparent that the existing staff were unable to fulfil the ever-increasing training needs, and additional staff, especially with regard to managerial and computer training, had to be provided.

As a result of the restructuring of the courses for senior and middle-level managers, as well as the increased demand for specialised management courses and seminars concerning, for example, negotiating skills, labour relations and security, arrangements had inevitably to be made to accommodate this. During the past year, a large back-log in management training built up, and there are great expectations in all the Government departments that the Institute for Training will deal with the situation effectively.

With the aid of funds that were made available during the 1986-87 financial year, the Sub-directorate: Computer Training was founded at the institute. A work-study investigation conducted into computer training, however, identified numerous bottlenecks, for example, in that limited facilities and manpower resulted in long waiting lists, and therefore the demand for computer training from the departments could not be satisfied.

Furthermore, it was also found that there was a shortage of central co-ordination in advanced training. The office was then obliged to create a few additional posts in an attempt to satisfy these needs. Government departments are increasingly geared towards computerisation and are spending billions of rand on hardware. Effective use of this hardware is extremely important, and this process could be seriously handicapped if early and sound training is not provided. The increase is R1,6 million.

Mr Chairman, I am referring to paragraph 1.0 (b) of the explanatory memorandum on Vote 5—

I am asking when we can expect finality to be achieved with regard to this elimination of salary disparity and how this amount of R6 000 000 is constituted.

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the hon member for Losberg for these questions. I have a few interesting details to mention, if you would allow me to do so.

Of course, the amount of R6 000 000 is only required for March. Parity will cost R135 million during the next full financial year, and that will bring about complete parity. It will be the final rounding-off of the implementation of parity.

As a matter of interest, if the hon member for Losberg could give me his attention, I should like to say that in 1979 I had the honour, as the Minister in charge of the Public Service Commission, to make a start with parity under direct instructions from the late Mr John Vorster, the then Prime Minister. For that reason it was a great honour for me to be involved with the relevant announcement last year, and now too with the completion of the implementation of this programme. This question of parity is frequently raised, but I want to say that the CP, with all its refractory and unfriendly remarks about parity during debates here …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In response to a point of order, the Chairman of the House ruled that questions and answers should be to the point. I do not recall there being any word of unfriendliness or unkind or destructive reference in the question of the hon member for Losberg to the hon the Minister. It was quite simply a question. I should therefore like to know in advance whether the hon the Minister may continue on the course he apparently wants to adopt. [Interjections.]

Order! I was listening to the hon the Minister. As far as I can judge, he was replying to the question the hon member for Losberg put to him; therefore the hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I shall be very brief. I said that with regard to the whole question of parity, they were at variance with very important people in this House, because the present hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was the Minister concerned from 7 October 1980 to 2 March 1982, and during his time he was personally responsible for R30 million which was granted for the establishment of parity. [Interjections.]

Votes agreed to.

Vote No 6—“Development Planning”:

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question in respect of programme 5 on which there has been a saving of R576 000. The programme is headed “Urbanization of and social welfare services for Blacks” and in the explanatory memorandum a saving in personnel expenditure is mentioned. Would the hon the Deputy Minister elaborate on this?

Mr Chairman, the amount of R576 000 consists merely of unpaid salaries resulting from posts which could not be filled. The position of Head of Constitutional Services, for example, and other posts were not filled. It was merely a question of unfilled posts and did not affect the welfare services rendered. Our department is responsible for the overall policy regarding social welfare services for Blacks, but the groundwork is actually done by the provincial governments. There was consequently no saving in respect of the work done. It was merely in respect of posts which were not filled.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 7—“Foreign Affairs”:

Mr Chairman, there are two items referred to in the explanatory memorandum in respect of which I would seek further information. In programme 2 there is reference to an increase of R1,945 million and to the opening of an office of the Regional Commission for Security and Co-operation in East London involving South Africa, Ciskei and Transkei. What is involved in respect of this office and are similar facilities available to the other independent states such as Bophuthatswana and Venda? This case presumably relates to security arrangements between the Republic of South Africa and these two states. What is the situation with regard to the other two independent states?

In programme 3 there is a considerable sum of additional expenditure of R23,571 million which relates, inter alia, to the improvement of service benefits of seconded and university personnel at the University of Fort Hare. What is the Department of Foreign Affairs’s responsibility in this regard?

Mr Chairman, the office mentioned in programme 2, paragraph (c), was opened a year ago after the problems experienced in Ciskei. The Government regarded this to be in the interests of the Eastern Cape, especially in the interests of the economic and social development of the area. We are monitoring the situation from day to day. I doubt whether it will be necessary to continue with that office indefinitely, but we found it necessary at that stage.

*The following expenses were incurred in connection with the opening of an office of the Regional Commission for Security and Cooperation in East London: Staff expenses amounted to R125 000; administrative expenses, R20 000; supplies, R10 000; equipment, R107 000; professional services, R6 000 and miscellaneous expenses, R2 000, amounting to R270 000 in all.

†As far as the other independent states are concerned, it has not been considered necessary at this stage, but if it does become necessary, it will certainly be considered.

*With regard to the hon member’s question about the University of Fort Hare, the increase in the allowances of staff employed by the University of Fort Hare amounts to R1,898 million. The funds were budgeted for under the Education and Training Vote, but the Treasury has now transferred the funds from this Vote to the Foreign Affairs Vote. It has merely been carried over and the Department of Foreign Affairs is handling it on behalf of the Department of Education and Training.

Mr Chairman, with reference to programme 2, I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether he could give me a breakdown of the amount which appears there with regard to reasons a, b and c.

Could he also just tell me why the foreign service allowances were increased when the 12,5% salary adjustment took place in South Africa? Was there a concomitant inflationary situation, or why else was this necessary?

Mr Chairman, in reply to the question asked by the hon member for Soutpansberg, I just want to tell him that programme 2 is divided up as follows: Firstly, there is an increase in the allowances of foreign service personnel as a result of the 12,5% salary increase which came into effect on 1 July 1987.

The amount budgeted for this purpose is R750 000.

As a result of the opening of a trade mission in Lesotho, provision is being made for the following expenditure: The total amount being budgeted for this purpose is R925 000. As far as this item is concerned, I should just like to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that there is a standing agreement that whenever missions are opened in Southern Africa, these receive priority. Naturally, they are not budgeted for because one is not sure beforehand whether this can be done. Once they have been established, they are, of course, included in the regular budget.

What it amounts to, therefore, is R750 000 for the additional allowances and R925 000 for the office in Lesotho, and the third is the one to which I have just referred, which amounts to R270 000. The adjustment of the allowances is linked to the cost of living in overseas countries.

Mr Chairman, the events that took place last week with the naming of 17 organisations could not have been foreseen when the Budget was drawn up last year, and there must have been considerable effort on the part of the Department of Foreign Affairs to advise our embassies abroad of the action that had been taken here and the reasons for it. There has been some sharp criticism, particularly by President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher, of those actions.

Could the hon the Deputy Minister please advise the committee under which vote provision is made for this sort of action, and could he tell us what steps were taken to ensure that our representatives abroad, particularly in Washington and London, were adequately briefed to deal with the criticisms that were levelled at us? Were those people simply sent the handout that was delivered to the Press in South Africa, or were they given additional information in order to assist them in dealing with the criticisms they received?

Mr Chairman, I shall first deal with the financial aspect of the question of the hon member for Johannesburg North. The expenses in that connection are dealt with under programme 4 which deals with communications. I would suppose that most of the expenses in this regard would be included in the next budget which will come into effect within a few days.

Mr Chairman, provision is made under programme 3 for increases in respect of four different items, whilst the typed document which we were given, containing the reasons for the increases, indicates only 3 reasons. I should therefore like the hon the Deputy Minister to give me a breakdown in respect of each of those items.

Mr Chairman, I shall gladly respond to that request because I see the hon member for Soutpansberg’s problem. I shall gladly furnish him with an explanation of the figures. The total amount in respect of manpower secondments is R2,639 million. A salary adjustment of 12,5% for all Public Service staff was approved with effect from 1 July 1987. In the case of seconded staff, funds for this purpose are not provided by the Commission for Administration, but form part of the department’s Additional Appropriation. This is simply a figure which is being channelled through the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Secondly, the total amount in respect of incentive schemes for industries is R8 million. An amount of R57,4 million was appropriated in the Main Budget in respect of incentive schemes for the industries in the TBVC countries. At the time when the Additional Appropriation was drawn up, almost R44 million had already been paid out. According to the present trend, and the rate at which claims are being received, it is predicted that approximately R29,4 million will still have to be paid out during the current financial year, which will result in a shortfall of R8 million. The total amount is therefore R2,639 million plus R8 million. The amount in respect of tax compensation is R11,038 million. Personal tax collected from citizens of the TBVC countries living in the RSA is paid over in terms of agreements with the governments of the TBVC countries. The Department of Foreign Affairs has no discretionary powers in respect of this sub-programme. In terms of a request by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue the amount for 1987-88 is to be increased by way of an adjustment. If one were to add those figures together—taking a quick look at it—they would be greater than that figure. There is a credit of R190 000 in the appropriation of the Department of Foreign Affairs in respect of a suspension which took place. This is an amount which is being made available to Trade and Industry for the expansion of Sartoc, the Southern Africa Regional Tourism Council, and which, after due consideration, was not paid out this year.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether South Africa does not perhaps render any assistance to nearby islands in the Indian Ocean, such as the Comoro Islands, and if so, whether that assistance is reflected in this appropriation.

I want to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that all assistance of that nature would take place under programme 3:—“Foreign Aid and Development Cooperation”. I do not believe it is in the interests of the House to discuss it in detail now.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 8—“National Education”:

Mr Chairman, I refer to Programme 5. The department says that it redetermined its priorities during the course of the year and that it then had an amount of R2,394 million available which could be channelled into Programme 5—“Culture”. It was apportioned between declared cultural institutions, the HSRC, the national libraries, general dictionary institutions and the Africa Institute. I should like to hear exactly how it was divided up, and I am particularly interested in those additional amounts that were budgeted for the HSRC and the national libraries.

Mr Chairman, at the request of my hon colleague, I should like to reply to the hon member for Brits as follows. Perhaps I should just mention that the amounts in question here total R2,8 million, which represent savings on various items, particularly in respect of staff expenditure. That amount was subsequently used for what the department had identified as a very urgent need, namely cultural and scientific institutions. Additional funds were made available because I think it is generally accepted that they could do some very good work if they had more funds.

The hon member referred quite justifiably to Programme 5: “Culture”. The additional amount which was compiled from various items in the overall budget, namely R2 394 million, was apportioned as follows. The following additional amounts were allocated to the respective bodies.

Museums under declared institutions R1 398 000; zoological gardens, R309 000; libraries, R66 000; the HSRC, R263 000; and the Africa Institute, R145 000. Those are the total amounts.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 10—“Development Aid”:

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister about the nature of the assistance to which reference is made in programme 2 under his vote in the explanatory memorandum on page 2. Under point 4 reference is made to financial assistance of R1,45 million to the Ciskei Transport Company. Can the hon the Minister tell us what the nature of this assistance is? Does it comprise a loan, shares or support? Is the company a private company or a State company? What is the nature of the entire business for which the money is being appropriated? Why is his department involved in this and not the Department of Foreign Affairs? After all, this is an independent state.

In point 6 reference is made to the suspension, with regard to the Transvaal Provincial Administration, of the establishment of a place of safety, and the amount of R1,7 million is mentioned. What are the circumstances here? I take it that the Transvaal Provincial Administration is no longer carrying on with this project, and that the hon the Minister’s department is now proceeding with it. However, because the provincial administration was involved it must, apparently, have been a project outside a national state. How did it happen that the hon the Minister’s department became involved in this matter, what kind of place of safety is it and where is the place of safety situated?

In point 7 reference is made to a suspension in respect of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs, of the construction of two police offices in the South African Development Trust area, and the amount of R584 000 is mentioned. Why did the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs do this work in the trust area? Is this land which was added later, or why was his department not initially involved? Why was the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs involved and why has the matter now been suspended? I take it that suspension here means that that previous agent has suspended its operations and that the hon the Minister’s department has taken over the work. Does it mean that it is a suspension of the total project? Why, then, does it cost money to suspend a project?

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to the questions by the hon member for Lichtenburg. Firstly, as far as the financial assistance to the Ciskei Transport Company is concerned, the hon member will know from his previous experience that several bus transport companies have been established for the transportation of commuters, particularly within the self-governing areas, but also between the self-governing areas and to job opportunities situated close to the self-governing areas, under the direction of the old Economic Development Corporation. For example, there were the KwaZulu Transport Corporation, the Lebowa Transport Corporation and the Bophuthatswana Transport Corporation. When the old Economic Development Corporation was suspended, all these companies were transferred to the South African Development Trust Corporation. The first three I mentioned—the companies of Bophuthatswana, KwaZulu and Lebowa—have in the meantime already been transferred to their national development corporations.

There are still three that remain—the bus companies in respect of Ciskei, Gazankulu and Qwaqwa. It is extremely difficult to operate those three bus companies profitably.

The Ciskei Transport Company in particular has encountered problems. After a thorough management investigation ordered by my department in co-operation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, these problems were identified as being mainly due to the fact that the Ciskei Transport Corporation is also largely responsible for the transportation of the inhabitants of Duncan Village, which is a Black residential area within the RSA at East London. Six to seven years ago, transport to and from Duncal Village was the responsibility of the East London municipality. Owing to the losses they suffered, they did not see their way clear to continuing, and the Ciskei Transport Company then undertook to continue providing that bus transport. In my opinion, therefore, the South African Government is morally obliged to assist the Ciskei Transport Company, since its financial problems and losses are caused largely by the work it does outside its own territory in the RSA. One could argue that the inhabitants of Duncan Village do not fall under the Department of Development Aid, but under the provincial administration, but because at this stage the Ciskei Transport Corporation still falls under the SADTC as regards management and 50% of its shares, and the SADTC is the responsibility of the Minister of Education and Development Aid, the Treasury has arranged that the aid to be granted to this bus company via the Department of Development Aid, be channelled through the SADTC to the Ciskei Transport Company.

The purpose of these funds is to incur capital expenditure with a view to either fundamentally overhauling existing buses that have become unserviceable, or replacing them by new buses. These funds are therefore aimed at enabling them to extend their operating capacity by purchasing new buses. I take it that this can probably be regarded as a form of capital. It is not being granted as a loan, but directly, as an appropriation to this company via the SADTC.

I now come to the question of the place of safety falling under the Transvaal Provincial Administration. To begin with I want to explain to the hon member that word “suspension” here refers to the suspension of this amount of money on a vote of another department and its transfer here. This is not new money. It is existing money which has merely been suspended from the Transvaal Provincial Administration and transferred here.

The issue here is the place of safety at Rietgat, north of Soshanguve. Rietgat is situated on Development Trust land and, as the hon member will be aware, any construction on Development Trust land must be dealt with by the Trust via the Department of Development Aid. Rietgat is needed by the Transvaal Provincial Administration, that is responsible for social and welfare services to Black communities outside the national states on both trust land and non-trust land. This is now being converted into a place of safety with a view to affording the court the opportunity to refer to it juvenile delinquents that they do not wish to refer for detention in a jail or police cell. The considerable upgrading and conversion of the facility required for this purpose cost R1,7 million.

The construction work on the trust land must be done by the Department of Development Aid, although equipping the centre will be done by the Transvaal Provincial Administration. I might just mention that negotiations are under way at present to transfer the operation of welfare institutions on trust land to the Department of Development Aid, which in my opinion is a logical move.

I think I have replied to the hon member s questions in this regard. The same in fact also applies to the next point which deals with two police stations. These are stations needed by the SA Police, but they must both be built on trust land and for that reason the responsible construction agency is the Department of Development Aid and the money for this has been suspended from the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs and transferred to the Department of Development Aid. One of the police stations is to be built at Botshabelo and the other on trust land adjoining Mdantsane.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister to give us details in respect of two items for which he is requesting additional expenditure. However, I just want to preface my remarks with the comment that we in these benches are a little sceptical about the activities of the department when it comes to the consolidation of land. It is well known that we are opposed to the fragmentation of South Africa. When money is therefore spent on acquiring land so that one can juggle communities and farms around in order to make the map look a lot better, we have problems with that.

Generally, however, the additional amount requested in this memorandum is acceptable, but I would just like to comment on the R2 733 000 donated to victims of the flood disaster in Natal.

I want to compliment the hon the Minister on that quick action and I hope that similar action will be taken regarding the disasters in the Northern Cape and the Free State if there is land there which belongs to the SA Development Trust and that a donation will be made to that flood relief fund.

My two questions concern items (iv) and (v) under Programme 2—"The Ciskei Transport Company”, where an amount of R1,45 million is requested for financial assistance to this company. I wonder if the hon the Minister would just enlighten us briefly as to the reason for this financial assistance …

I have just done that, but probably you were dozing.

… and, secondly, the development of Kwamhlangain KwaNdebele, which is item (v). Almost R10 million is being requested for this development, and taking into account that there was a capital in KwaNdebele, would the hon the Minister please provide the reasons for building this new capital in KwaNdebele? On what is this amount going to be spent? Why are we going to spend an additional R10 million between now and the end of the financial year?

Mr Chairman, I would like to reply as follows. Firstly I would like to thank the hon member for his acknowledgement of the amount spent on flood relief. He has, however, not mentioned another amount which is directly transmitted to the KwaZulu Government. I am referring to the amount of R15 326 000, item (i) under programme 3. The total amount, therefore, is R18 million in this financial year for flood relief in Natal, with regard to those areas for which my department is responsible. I am grateful for his complimentary remarks. It was an inspiration to me to see with what speed and efficiency officials were able to react, together with community leaders, in this matter.

As far as the Ciskei Transport Company is concerned, I did give an extensive reply and I am sure the relevant points will be covered if the hon member follows it up in Hansard.

As far the provision of a new main centre for KwaNdebele at Kwamhlanga is concerned, this concerns those developments for which KwaNdebele is now, as it were, coming up in turn. It concerns a basic governmental complex in KwaNdebele, as in the other self-governing territories, and it is confined to amenities which are reasonable and necessary, without any consideration of the question of possible independence. It therefore concerns only those facilities which can be justified for a self-governing territory.

Firstly, the largest portion of this sum—unfortunately I do not have the details with me—affects the development of infrastructure and serviced sites in Kwamhlanga. There is a tremendous demand, as the hon member doubtlessly knows, for more housing in KwaNdebele in general, and we are basically trying to satisfy that need with the provision of mass infrastructural services and serviced sites.

Secondly, a portion of this sum will be used for the completion of the assembly hall of the legislative assembly. Thus far they have met in a high school hall in Siyabuswa.

Thirdly, an amount will be spent on government offices, and I invite the hon member to pay a visit to the area to see that these offices are provided in—I think—a very sober and practical way. There is nothing extravagant about them.

Then, provision is also made for what is basically being planned as a high school. This high school or secondary school is to be used as government offices until such time as further buildings can be erected, when the existing building will be made available to be used as a secondary school again.

There is also an amount available for the upgrading of facilities at the Philadelphia Hospital, which, the hon member will know, is under very heavy pressure. There are a very large number of patients presently at that hospital, and until such time as an additional new hospital can be afforded, the upgrading of the Philadelphia Hospital is considered to be a major priority. The hospital falls under the vote for Kwamhlanga but it should really be considered as something separate. It does mean that the planned hospital for Kwamhlanga is not being attended to immediately, but that the Philadelphia Hospital is being upgraded in order to provide an interim alternative.

Mr Chairman, I am pursuing the matter of a capital for KwaNdebele. I understand all that the hon the Minister has just explained. I have been there and I have seen all the facilities. I am also aware that in the other self-governing territories it has been the practice to use schools before offices are built and so on. I am familiar with all that. My concern is, however, that Kwamhlanga was an entirely new development. It was a new town carved out of the bush, so to speak, while previously a town did exist which could have been used as a capital. There infrastructure also existed—water reticulation, electrical reticulation, water-borne sewage and all that is required for a town of this nature. In the case of Kwamhlanga, however, it was necessary to start from scratch. There was nothing there on day one, when a beginning was made with the carving of the town out of the bush. Surely, Sir, it would have been more cost-effective to develop the existing capital than to move to an entirely new area. Taking that into account, it was surely not necessary to request the additional R10 million for which the hon the Minister is asking today.

Mr Chairman, I should like to give the hon member the assurance that the need for development, especially township development, in KwaNdebele is virtually endless. As the hon member himself knows the influx of people coming to settle voluntarily in the self-governing territory of KwaNdebele is tremendous. That government, assisted by the Department of Development Aid, simply cannot cope with satisfying all the needs.

It was in any case part of the overall planning that not only Kwamhlanga, but, if I remember correctly, two further township developments in KwaNdebele should become part of the overall physical planning which is necessary in terms of the population growth. It was felt that the situation in Kwamhlanga was such that it made it the best choice for the purpose of a capital. After negotiations with the government concerned they opted for that alternative. There is no question of unnecessary duplication. The development of Siyabuswa, which was the former capital, if I may call it that, is still going on. The need for growth there remains. Siyabuswa is growing and developing, and money is continuously being made available for the further development of Siyabuswa itself. Apart from the need for a new capital, this also embraces the need for a further centre for township development.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to return briefly to the question of the amount voted for flood relief in Natal. I, too, want to commend the hon the Minister for the fact that he and his department responded with great alacrity to the emergency conditions that arose. Nevertheless, Sir, I should just like to ask the hon the Minister a question in connection with the amount of R2,733 million. Could he give us some indication in relation to the purpose for which that money was allocated? I raise this matter with particular reference to certain visits that I conducted after the floods in some of the SADT areas in my own constituency.

One point that came very much to the fore was that there were numerous individuals who had suffered very heavily during the flood period. They had lost property and livestock, although I realise that livestock is not part of the package.

However, they lost buildings and so on. The problem that was experienced here, as I discovered when I consulted these people as to why they had not received flood relief, was that the mechanisms for applying for financial assistance were simply not available to them. This happened in several cases on SADT property. I would be grateful if we could have some information as to how that money was allocated.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for his remarks and interest in this matter. Let me say at the outset that compensation or assistance to individuals who have lost property is dealt with not by my department but by the State’s National Disaster Fund administered by the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. Donations made to that fund are channelled to persons who have suffered various defined losses, such as the loss of homes and property, and they are assisted according to what could be termed a scale of compensation. It is, of course, impossible to compensate them completely but they are assisted to get back on their feet.

I must say that not only the Department of National Health and Population Development, but also my own and every other department concerned made a particular effort to organise methods of making available the necessary forms of application and the required advice. I personally visited the trust areas of Pietermaritzburg and some rural areas, for example, to make sure that there was contact with the community. I met with community leaders and they were generally very appreciative. Obviously there must have been cases of people slipping out of the net or not understanding what was going on, and I earnestly invite the hon member to bring any such cases of which he is aware to our attention so that we can promptly assist the people to make the necessary applications if that is still possible at this stage.

For the rest, the funds made available were used for a variety of purposes. Allow me briefly to summarise a fairly complete list I have of the total of R15,326 million for flood relief which went to the KwaZulu Government.

*An amount of R190 000 was given for irrigation land damaged beyond repair; R657 000 for dry land damaged beyond repair; R1,182 million for irrigation land capable of being repaired; R1,983 million for dry land capable of being repaired; R322 000 for re-establishment of crops; R1,244 million for water works and irrigation equipment for agriculture; R3 million for repairs to roads, bridges, etc; R6,5 million for repairs to soil conservation works; and R113 million for the repair of dipping-tanks.

†The hon member will see that, with respect to KwaZulu, this is for State action and is concerned mainly with the restoration of the agricultural potential and of the infrastructure of roads and bridges, while personal damage is dealt with and compensated for by the National Disaster Fund.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 11—“Education and Training”:

Mr Chairman, there is a series of points I would like to raise with the hon the Minister under this Vote. The first relates to programme 7, “Teacher training”, which shows a decrease of more than R7 million. The explanatory memorandum refers to inevitable delays in the planning of colleges as a result of the restructuring of courses at the various new colleges as well as problems with norms. I think it is common knowledge that one of the biggest problems facing Black education in this country is the shortage of suitably qualified teachers.

The programme announced for teacher training colleges last year was an indication of the Government’s intent to rectify that situation, although it could have been handled in other ways as well, such as by allowing people into colleges that are half-empty or closing down. A further explanation is required, however, because I think it is a very serious matter if delays occur in the provision of teacher training colleges. It shows bad planning and a lack of foresight in a critical area simply to refer to them as inevitable. I request some further information on this matter.

Under programme 8, the decrease under the subprogramme “Youth activities” was said to have resulted from funds allocated to the Rekoafella and Bultfontein resorts which are not going to be utilised. Under the next subprogramme, “Sport and Recreation", there is reference to items transferred to provincial administrations. Does "Youth activities” also fall in that category? Clearly, if it is not the case, I must ask why not, because the provision of resorts and recreational facilities, in terms of the quality of life in townships and areas for Blacks in general, is an important matter.

Another decrease that causes me some concern is that of R2,8 million for the subprogram “Educational radio and television” under programme 9. The explanatory memorandum explains the decrease as the result of the contract between the department and the SABC in respect of educational television programmes not being realised. I do not believe that educational television programmes are the final answer to any problems that may exist in Black education, but they do have the potential to supplement and improve the quality of teaching in many subjects, and I am disturbed that this does not seem to be happening, or is at least, not happening on the envisaged scale. Could I have a further explanation in this regard too?

Finally, I want to refer to a matter mentioned by the hon the Deputy Minister Foreign Affairs under Vote 7 when he pointed out that there was a reduction of R1,898 million in programme 3 as a result of certain monies for the University of Fort Hare being transferred from the Department of Education and Training to the Vote of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Where in terms of this Vote and these additional estimates is that transfer mentioned? Should it not have been reflected as a reduction in expenditure under this Vote?

Mr Chairman, I share the disappointment of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens about the fact that we will not be able to spend all the money estimated on teacher education. This is certainly one of the most urgent priorities of the department and more of the energy and ingenuity of our top staff is spent on this part of our functions than on anything else. The reason why this money was not spent is confined to matters of capital expenditure, in other words, spending on the planning, building and the finalising of colleges.

One of the functions of the Indumiso College of Education in Pietermaritzburg is to train teachers for the Secondary Education Diploma as high school teachers in technical subjects in close conjunction with the adjoining Plessislaer Technical College.

When the planning took place there was a difference of opinion among the people concerned as to the extent to which this training should be integrated, and about what should be done and provided at Indumiso and at Plessislaer. In the end we managed to put the workshops at Plessislaer used for technical training to even better use by proper scheduling so that they can also be used for the training of technical teachers of Indumiso college. About R500 000 was saved in this connection by better planning of the interaction between Indumiso and Plessislaer.

At Sebokeng College of Education, for which a new college is being erected, there was a delay, because of unrest in the township. Also, after the unrest had been settled, there was a concerted effort to intimidate the workers building the college. This occasioned a delay which unfortunately involved about R1 million being underspent. We are now putting special pressure on those people to try to complete the work because Sebokeng College of Education is achieving outstanding results in a variety of fields. There is a tremendous demand on the part of students wanting to enrol there, and therefore the completion of this facility is of great urgency.

There are also seven new colleges of education which, as the hon member will know, have been established in the past four or five years. They are using temporary accommodation and their own buildings are now going up. This includes Phatsinang, Kagisanong, Kathorus, Western Cape, Daveyton, Dobsonville, and the new college in the Western Transvaal at Jouberton. We had to adjust the planning of these colleges according to new planning norms, and this has also delayed the building. We had hoped that the planning would be completed, that the actual contracts would be advertised and awarded in good time, but delays in this respect involved about R4 million not being spent. These colleges are already functioning, however, in temporary buildings. The delay did not affect the functioning of the colleges, but they are not in accommodation planned and built as Teachers’ Colleges.

There was a small sum involved in respect of the Algoa College in Port Elizabeth where there was a dispute between the department and the local people concerning the best way to maintain the building, including the outside paint etcetera. There was also underexpenditure on the item Smaller Works. I think the only place where there was a delay that perhaps affected the extent of the training activity was at Sebokeng where, if the building had been further advanced, we might have been able to take in more students this year.

As far as the youth activities are concerned, the hon member referred to programme 8. When the development boards were phased out, their functions were taken over by the provinces. These functions included two aspects that were considered to be better related to the Department of Education and Training. One is the development of recreation resorts for the public, and the other the development of youth camping centres. With the transfer of those facilities from the development boards via the provinces to the Department of Education and Training there was a tremendous delay. A number of projects which were on the point of being implemented were simply delayed and not implemented. At Rekoafella, for example, the project was not started because of this delay. At Bultfontein there are no facilities for youth training at present. It was planned that such facilities would be added there, but this also did not take place because of the long process of handing over these facilities by the provinces to the department, which involved the handing over of money and staff.

We actually received the money only at the end of last year, and this simply left us with insufficient time. The result was that this money has been used for other purposes and we have negotiated with the Treasury for money to be made available in the next financial year so that it can be properly spent. Meanwhile, the planning has been done.

As far as sporting facilities are concerned, the position is that the department itself does not provide sporting facilities for the public in general. Local authorities are encouraged to do that. However, the department does provide, on a priority basis, a subsidy for such facilities. In this case again, because of the transfer of that responsibility from the development board via the provinces to the department, the finalisation of applications in the current financial year took longer, and therefore the amount of money that should have been spent was not spent. Rather than just hurrying off these matters and hastening them to completion without a proper study we preferred to do it in a proper way. Again, hopefully, in this case where the money is not spent in the current financial year it, or the largest part of it, will be made available in the next year by the Treasury for the purposes for which it was originally intended.

The third point raised by the hon member deals with radio and television. There was a long period of negotiation under the leadership of the hon the Minister of National Education in which all the Ministers of Education were involved to negotiate with the SABC a more extensive series of educational programmes. We could not come to an agreement on a reasonable price. The amount that the SABC requested was beyond the means of the education departments, and therefore we did not conclude the contract, but we are continuing the negotiations. At the same time we feel that the first priority is perhaps to make available to schools both the apparatus and, shall I say, the software—the cassettes—of well-tested, educationally sound videotapes that are already available and which can be readily purchased and made available to schools. We would rather do that than spend all the money on new programmes produced by the SABC, although I am personally convinced that we in South Africa need, with a view to our particular needs, specially designed programmes which I think the SABC could very well produce. However, in this regard it is a question of first coming to an agreement on the cost.

So the programme for introducing audio-visual material and especially videotapes in schools is continuing. It is, of course, costly, but both the department and donors from the private sector have been supplying a number of schools with these facilities. If, hopefully, we can come to an agreement with the SABC, those productions can be used in education either by way of direct transmissions or video recordings. I fully agree with the hon member that the use of both radio and television in education, especially in education where teachers are sometimes poorly trained, is of great value. These media can very effectively supplement shortcomings in the efforts of the teachers.

The last question was where the money comes from which has been added on to the budget of Foreign Affairs for Fort Hare. It comes from programme 4, “Universities and Technikons”. Quite a number of the universities did not succeed this year in taking up fully the approved loans to which they were entitled with a view to capital developments on their campuses. They were not able to do so either for reasons of planning or, in the case of Vista University, problems in finally acquiring campus sites at both Soweto and Mamelodi.

That led to a saving of the order of R9 million. If one subtracts from that R9 million the sum that has been transferred to Foreign Affairs it amounts to what remains here. It is not the exact amount because there are some smaller sums here and there which I do not think really affect the issue. The main point is that the savings with regard to loans not being taken up are higher than the sum indicated here by the amount that has been allocated to Foreign Affairs for its Fort Hare expenditure.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon the Minister for that reply. I would like to probe a little bit further into the question of educational radio and television. First of all, am I to understand from his comments here this afternoon that the current negotiations with SABC and SATV have come to a halt? Is it still an ongoing negotiating process at present or has it been set aside for the time being because one does not seem able to come to an agreement?

Secondly, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he has considered speaking or has actually spoken to M-Net about the possibility of using some of their facilities to assist with educational television.

The third matter on which I would like to hear the hon the Minister’s response is that having deducted this amount of R2,8 million under that subprogramme, there is a revised amount of R463 000 left in his budget under that subprogramme. If that heading includes the programmes of videos of existing material that is supplied to schools and if one bears in mind the cost of a television set, the cost of a video machine and then, of course, the cost of the cassettes, only a couple of hundred out of the 7 500 schools or the 2 500 non-farm schools for which the hon the Minister is responsible, will benefit under this programme. I would like the hon the Minister to respond to these questions.

Mr Chairman, the Ministers concerned are keen to continue with the negotiations with regard to a mutually acceptable agreement with the SABC on educational television and educational radio services. It is not a matter which has been terminated. As far as M-Net is concerned, that is a matter I cannot handle. The negotiations between M-Net, the SABC and the Government are in the hands of the hon the Minister in the office of the State President entrusted with Administration and Broadcasting Services.

I thought you might want to privatise that part of the department.

The little left over to which the hon member referred …

R463 000.

…that is the amount which we still pay for educational radio services designed in collaboration with the Department of Education and Training. These programmes are a great success. They are generally not used by the schools in direct transmission, but they usually record these programmes on tapes and then use them afterwards at the appropriate time. The schools can also order these cassettes from the SABC and this money is available for that purpose. Educational radio programmes are very effective especially in terms of some language courses.

Do the television sets and the equipment for the television programmes and the video fall under this Vote?

No, this year we have not made any large sums available for additional equipment. That is simply because we first wanted to finalise the agreement with the SABC before we went ahead with the large-scale purchase of equipment.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 13—“Manpower”:

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister of Manpower whether it is his intention in terms of the additional amounts requested in this appropriation to provide for additional staff to deal with the trade unions. In programme 2 he talks about labour relations, but I want to ask whether, following the action of his colleague the hon the Minister of Law and Order last week when the activities of Cosatu were restricted, it is his intention to employ additional people to liaise with Cosatu, or how he intends dealing with that organisation. No doubt relations between his department and Cosatu will become strained as a result of the action taken by the hon the Minister of Law and Order, and it is important that this fragile flower of the relationships between the department and the trade unions should be dealt with as delicately as possible. I am sure he will agree that it is very important that relations between the department and the unions should be maintained on as high a level as possible. Will he please tell us what action he is to take to ensure that those relations do not deteriorate further?

Mr Chairman, I am not going to appoint new officers to deal with this matter. The present officials serving in the division of labour relations are in a position to deal with any negotiations with trade unions. As a matter of fact, due to the abolition of the administration boards, I took over 1 018 public servants from these boards. I placed some of those people with experience and knowledge in that direction in the labour relations section and therefore it is not necessary for me to appoint any additional staff to deal with that matter.

Mr Chairman, I observe that there is a tremendous increase under Programme 7—the Manpower Board and Military Exemption Boards—from R3 965 000 to R6 283 000. The hon the Minister said that the department had streamlined the procedures in respect of the classification and location of religious objectors. I should now like to know from him by how many the number of religious objectors has increased during the past year. The next point I want to touch is the payment of an increase to those persons who have already completed their two years of service. What is the percentage increase which the hon the Minister envisages in this instance?

Mr Chairman, I want to give the hon member the following explanation. Those religious objectors who are classified and sentenced are placed in service at the three levels of government, namely central, provincial or local government. The remuneration of those people then falls under the Department of Manpower budget and does not remain under the Department of Defence budget. I just want to tell the hon member by way of information that the costs related to the payments of salaries, daily allowances, accommodation costs, lodging and transport allowances to the religious objectors during 1986-87 were R2 440 434. Because more people were classified and placed in service during the present financial year, those costs have risen to R3 559 904.

We estimate that with due allowance for those persons who have been called up again, there will be a further increase, and that the expenditure for the coming financial year, 1988-89, ought to amount to R9 730 000. Due to the increase in numbers and the fact that those people must perform community service for a number of years before their military commitments have been fulfilled, this amount will probably accumulate over a period of five years and thereafter remain constant.

The increase in allowances of 12,5 % in the case of the daily allowances of R12,88 for married persons and R6,44 for unmarried persons is the same increase as the one which is also applicable to national servicemen in the Defence Force. These religious objectors receive the same remuneration as active members of the Defence Force. As a result of this these increases also apply to them.

In 1984 we were unable to place any religious objectors in service. In 1985 87 religious objectors were placed in service and all these people qualify for the increased remuneration and allowances. The religious objectors are actually not welcome anywhere because Government departments are not prepared to have their vacant posts filled by religious objectors who will only stay for a certain numbers of years and who will then leave the department because their compulsory period of service has been completed. The departments prefer to appoint people who intend making their future careers in those particular departments. That is why we had to go so far in our efforts to place these people as to offer these departments—over and above their normal establishments—the person, the post and the remuneration, wherever shortages existed, in order to place these people.

There is a great deal of wilfulness on the part of certain of these religious objectors, but we have now streamlined the placement procedure and this is now being done far more quickly than before.

Mr Chairman, I want to react to the statements made by the hon the Minister. I appreciate the measure of relief which is to be introduced with regard to religious objectors. It is not my impression that the objections which the hon the Minister mentioned should apply to all Government departments, but I nevertheless want to ask him whether he would not like to help us so that we may extend those classes within which religious objectors may be appointed beyond the restricted list which is available at the moment and which—as hon members know—consists primarily of posts in the Public Service and local authorities. These people could, for example, render useful service in welfare organisations and so on.

I just want to say that I do not expect the hon the Minister to grant a general dispensation and thereby restrict his own discretion, but I nevertheless feel it is essential that consideration be given to extending the placement possibilities for religious objectors.

Mr Chairman, the utilisation of these people is a real problem because I want to tell hon members of the House right now that generally speaking, no one wants them or even wants to have anything to do with them, because they do not render military service. There is a very strong feeling against these people. I shall not go out of my way to oblige them. What I shall do, however, is to place them in service, but I am not going to go out of my way to comply with their wishes because personally, I am not very sympathetic towards such people.

Vote agreed to.

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

Mr Chairman, under programme 5—“Provision of buildings, structures and equipment”—the hon the Minister referred in his explanatory memorandum to an increase of R41,121 million. I should like to know from him whether this increase includes the new Parliamentary debating chamber and building complex. If this is indeed the case, what is the additional amount?

In the second instance we have noticed, for example, that the new debating chamber was fully equipped with individual bench microphones. However, at one stage these microphones were removed. Does this form part of the contract which was incorrectly carried out? At whose expense were the microphones removed?

I now wish to refer to the ex gratia payment of R60 000 in regard to a certain project. According to legal opinion the right of recovery in this instance has been forfeited owing to the amount of time that has elapsed. I should like to know why so much time elapsed that the right of recovery was forfeited. Can the hon the Minister reply to us in this regard?

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in replying in full to the questions of the hon member for Pietersburg.

In the first instance I just wish to inform him that the savings that occurred here with reference to housing aid was in fact an amount of R44 million which occurred as the result of the drop in interest rates. Accordingly I had a very big surplus on the appropriated cost of interest on the national housing fund. I utilised that amount of more than R40 million as follows. For buildings and structures we utilised R41 million, R26,9 million of which was for essential repair, maintenance and equipment of buildings as well as municipal services and the cleaning of buildings, particularly in cases where we had to make up certain backlogs. Owing to inadequate finance that had been voted the total restoration of buildings could not be carried out according to plan. Accordingly the cost of day-to-day maintenance began to assume increasing proportions. This additional amount will be utilised for essential repair and restoration services.

Then, too, a further R14,2 million of that money is being used for the purchase of prisons. The private ownership of certain prison outposts has been phased out, as hon members are aware. Nineteen complexes are involved here and the amount of R14,2 million was paid by the State for handing over the land and buildings. The position is that ten of these prisons are to be converted into full-fledged prisons. In the nine other cases, investigations are under way into the possible utilisation thereof for other Government purposes. Some of these four have already been disposed of. Two have been transferred to the Department of Education and Training, and one each to the provincial administrations of the Cape and the Transvaal.

As regards the ex gratia payment to Dura Construction (Pty) Ltd, it is true that we no longer have a legal obligation to pay this money. Nevertheless there was a moral obligation because the losses suffered by the contractor were not through his own doing; the building work had been delayed by the electrical contractor in that he had fallen behind in the installation of electrical apparatus and so on, thereby delaying the work of the building contractor.

Therefore, because the electrical contractor had caused the delay, we imposed a fine of R59 521 on him, which we withheld from his remuneration. We were therefore in possession of that money, whereas we were of the opinion that although the time had already elapsed, this was not the important question; the moral question was the important one. Moreover, it is not the function of the State to enrich itself at the expense of other people.

On the grounds of the moral consideration that applied, we gave that money to the contractor who had suffered damages as a result of the delay.

The hon member also asked whether those funds had been used for the new chamber of Parliament. Funds for that purpose were budgeted previously and no additional funds were used for the Chamber.

I just wish to mention in passing to the hon member that the Chamber was designed in such a way that if and when it is used for debate, all the necessary electrical and acoustic apparatus has already been installed. Microphones have only to be installed and then the Chamber can be used for that purpose.

Mr Chairman, that is just the question. Microphones were installed and then removed. We should like to know what the purpose of that exercise was.

Mr Chairman, the hon member will note that there are loudspeakers that do convey the sound. For the purposes of the testing of the entire system microphones were installed, and the contractor entrusted with the acoustics and electricity tested whether that system worked and whether all the connections were correct. Therefore they were used only for test purposes, because certain factors had to be determined. Hon members will appreciate that if it had subsequently been found, when one wanted to use that system, that the connections were wrong, the State would have incurred major expense. It would have had to have microphones reinstalled at a tremendous cost. Therefore testing was done so that when necessary, those microphones could merely be installed and used.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 15—“Justice”:

Mr Chairman, in paragraph 2.2 of the explanatory memorandum it is stated that the increase is in respect of the commission of enquiry into the liquidation of AA Mutual and the activities of the advisory committee in terms of the Internal Security Act. My question is twofold. Firstly, what portion of the increase is attributable to the investigation into AA Mutual’s circumstances, and what portion is attributable to the activities of the advisory committee? Secondly, when ought this first investigation into the AA Mutual to be completed?

Mr Chairman, the distribution is R340 000 to the AA Mutual commission and R300 000 to the advisory committee. The commission has already submitted an interim report to us which, because it is of a financial nature, is already enjoying the attention of the hon the Minister of Finance. I have the impression that he is already in the process of reacting to it. I cannot divulge at this stage what the contents of that report are, because it is still being studied. Suitable arrangements will be made for its functional release.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 16—“Prisons”:

Mr Chairman, with reference to the head “Training” under programme 4 there is a decrease of R97 000. I should like to hear what the cause is, because we all know how important training is for services of this nature. I should also like to ask, still with reference to programme 4, what the cause is of the decrease of R126 000 in regard to the head “Supplementary security services”. Under the same programme an increase of R25 249 000 is indicated in respect of “Miscellaneous supporting services”. Could the hon the Minister just indicate to us more or less what these services entail and how they are distributed, because this is by far the biggest increase in this specific vote?

Mr Chairman, the net decrease under the head “Training” is calculated as follows. There is a decrease of R49 000 in the expected staff expenditure owing to the reallocation of workers. What this amounts to is that, given our post situation and the relevant budget, employees within the Prison Service itself are being reallocated with a view to being more efficiently utilised in accordance with priorities. Accordingly the hon member will note an increase under “Treatment”, which may be partially ascribed to the reallocation of employees.

In addition there is a decrease of R25 000 in expected administrative expenditure owing to internal savings. Those internal savings are in fact economy measures. That is our contribution towards keeping our additional budget within bounds. For example, with reference to essential expansions of the establishment, and in regard to vacancies that arose in the course of the year, savings of R1,1 million were effected up to the last quarter. The share of this particular programme head in that saving amounts to R25 000 in training. This also includes a decrease of R10 000 in expected expenditure on stocks, which is the result of specific economy drives. This may relate to equipment that has become obsolete but that we cannot renew. Nevertheless we hope that it will go better next year and that we shall in fact be able to renew it. I hope that in this regard we shall enjoy the necessary support, even from the hon member for Roodepoort.

Then, too, there is a further decline of R11 000 in expenditure on equipment, owing to a curb on total expenditure and a decline of R2 000 in expected expenditure on professional and special services. This is the result of economy measures.

The hon member also put a question to me relating to supplementary security services. In that regard there is a decrease of R126 000. I can inform the hon member that this is the net figure after also taking into account an increase of R6 000 which represents administrative expenditure in consequence of tariff increases. I shall deal with that in due course. This, as I have mentioned, has also been taken into account. On the other hand there is a decrease of R42 000 which also relates to the reallocation of employees as well as a decrease of R53 000 which relates to savings on stocks. In addition there is a decrease of R7 000 in expenditure owing to overall cut backs, and a decrease of R30 000 in expected expenditure on professional and special services owing to economy measures.

Mr Chairman, the hon member also asked me a question relating to the biggest single item under which increases occur. It has to do with “Miscellaneous supporting services”. The increase of R25 million in this instance amounts to an increase of 28%. However, let me add at once that it may in general be argued that this inevitable increase was caused by price increases. In the case of stocks that we regard as essential—these are not stocks that we stockpile—there have been drastic increases in price, in particular in the case of rations such as vegetables, milk, meat, prison clothes, bedding, toothpaste, razor blades and so on. After all, the hon member can imagine what the effect is of, say, an increase in price of 5c per meal per prisoner with an average daily prison population of 100 000. In this instance the increase, which could not, of course, be foreseen, amounts to R5,475 million. This only refers to the increase resulting from an increase of 5c per meal per prisoner per day. Now the hon member can appreciate what the extent is of price increases that we are faced with when we have to support a prison population of 100 000.

For example, let us look at price increases during 1985 and 1986. We find that as regards soap, for example, there has been an increase of 71,9%, and the increase in the price of toothpaste has been 64%. Hon members are also aware of the increase in the price of bread.

Another factor I could mention to the hon members is that there have not only been general increases in the price of food; there have also been tariff increases. Hon members are aware that there have been considerable increases in the cost of medical and hospital facilities, for prisoners as well as members and their dependants. It is also true that there are ongoing repair and maintenance expenses in regard to which professional and special services have to be made use of, services for which the necessary skills are not necessarily available in the prison services.

Against this background I want to come back to the sum of R25 million allocated under “Miscellaneous supporting services”. We could analyse this figure further as follows: Staff expenditure cost R423 000; alternative expenditure amounted to R7 000. The increase under Stocks, which was unforeseen and where drastic price increases alone constituted a major factor, comprises R24 291 000 of this item. As far as professional services are concerned, against the background which I have sketched for hon members, this represents an increase of R1,526 million which gives us a total of R25 249 000.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 18—“Trade and Industry”:

Mr Chairman, in respect of item 4.2.2, which deals with the stimulation of secondary industries, there is an increase of R2 655 000. I can understand and appreciate that we must increase the subsidies for the local film industry, but I am a little concerned—and I should like an explanation—about the fact that this increase is 40% on the actual amount budgeted, namely R6,7 million.

Concerning point 4.3.1.1, which deals with the contribution towards an international symposium (YPO), I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to give us more details about that. It would appear that the symposium was arranged without any finances. Is this amount possibly the total cost involved, and if not, what percentage of the cost is it? In view of the fact that it is to do with the Young Presidents’ Organisation, the very people who accuse our State officials of being inefficient and not budgeting properly, I should like to know why all of a sudden this amount has been imposed on us.

Concerning the subprogramme “Export Trade Promotion”, there is an increase of R11 650 000. There is a big increase for assistance to exporters in regard to electricity used, and there is a large decrease as a result of the strengthening of the rand etc. I find the 25% increase a little unusual, and I should like to know whether this is in fact a direct result of the 25% increase in the sale of refined minerals.

Secondly, I should like to know to what extent the reduction in interest rates at which loan funds could be obtained accounted for the decrease of R14 116 000.

Then there is the decrease of R2 million in respect of the contribution towards the Small Business Credit Guarantee Fund.

Mr Chairman, could the hon member please mention the programme number?

Certainly, Mr Chairman. May I ask that the hon the Deputy Minister to give us information concerning programme 4.3.1.1, where there was an increase of R650 000, for the contribution towards the YPO. The next programme I mentioned was programme 4.4.2, which has a subpoint, 4.4.2.1, dealing with assistance to exporters where there is an increase of R25 766 000. Then under point 4.4.2.2 there is a decrease of R14 116 000.

I would like to know to what extent the reduction in interest rates makes up that decrease.

Then with regard to subprogramme 4.5.3—the contribution towards the Small Business Credit Guarantee Fund—there is a decrease of R2 million, which is the total amount which was in the main Budget. I would like an explanation as to what the reasons were that, in spite of budgeting for this amount, it could not be used.

I would also like an explanation for subprogramme 4.5.4, the non-purchase of the wire cable testing facilities. Once again there is a decrease of R2 million, which is the total amount budgeted for the purchase of a cable testing machine.

Finally, there is subprogramme 4.5.6, “Promotion of Tourism”, in which there is an increase of R190 000. I would like an explanation for this increase of 60% on the amount of R300 000 in the main Budget.

Mr Chairman, the hon member has given me quite a mouthful to deal with, but I will attempt to do so.

First of all, as far as the film industry is concerned, that was the result of more applications for the film industry subsidy than were originally budgeted for. I hope that will satisfy him. As far as subprogramme 4.3.1 is concerned, which is the Young Presidents’ Organisation programme, there is an additional amount of R650 000 now being asked for. This amount was not budgeted for originally, but it was felt that this programme should be supported. It was provision for an international symposium of the Young Presidents’ Organization. It is a high-profile organization consisting of 5 000 top management people in 46 lands. It was felt that they would like to hold the international congress in South Africa during 1987, and it took place from 23 to 28 October in Johannesburg. The department decided to assist with the financing of this international conference.

Mr Chairman, before the hon the Deputy Minister continues, I would like to ask whether it is usual for an organization like this, which is an international organization, to go ahead and organise an international symposium and then at such short notice come along and look for financial assistance. I find that very strange.

Mr Chairman, this is an organization of top management people throughout the world, and in the interests of trade promotion in South Africa it was decided that this programme should be supported since the international conference was going to be held in South Africa. I would like to tell the hon member that many international organizations have conferences all around the world, and I think it is to South Africa’s credit that such an organization should have chosen South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I would like to echo those comments. I am not questioning the point that we financed the symposium. The point I am trying to clear up is how they could go ahead and organise an international symposium of this extent and nature, arrive in South Africa and then apply for assistance. It looks as though the fact that this amount was not budgeted for made the request something which was almost a last-minute afterthought in the sense of: “Let us try the South African Government.” I do not think that people of this stature operate that way.

Mr Chairman, maybe I can help. This matter was discussed at Cabinet level where the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology was not present. Certainly this is not an event that is decided upon on the spur of the moment, and then various governments are sounded out as to whether they will accommodate the congress in their country or not. It certainly is not done that way. It is done according to a scheduled plan well in advance.

There are certain political sensitivities surrounding this whole affair which I would not like to discuss across the floor. If the hon member wants to know more about the background I will give it to him, but certainly not here in an open debate. This was by no means the full financial involvement. The financial involvement in terms of direct conference costs was substantially more than this particular contribution which ultimately made it possible. If we calculate what the benefits to South Africa were not only in terms of the impressions with which these people returned and the representations which they made to their congressmen and to their senators while they were here, but also in terms of the direct financial benefit in the form of the foreign exchange which they spent with most of them staying longer than the duration of the conference itself, then this is a very modest investment for this particular affair. I think the benefits for South Africa will show it at a later stage.

[Inaudible.]

Thank you, Mr Chairman, that was the explanation I was looking for.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon Minister of Finance for his assistance in this matter. I am quite sure that the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis realises that my colleague who normally handles this particular Additional Appropriation Bill is not here at the moment and I am attempting to do it for him. I am sure he would have been able to answer that question.

The other question which the hon member raised, was in regard to item 4.4.2—the cost of electricity used to help export promotion. It is an amount of R25 766 000 which, as the hon member will see, is the greatest part of the additional funds being asked for. This is primarily to deal with the beneficiation of minerals, and there is a subsidy on electricity which is used for that purpose. As a result of our exports and the greater demand for our exports there was, of course, a greater demand for electricity. So this is a plus point for South Africa’s exports. It means that we actually earned far more foreign exchange as a result. I hope that answers the hon member’s question.

The hon member then mentioned the interest rates on programme 4.5.3. I think it was 4.5.3. Could he just give me that number again?

Mr Chairman, it is section (b) of programme 4.4.2.2.

Yes, section (b)—a reduction of interest rates on which loan funds could be obtained. If that hon member will just give me a minute I shall answer him.

Mr Chairman, I am not sure whether the hon the Minister is clear on what I asked.

I actually wanted to know how much of the R14,116 million represented a reduction in interest rates.

You don’t know! What a competent Deputy Minister!

I am just trying to find the figures. I am afraid I shall have to ask that hon member to leave this matter with me. I shall let him know in due course. [Interjections.]

The other question was on the decrease of R2 million in respect of item 4.5.3—the Small Business Credit Guarantee Fund. Is that what the hon member is referring to?

The various small business credit schemes they budgeted for could not get under way and therefore there was a decrease in the amount of money which was provided to the Small Business Development Corporation.

Mr Chairman, arising out of the hon the Deputy Minister’s reply, that amount of R2 million was the total amount budgeted for and it surprises me that the Small Business Development Corporation could not find a use for it.

Mr Chairman, the actual explanation is:

That is the reply I gave the hon member. This reduction took place because these projects could not get under way.

The other amount of money queried by the hon member was in respect of paragraph 4.5.6, Subprogramme—Promotion of Tourism. This sum of R190 000 was in respect of the contribution to the Southern African Regional Tourism Council—SARTOC.

*The additional amount is required for the extension of the activities of the Southern African Regional Tourism Council, which are of particular importance to the Department of Foreign Affairs because of the political advantage that can be derived from them and for the promotion of tourism in general. The Department of Foreign Affairs has undertaken to make R190 000 of its funds available for this purpose, whereupon the Treasury suspended the corresponding amount of that department’s funds for 1987-88 and gave its approval for the amount to be included in the Additional Appropriation of this department so as to be transferred to SARTOC via the SA Tourism Council.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 23—“Transport”:

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister the following question. An additional amount of R80 million is being requested, but under programme 3 R75 million of that amount is required for overland transport, public passenger transport.

Business interrupted in accordance with Rule 46.

Vote agreed to.

Schedules, clauses and title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, in terms of section 2 (3) of the National Parks Act, 1976, no land included in a park shall be alienated or excluded or detached from the park, except under the authority of a resolution of Parliament. I believe it is the Parliament’s duty to be extremely cautious before it votes for any measure at all which excludes any land which has previously been designated a national park. I am absolutely certain that during the next two or three decades there will be increasing pressure on any South African government, whoever they may be, to make more land available for our rapidly increasing population.

There will always be a tremendous temptation for any government to give way to this pressure on the basis that people are more important than animals or plants. I believe that a very important principle should be established in this matter. Before one excludes land from a national park, compensatory land of some sort should be granted, and I believe that in this instance, with regard to recommendation (1), if land is going to be excluded from the Kruger National Park, compensatory land should be granted in the same package before Parliament approves it. I took this viewpoint in the standing committee and accordingly voted against the recommendation at that stage.

I think the argument will always be that people are more important than national parkland and that they have to live somewhere. Of course, this is largely true, but we are also talking about the quality of life. Why do we have national parks? Why do we have wilderness areas? We have them because a world without them would be an insupportable world in which people could not live with any quality of life at all. In this particular instance I think there is a case to be made out for the exclusion of this land from the Kruger National Park. This land has never been fenced in as part of the Kruger National Park. A section of the land already has a Black town established on it, and there is a very good case to be made out for excluding it from the Kruger National Park. However, I believe the principle must be that we provide compensatory land. Until that compensatory land is offered, we in these benches will vote against recommendation (1).

We have no objection at all to recommendation (2)—the proposed granting of a temporary right in favour of the Department of Water Affairs to use an existing road over a portion of the Groendal State Forest.

Mr Chairman, what the hon member for Bryanston said, namely that they had objected to this in principle in the standing committee, is true. One can understand it, of course, because it is also the duty of the standing committee, just as it is that of Parliament, to be extremely circumspect in matters of this nature, particularly when they concern a national park.

However, in the case in question there are two reasons which the hon member did not mention. These are that an issue of national importance was at stake in the sense that the land in question is to be made available for the development of a Black township, and—the hon member also made this point—that that particular area was still being controlled as if it did not form part of the Kruger National Park. Consequently that was the de facto situation to which we are now giving effect. Moreover, approval for the exclusion of a portion of this land from the Kruger National Park had already been granted by a parliamentary committee in 1962. For that reason the committee considered the standpoint of the hon member for Bryanston and his party very carefully but in the end it did, in fact, feel that this was one case in which an exception could be made.

Reference was also made to the replacement land, and the situation is that the Parks Board was involved in these negotiations. We were informed by the hon member to whose constituency this matter pertains that land would, in fact, be made available to the Kruger National Park in the future. That is why the committee saw fit to make this recommendation to this House.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Uitenhage, the chairman of the standing committee, for his explanation to the House of this specific matter. I do not wish to argue with the hon member for Bryanston about the fact that we have to be very careful in dealing with land that has been reserved for parks. I concede that it should not lightly be used for other purposes.

†Actually, Mr Chairman, I believe the National Parks Board itself acts very jealously in regard to land designated or reserved for national parks. Hon members can be sure that in my view this is also a case in which the board will act with great circumspection. In this specific area, however, the land was never used by the National Parks Board. It was never placed at the disposal of the board to be used for its purposes. That land was never included in the Kruger National Park although it was situated within the proclaimed boundaries of that specific park.

When we talk about compensatory land that should be granted to the National Parks Board, I can assure hon members that that is of course not always possible. Nevertheless, Sir, the hon member for Bryanston should take into consideration the fact that over the past few years considerable areas of land have been reserved and have been added to our national parks.

*Although we agree with the hon member for Bryanston, therefore, when he says that we should jealously guard the land reserved for the purposes of wilderness areas or national parks, I think it was only logical in this specific case that the land concerned should be transferred. That is why the standing committee adopted that resolution.

Recommendation (1) agreed to (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Recommendation (2) agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, it is my pleasant task to announce that the CP supports this legislation. By way of substantiation, it will be useful to look at a few aspects of the unemployment insurance situation in South Africa.

The Unemployment Insurance Fund came into operation on 1 January 1947. The revenue of the fund was chiefly derived from, firstly, contributions from employees in terms of the Act; secondly, employers’ contributions; thirdly, interest on investments; and fourthly, a contribution by the State, which was limited to R7 million per annum. At present approximately 131 000 employers and 4,1 million contributors are registered with the fund.

The proposed amendments contained in this Bill have been preceded over the years by quite a number of other amendments to which I want to refer briefly. Initially the fund made provision only for the payment of unemployment insurance benefits, but in 1952 it was decided that benefits would also be payable to those contributors who had become unemployed as a result of illness. In 1954 another step forward was taken and from then on, benefits were also paid to women who fell pregnant. In 1957 this was taken yet another step further with the payment of benefits to the dependents of deceased persons as well.

When it comes to the amendments under discussion at the moment, that must be viewed against the background of the amendments to which I have referred, this side of the House would like to welcome the fact that they entail a streamlining of a number of procedures for these people who require those benefits and who, in fact, find themselves in an invidious position.

Clause 1 is a formal clause which provides for the delegation of certain powers. The Minister will now be able to delegate the power to appoint an official as secretary of the Unemployment Insurance Board, to an official in his department, and this side of the House supports this streamlining of the procedure.

Clause 2 provides that it will henceforth be compulsory for an unemployed contributor to register as an unemployed person with the Department of Manpower, its agent or an agent of the Unemployment Insurance Fund before an application for unemployment benefits may be submitted by him.

Thirdly we refer to Clause 2 (c), which makes provision for an unemployed contributor who has moved from an area which falls under the control of one claims officer, to the area of another claims officer. In such a case it will now be necessary for a further application for benefits to be made, but within 28 days instead of 14 days, as was previously the case.

Likewise, clause 3 is also to be welcomed and for that reason it enjoys the support of the CP. The clause deals with application forms for illness benefits, which may now also be completed and signed by chiropractors and homeopaths. This is welcomed by the CP.

Section 37 of the existing Act deals with the conditions relating to maternity benefits. The new amendment provides for a streamlining of procedures—which is once again welcomed—in order to bring the qualifying period in respect of maternity benefits into line with the qualifying periods in respect of other types of benefits payable in terms of the Act. In clause 4 of the Bill the qualifying period is reduced from 18 weeks to 13. On the basis of the aforementioned aspects which I have enumerated to the House, this side of the House supports the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Losberg has covered the entire Bill and we are grateful for the support of the Official Opposition.

However, it is important to mention once again that the Unemployment Insurance Board consists of two main components and that we are in actual fact merely administrators. On the one hand the employers’ organisations, and on the other hand the employees’ organisations, serve on the board. It is also important to mention that the Unemployment Insurance Board has established a sub-committee, which has submitted these recommendations to the House. The piece of amending legislation before the House gives effect to those recommendations.

Furthermore, it is also important that the professional status of our friends, the chiropractors and homeopaths, is to be acknowledged in future insofar as the signing of application forms is concerned.

It is also important to note that maternity benefits are now being brought into line with other benefits, and I think there are some hon members in the House who may welcome that in the future. One never knows!

On behalf of this side of the House we, too, are pleased to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the PFP likewise has pleasure in supporting this Bill.

The proposed amendment introduced by clause 2 will be particularly welcomed. Clearly it is in the interests not only of the fund but also the contributor himself, the worker, that the procedure and the way in which unemployed people are placed in employment should be facilitated and improved.

There is one little aspect that needs attention drawn to it and that is that in the explanatory notes and in the Second Reading Speech of the hon the Minister the impression is created—and that certainly seems to be the impression the hon member for Losberg also had—that this is a statutory obligation. When one reads the provision one will see that it is in fact a discretion given to the officer in question that he may require the contributor in question to submit proof when he receives an application for unemployment benefits. I accept that this will always be done in practice and that it is almost tantamount to a statutory obligation.

I think it is a welcome way of introducing this because it does leave the officer dealing with this particular case with a certain measure of discretion as to how to go about accepting proof. There is not an absolute obligation on the officer to decline an application in the event of such proof not being forthcoming immediately. He can refer the contributor to the necessary registering authority, after which he may consider his application again.

Obviously we also support the extension of the period for notifying the authorities of changing from one area of jurisdiction to another from 14 days to 28 days. Likewise we support the equalisation of periods for maternity benefits. In particular we support the amendment introduced in clause 3 in terms of which the certificate of a chiropractor or homeopath will be sufficient. One can envisage a situation where a worker— very often these are people without much in the way of means—would because of his particular ailment consult a homeopath or a chiropractor in the first instance, and be cured or be receiving adequate treatment. In a case like that it would be hard on a worker to expect him, as is the case in the existing legislation, to have to go to an additional medical practitioner to obtain the required certificate.

All in all the PFP feels that the legislation being introduced is certainly an improvement on the existing legislation and will meet the needs of both the fund and the contributor. We therefore give it our wholehearted support.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon member for Losberg for his support, and the same applies to the hon member for Stilfontein. I should also like to thank him for the work he did in this connection as chairman of the standing committee that dealt with this matter.

†I also want to thank the hon member for Groote Schuur for his support for these measures because it is in the interests of the workers of South Africa.

*I should like to mention a matter concerning which there has been very great difference of opinion, and perhaps some bitterness as well, over the years. This is the question of the certificates issued by chiropractors and homeopaths. I believe that by recognising these, we are now affording much greater satisfaction to our workers. The fact is that those two categories of people do render a service to the public and that in many cases, that service is successful. I believe, therefore, that they deserve that recognition.

It is also gratifying that female workers are now being treated on the same basis, also with regard to the qualifying period for maternity benefits, as workers who apply for other benefits. I think this is only fair. The fact is, too, that the fund is now very well able to afford this. I just want to mention, for the information of the House, that the fund had a surplus of only R11 million on the year’s operating expenditure in 1986, and that we had to realise long-term investments in order to keep the fund liquid. The hon the Minister of Finance was kind enough to lend us R75 million. This year our position has improved dramatically as a result of increased payments by employers and employees. We have paid R50 million back to the hon the Minister of Finance, and on top of that we have shown a surplus of R190 million, which is an excellent indication of the soundness of the fund.

I wish to thank hon members once again.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, in the case of this State Land Disposal Amendment Bill we have a typical example of the anomalies which arise between own affairs on the one hand and general affairs on the other. The State Land Disposal Act, 1961, empowers the State President to sell, exchange, donate or lease State land on behalf of the State. The State President may also assign and delegate these powers to the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs. In terms of paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1983, the acquisition, alienation, provision and maintenance of and control over land falls under a Government department responsible for own affairs in such an own affairs administration but—this is important—subject to any general legislation relating to such matters. An own affairs administration is therefore not free to decide on land affairs under its control. If this amending Bill is not passed, the own affairs administration will not have such free power. An own affairs administration is therefore bound by the State Land Disposal Act if it wishes to alienate State land. That is why this amending Bill provides for the definition of “Minister” to be extended also to include a member of the Ministers’ Council to whom the administration of land affairs has been entrusted. This will enable the various own affairs administrations themselves to deal with State land falling under their control in terms of the provisions of that Act.

This side of the House supports the Bill because it removes this anomaly, because it defines own affairs to the degree that own affairs still have any significance and because it enables own affairs administrations to dispose of State land. This is a power—permit me to emphasise this; the Constitution has been in operation since 1983—they are now obtaining which they did not have previously. As they are now being empowered to decide on own land affairs, this side of the House supports the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful to the hon member for Losberg for CP support of this Bill. The hon member discussed the Bill and the accompanying memorandum in detail and I consider it unnecessary for me to do so as well.

What is important, however, is the fact that the various Ministers’ Councils requested that this Bill be altered in such a way as to eliminate the intolerable situation that resulted in a mountain of red tape. The principle of deregulation incorporated into this Bill is also very important in this regard; it is an indication of effective administration.

Of further importance is the fact that this Bill confirms the expansion of the principle of own affairs which is in line with Government policy. Consequently I consider it a great privilege, with these few words, to give the Bill my wholehearted support.

Mr Chairman, I am afraid we cannot agree with the speech by the hon member for Pretoria Central, or with the speeches that came from the members of the CP.

At present, in terms of the State Land Disposal Act of 1961, the hon the State President is empowered to sell, exchange, donate or lease any State land on behalf of the State. He may also assign that particular power to dispose of State land to the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs. If this Bill is passed, the Act will be changed to include in the definition of “Minister” not just the hon the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs but a Minister who is a member of a Ministers’ Council entrusted with the administration of the land affairs of the population group in question.

This will enable own affairs administrations to deal with State land vested in such administrations. We regard this as an ugly piece of apartheid legislation. It entrenches the principle and the whole concept of own affairs. On that matter the attitude of this party is quite clear. State land ownership is held by the State on behalf of all the people of South Africa and not just one section. We believe if it is sold or disposed of it should be to the benefit of the entire population. Therefore the money should go into the central Treasury and should be used for the benefit of all South Africans. We will vote against this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Losberg for his support of this amending legislation. As the hon member said, it is in line with the provisions of our Constitution as regards the principles of own affairs and it streamlines the Act.

My thanks also go to the hon member for Pretoria Central for his support. As mentioned by the hon member, this is also an expansion of the concept of own affairs.

†As far as the hon member for Bryanston is concerned, I want to tell him that the concept of own affairs is part of our Constitution.

We reject it!

If the hon member has difficulty with the concept of own affairs, he must consult the Constitution.

I thank hon members for their support for this legislation.

Question agreed to (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, in terms of section 23 (1) (b) of the Town and Regional Planners Act, 1984, it is an offence for a person not registered as a town or regional planner to pretend to be or by any means whatsoever hold himself out as a town or regional planner. It is also an offence to use the name of town or regional planner or any related title. This creates a considerable number of problems as regards professional land surveyors, however. For some decades professional land surveyors have been carrying out town planning and participating in such schemes. In terms of this section 23 they were prohibited from using any title or name to indicate that they served as town planners or did town planning work. In order to eliminate this problem, consultations were held between the SA Council for Town and Regional Planners on the one hand and the SA Council for Professional Land Surveyors and Technical Surveyors on the other. Land surveyors were involved in town planning schemes in the past but this was prohibited in terms of section 23 of the principal Act. To resolve this dilemma provision is now being made for a professional land surveyor deemed by the SA Council for Professional Land Surveyors and Technical Surveyors to be competent to operate as a township planner to carry out such work with the approval of that council. He may also use the title “township planner” provided that such work has not been reserved for town and regional planners.

This side of the House supports this facet of the legislation on the grounds that it will create harmony in a situation in which disharmony otherwise existed. This harmony is being created between town and regional planners on the one hand and land surveyors on the other in order to enable land surveyors to participate in township planning schemes now as well.

I may just add that the definition of “Minister” in the outdated principal Act is merely being replaced by the correct title. This side of the House takes pleasure in announcing our support for this legislation.

Mr Chairman, we should like to thank the spokesman of the Official Opposition for his party’s support of this legislation. I also consider it important that we have certain questions placed on record this afternoon for reply by the hon the Minister. By passing this legislation we shall undoubtedly bring these two important professional groups, town and regional planners and land surveyors, closer to each other. It is hoped that the “vendetta” which has existed between the two professions in recent times will also be brought to an end by this legislation. One is a relatively recent, dynamic profession—the legislation was only promulgated in 1984—and the other profession has existed for years—the hon member said decades—in South Africa.

The profession of town and regional planning has come dynamically into prominence because of the rapid development in South Africa and especially during the period of urbanisation. I believe you as the chairman have a deep appreciation of this because you have a thorough background in this regard. I believe that increasing demands will be made of this profession, especially if one considers that only 38% of the Black population group has already been urbanised at this stage. We shall therefore make far greater demands on this profession.

On the other hand, we in rural districts are extremely sympathetic toward land surveyors as they are the people who have done the donkey work over the years and have not always received the financial recognition to which they were really entitled. From earliest times it has always been the land surveyor who has had to do the spadework when the planning of new towns has been involved; even Johannesburg was initially laid out by a land surveyor called Rissik. What is more, it is our experience in country districts that it is the land surveyor in particular who in many cases carries out the community service. Where would one find a better example than specifically the land surveyor who accommodated the State with his lower rates in the subdivision of erven for Black occupation. In many cases they charged minimal fees. A further specific example from our vicinity was land surveyors who obliged people in the lower income groups in particular at minimal fees in connection with the activities of land division committees. Frequently there were people who were unable to afford high fees and then it was those very land surveyors who wrote off large amounts to oblige those people.

I am concerned about the dwindling number of students enrolling for training as land surveyors nowadays. There is a declining tendency in this regard at the faculties of the University of Pretoria and the University of Cape Town. The fact is that the financial package is loaded on the side of town and regional planners. I have been told that approximately 80% of town and city planners’ work is in actual fact that of a land surveyor.

What I am concerned about is that in the process we are going to elbow the land surveyor out to an increasing extent. I have been informed that fees charged by town and regional planners in some cases exceed those of a land surveyor by more than 300%.

I am concerned that there will ultimately be job reservation and that the land surveyor will simply be told that where subdivision is taking place— where for instance more than 10 erven are to be subdivided; I am merely generalising—an ordinary land surveyor will not be permitted to do this but that it will finally have to be done by town and regional planners, and here I am not even including cases in which they have also qualified as township planners. It then has to be done exclusively by a town and regional planner. I should like the assurance that that proviso will not ultimately be incorporated in legislation to exclude the land surveyor.

I should also like the hon the Minister to tell me the number of land surveyors who have qualified up to this point under the old dispensation, or those who have been permitted to practise as planners. I have been told of numerous examples of a surveyor’s applying, preparing his documents at great cost, appearing before the council, ultimately being granted an interview of no more than 10 minutes—whereas his preparations took up a number of weeks—returning and ultimately being turned down without any reasons being furnished.

I request the hon the Minister to regard the traditional field of operation of this noble group with sympathy in future and that we refrain from placing unnecessary restrictions on the registration of land surveyors as township planners. As he is a practical man, I am sure he will consider the entire matter sympathetically.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member for George as far as his plea to the hon the Minister is concerned. For a long time we have had an overabundance of job reservation for various of the professional disciplines. To a certain extent this Bill moves away from that trend. The Town and Regional Planners Act restricts a person who “pretends to be” or “holds himself out to be a town and regional planner”, to use the rather useful phrases contained in the explanatory memorandum although I do not know who would pretend to be a town and regional planner if he did not have the ability. However, it is quite clear that land surveyors do have the ability. They have been doing it for many years. It is most unfair to restrict them and not allow them to practise as town and regional planners. This Bill, certainly, is a step in the right direction and we support it.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Losberg for his support of this legislation on behalf of the Official Opposition. I also wish to thank the hon member for Bryanston for supporting this legislation.

I also want to thank the hon member for George for his support and I should like to express my gratification at his taking up the cudgels so splendidly on behalf of the land surveyors’ profession, which is a very old profession and one which has done South Africa a great service. If one bears in mind when a start was first made on the surveying of farm land in South Africa, one realises what very good work has been done in that regard over the past 100 years. I think we should pay tribute to our land surveyors who surveyed farms in those years, in areas where malaria etc was rife.

I also wish to associate myself with the words of thanks to the land surveyors’ profession for the service provided as regards the surveying of Black and Coloured townships. In a very short time 628 residential erven have been surveyed and the entire question of title deeds concluded. We have the land surveyors’ profession to thank for this. During the riots they had to get out of Black residential areas. We made special arrangements and they proceeded with their work almost all the time, frequently even in dangerous conditions.

The hon member asked how many land surveyors had been permitted to practise. I cannot give him a reply off the cuff but I definitely want …

Order! If the hon the Minister wishes the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill to be agreed to, he will have to move it now.

Mr Chairman, I shall definitely go into the matter I was discussing and I shall let that suffice for now.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council I move without notice:

It is indeed a sad moment for me to rise here, for this House will be poorer indeed for the absence of Louis Joe Dewrance. It is going to be tremendously hard to fill the void caused by the death of Mr Dewrance. All of us who were privileged to be associated with Louis knew exactly what he meant to us, but more particularly to those people outside. I want to say without fear of contradiction that there was not a more sincere person in this House than Louis Dewrance. If ever there was a person who believed in what he was doing, if ever there was a person who honestly represented those underprivileged people outside, it was Louis Dewrance.

I am sure this House shares with me this great loss. To the family we wish to convey, first of all, our gratitude for having shared Louis with the rest of South Africa. They could so easily have been selfish and retained that valuable gift for themselves, but they were prepared to share him with South Africa. His contribution to the total liberation of South Africa will be recorded in the history books. In their hour of need we want to express to them our solidarity and our support.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the words of the hon the Leader of the House in respect of the death of the hon member for Eersterus. I do so with a lump in my throat, because he was my teacher when, as a young boy, I attended the primary school known as Highlands Primary School. I shall remember him as a schoolmaster who did not spare the rod. Perhaps that is why I can still take part enthusiastically in things on which people do not usually agree with me.

We used to call him “Uncle Lew”. Although I was his opponent at one stage, and we were on the same side later, I always found him to be a pleasant person. He never displayed any political recalcitrance, and for that reason I had great appreciation for him.

The UDP wants to express its deepest sympathy with Aunt Kokkie and the family on their loss. We wish them everything of the best. I want to express the hope that we shall find someone who will be able to fill his place in this House.

Question agreed to unanimously.

Mr Chairman, I requested permission to make a short statement. In my capacity as Leader of the Official Opposition I gave the hon member for Macassar permission to visit the flood-ravaged areas around Kakamas, Upington and Keimoes. He comes from there. He went to those areas on behalf of the UDP in order to acquaint himself with the true state of affairs. He is going to focus his attention on the following in particular:

1. (1) The proper co-ordination of the assistance that is being offered to everyone affected by the disaster.
2. (2) Determining the extent of the assistance already granted, and how it can be improved upon. We understand there are families who are sitting out in the open in the hot sun and have no shelter as yet.
3. (3) Determining how quickly the men who have been separated from their wives and families by the flood can be rejoined with their families. This is to prevent the men from trying to swim to their families through the storm water. One person died this way during the past weekend.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Minister of the Budget, I move:

Since the budget of a specific year is prepared early in the previous year, it is inevitable that there will be unforeseen expenditure which was not budgeted for when the specific budget was introduced. Parliamentary authorisation has to be obtained for the additional expenditure. That is why this Bill is before the House today.

†Mr Chairman, I may mention by way of summary that the hon the Minister of the Budget is seeking the House’s approval for additional expenditure of R141 million to see the different departments in the Administration through until the end of the 1987-88 financial year. The Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services seeks an additional amount of R15 999 000. The Department of Health Services and Welfare requires an additional R80 million; and the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture needs an extra R1 000. The Department of Education and Culture seeks a further R45 million to see it through the present financial year.

*I should like to go into more detail on the most important additional requirements of the respective departments.

DEPARTMENT OF BUDGETARY AND AUXILIARY SERVICES

Programme 1—Administration

Staff expenditure

An additional amount of R6 million is needed to defray additional expenditure on salaries. Although every effort is being made to restrict new appointments to the minimum, as greater decentralisation of functions takes place, regional offices are becoming more dependent on the necessity of filling existing vacant posts. It was also essential to create and fill two additional directors’ posts to comply with certain organisational requirements and to promote effective administration.

Programme 2—Associated and Supporting Services

Subprogramme—Bursaries

There is a hitherto unknown desire among officials to gain further academic qualifications. Although the fees of the Peninsula Technikon are less expensive than those of the Cape Technikon, there is a trend—for various reasons—rather to attend classes at the latter technikon. One of the primary reasons for this is the unacceptable situation of the Peninsula Technikon which leads to transport problems, as well as problems in respect of the safety of officials when classes end late at night and they have to go home. It is envisaged that a further R36 000 will be needed for the purpose of bursaries.

Subprogramme—Computer Services

Provision was made during the 1986-87 financial year for the purchase of a main-frame computer. As a result of circumstances outside the department’s control, the computer could only be delivered and paid for during the present financial year. There was an underestimate in respect of the maintenance of the existing software. A total additional amount of R9 869 000 is required.

Subprogramme—Provision Administration

Despite cut-backs, the demand for office furniture and the maintenance thereof in order to comply with the minimum requirements could not be accommodated within the allocated amount. Consequently an additional amount of R94 000 is needed.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE

Programme 2—Education

It appears that the subsidy formula in terms of which teachers’ requirements are supplied has not yet proved to be sufficient in practice. Despite the real attempts that were made to curtail staff expenditure, it was unfortunately not possible to effect sufficient savings. The result is that an additional R45 million is needed to meet the obligations of the current year in respect of staff expenditure.

DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND AGRICULTURE

Programme 3—Housing Aid

As a result of a continued greater capital flow and discharge of debt than was estimated, it is possible to identify savings of R6 999 000 although there are indications that there may be greater savings. The savings in question will be utilised to defray over-expenditure on other programmes in the relevant Vote, as well as for deficits in the Vote of the Department of Health Services and Welfare.

Programme 4—Area Development

According to present indications, it appears that the reversionary capital and the discharge of interest will not be fully utilised. It will be utilised in the expected increase under the Programme: Agriculture in order to defray an expected deficit.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES AND WELFARE

Programme 2—Welfare Promotion

The requirements in respect of old-age pensions, disability grants, pensions for the blind, maintenance and foster parent grants, emergency loans, subsidies in respect of subsidised homes for the aged and children’s homes have not diminished. Consequently the amounts allocated for this purpose have been completely insufficient. The reduction or even curtailment of payments because of a shortage of funds would have serious—even catastrophic—administrative and political implications. Apart from possible further expected savings in the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, it was essential in the national interest to make use of the 2% concession contained in section 7(l)(b)(i) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, No 66 of 1975. Although said concession amounts to R41 million of the applicable budget, an amount of only R36 621 was envisaged for this purpose. It is completely impossible for the Administration: House of Representatives to identify further savings elsewhere, and the additional amount of R50 million which was granted by the hon the Minister of Finance simply cannot meet the minimum requirements.

†Mr Chairman, the amount of R141 million needed by the Administration: House of Representatives during the 1987-88 financial year to enable it to administer its functions efficiently, will be financed as follows: Transfer from the State Revenue Fund in accordance with section 84(a) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, No 110 of 1983: R50 million; plus application of section 7(1)(b)(i) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, No 96 of 1975: R36 621 000; transfer of surplus in the 1987-88 Appropriation: R24 379 000; compulsory savings, Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture: R30 million. This brings the total amount to R91 million, while the amount available is R141 million.

Mr Chairman, the explanatory memorandum which we have received and which deals with this Vote is one document we can classify as being void for its vagueness. Programme 1, Administration, reads:

It is utterly vague. In fact, it says nothing. In the explanatory note which the hon the Minister referred to, the only reference to the creation of additional posts is the reference to the two directors’ posts.

I want to know, with regard to the filling of strategic posts, how many such posts there are. Does every person whom the department employs not fill a strategic post? Why is there a differentiation between strategic and other posts?

How many vacancies occurred in the department through death and resignations? How many people were dismissed and how many new staff members were employed? The hon the Minister said that every effort was being made to limit new appointments. However, if one limits the number of new appointments, one’s machinery will obviously not work effectively. What we want to see is an effective machine. Therefore, the explanation for the R6 million which we need is far from satisfactory. We should like to have further details about how this amount was arrived at. It cannot only be absorbed by two directors. Furthermore, Sir, I should like to know who these two directors are. What has happened to the upgraded programme of upward mobility? What has happened to the programme according to which certain people in the department would be advanced into new positions, as the hon the Minister propounded last year? Why does the hon the Minister not take us into his confidence as far as this expenditure is concerned?

As far as Programme 2 is concerned—this has to do with Associated and Supporting Services—the statement reads as follows:

If we bought the computer during the 1986-87 financial year, certain legal documents would have been signed when the contract was entered into. Why was provision not made then for the delivery of the computer during the 1986-87 financial year; and, if delivery was postponed, why was payment then not effected during the 1986-87 financial year? Why are we being saddled with this additional cost in the present financial year? The hon the Minister made mention of the fact that an amount of R9 869 000 is required to pay for this computer. Last year glowing tributes were being paid to the new computer and we heard how effective it was going to be. With that aid, it was said, the department would be able to sort out all the misunderstandings it has experienced in the past. Now, after all of that, we learn that the computer has only arrived recently.

Mr Chairman, may I ask whether the hon member should not raise this matter during the Committee Stage? [Interjections.]

Order! No, what he is doing is quite in order. He is making enquiries about the increase in expenditure in that specific Vote to which the hon the Minister has referred. The hon member for Border may continue.

I come to Programme 2, Vote No 2. I quote from the memorandum:

I want to know what these “uncertainties” are with regard to the application of the subsidy formula. Who is uncertain? Is it the hon the Minister or is it the Ministers’ Council? If the hon the Minister or the Ministers’ Council is uncertain, I want to know why they are uncertain. Is it because of a lack of proper preparation or because of a lack of knowledge? Why is there uncertainty at this point in time? After all, we have now been here for four years. We should at least have had certainty by now. We must be given an explanation in this regard. We knew what the actual needs were when the budget was drafted. Why is there now a need for an additional R45 million? Furthermore, if the uncertainty still prevails, how do we know that this figure of R45 million is the correct figure? How do we know that a greater or smaller amount is not needed? Are we now working on the basis of guesses? We should eliminate the uncertainty the hon the Minister is talking about.

Order! The hon member has already said that three times.

Mr Chairman, there are various aspects to this uncertainty.

I want to turn to Vote No 3—Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. Programmes 3 and 4 indicate a decrease as a result of increased capital and interest redemption which will be utilised against the increases on Programmes 6 and 7. One thing that struck me when I looked at the figures was the increased capital and interest redemption under Programmes 3 and 4. The two figures almost balance each other out. The figure for housing aid reflects a decrease of R699 000.

Considering this massive shortage of housing that we have, why has there been a decrease in housing aid? In area development there has been a decrease of R4 800 000, but when one looks at the provision of building structures and equipment under Programmes 6 and 7, one sees that the increase exceeds the decrease in Programmes 3 and 4 by R1 000, and that is the amount needed.

As far as the Health Services and Welfare programme is concerned, a massive amount of R80 million is required. I want to know from the hon the Minister if proper planning was done. Increases in pensions were announced at the beginning of last year—if this relates to the increase in pensions—but if proper planning had been done by the hon the Minister’s department, he would not have had to ask for an increase of R80 million. If however, proper planning had not been done by his department, we can conclude that he had to ask for an increase of R80 million. He will have to explain this massive increase when his Vote comes up for discussion. It shows that his department is not on the ball. He will be given the opportunity when his Vote comes up to explain this increase to us in detail.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to react to a few of the statements made by the hon member for Border. I want to kick off with the matter of health services and welfare. I want to refer briefly to the increase in the Additional Appropriation.

Hon members came here to Parliament with the sole aim of uplifting their people. I assume that the hon member for Border—like many other hon members—eliminated certain misconceptions in his community. I can mention the example of the nurse’s allowance. Many hon members were not aware that an 85-year-old qualified for a nurse’s allowance and this was brought to the attention of the people. However, one cannot control those applications. If one has to plan for this or vote funds for this, I do not think one can ever make accurate estimates.

The hon member is probably also forgetting that South Africa was ravaged by floods last year. The department of the hon the Minister had to rush to the assistance of people in those areas. Applications arising from unemployment have also increased tremendously. The same hon Minister had to react to them too.

Last year the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture sent out a circular instructing management committees and town councils to render welfare assistance where there was actual need. These funds came from the budget of this specific hon Minister. That is why we are going to vote funds today to supplement those shortfalls. Later on I shall also discuss a few other matters which the hon member for Border touched on. There are also a number of questions I want to put in this regard.

In the first place I also want to agree with the hon member for Reigerpark. He mentioned that the hon member for Macassar had gone to the Northern Cape to assist the people there. We need not, however, broadcast this fact.

The hon the Minister of the Budget is not here today. He is working in the disaster areas. We need not tell the world about this. He is coordinating matters and giving assistance there. I can make it known that we are calling in the assistance of all the regional offices in that area. Schools have also been instructed to give our people there material assistance.

I want to mention two matters before I get to the Bill. In the first place I want to refer to the high priest of group areas. In this era of reform in South Africa one really cannot afford Pietie Badenhorsts. They are stirring up feelings in South Africa and treading on toes. In addition one cannot do otherwise but reprimand the AWB. One asks oneself whether the Government is not able to take steps against the AWB. I am not saying that they are afraid, but they are afraid to annoy friends and family. I am asking that the AWB, a bunch of “lunatic cowboys”, who are really stirring up feelings in South Africa…

Order! The hon member must please withdraw the word “lunatic”.

Sir, I shall refer instead to the “cowboys” who are looking towards the west. [Interjections.] I withdraw the word unconditionally.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

The hon member for Border must please withdraw his remark too.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Only an imbecile could say the following. I quote from The Argus of Monday, 29 February 1988:

This is racial conflict of the highest order. One asks oneself whether our Government is going to allow this. That is why I am asking what the difference is between the demonstration held today outside Parliament and the behaviour of the AWB. There is no difference, but no action was taken on Saturday. I want to know whether or not the Government is refusing to take action against the AWB, the South African Ku Klux Klan.

They must be banned.

Banning them may be a solution to our problems in South Africa. However, that is all I am going to say about this and I shall now speak in support of the Additional Appropriation Bill.

Last week hon members noticed that the hon the Minister of Finance only voted an additional R50 million for the House of Representatives. This amount can definitely not meet the minimum requirements, and for that reason the hon the Minister of the Budget is asking hon members to agree to an amount of R141 million. This is R91 million more than the amount voted. From the Estimate of Additional Expenditure it is clear that R15,99 million is voted for Vote 1, namely Budgetary and Auxiliary Services. Health Services and Welfare is getting an additional R80 million; Education and Culture, R45 million and Local Government, Housing and Agriculture a mere R1 000.

In his second reading speech the hon the Minister of the Budget mentioned that R6 million was going to be used for newly created posts in his department. Unlike the hon member for Border I am not going to make enquiries regarding the number of posts which are going to be created. However, I should very much like to know which two additional directors’ posts have been created. I also want to go further and ask whether our commitment to “upward mobility” has really been implemented?

I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would give full particulars in his reply.

What was also of great interest in the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister was the fact that officials in the employ of the Administration: House of Representatives prefer to study at the Cape Technikon than at the Peninsula Technikon. It is alleged that the Peninsula Technikon is not strategically situated and that transport and security problems discourage prospective students from enrolling there. I do not consider this an acceptable reason because officials have to go home from work in the evenings in any case and I cannot understand that the people feel threatened while hundreds of other people attend classes there. I am mentioning this because I want to ask the hon the Minister to give the real reasons for the non-enrolment at the Peninsula Technikon.

The Department of Education and Culture is receiving an additional R45 million which will be used for staff expenditure. I cannot understand this, however, because in the Main Budget there was a decrease of more than R1 million in staff expenditure. The decrease at that stage was ascribed to the fact that certain administrative functions had been transferred from the Department of Education and Culture to the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services. I would therefore appreciate it if the hon the Minister would react to this. I want to give him the assurance that he enjoys our unconditional support because we in the Government benches would like to see our children derive the full benefit from education in order to contribute to the upgrading of the standard of living of a large part of our community.

What upsets me, however, is the fact that the hon the Minister expressed his dissatisfaction regarding the subsidy formula. I should like to quote him in order to link up with the hon member for Border:

Now I want to know whether the hon the Minister is going to elaborate on this and explain to hon members how the subsidy formula works and how he would like to see it work.

The hon member for Border also referred to the tremendous increase in the funds of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. The continued flowback of capital and payment of interest largely contributed to this. This happened to such an extent that the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture can boast of a saving of virtually R7 million at this stage.

Hon members also heard earlier that this department transferred some of its funds to compensate for the shortfalls in the budget of the Department of Health Services and Welfare. The transfer of funds from the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture to the Department of Health Services and Welfare was done in the interests of the country. Section 7 (1) (b) (i) of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1975 makes the transfer of funds possible. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare experienced a shortage of funds during his welfare promotion efforts and the hon the Minister of the Budget summarised the problem well. I quote him as follows:

I should like to tell the hon member for Border that this is the reason for the increase in the funds voted to that department—“if payments had to be reduced or even discontinued as a result of limited funds this would of necessity have had serious—even catastrophic—administrative and even political implications”.

We should like not only to thank the Ministers’ Council, but also to congratulate it on this brave step it has taken to spare our people suffering and misery. We take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me, like the hon member Mr Douw, to say that we support our hon Ministers and to congratulate them. We know that they are doing good work. We also know that they are doing work which many people may criticise. We want to tell them: Carry on.

Before I get to the Additional Appropriation Bill, I should like to say that today the House has reason to feel sad and bereaved. The Labour Party has suffered a grievous loss. Losing two great pillars of the Party so unexpectedly leaves a great void in the party and also in our hearts. When we think of the two deceased gentlemen, we remember that one of them had the softest voice in the House while the other had the loudest voice. Mr Maurice Lewis’s soft voice suited his reserved and quiet nature and Mr Louis Dewrance, known to us as the lion of the north, with his booming voice, won our hearts with his affectionate nature. We say to them: Thank you and rest in peace. You did your work and we are carrying on with it. Your contribution in your communities and in the history of South Africa was significant and important and will not be forgotten.

Uncle Lew meant a great deal to us in the Transvaal. We could always rely on him to defuse heated arguments and situations at regional meetings in a fatherly manner. I hope that his successor will also be such a valuable and faithful worker in the community.

Sir, the death of the hon member for Eersterus again drew attention to hospital services. Correct medical treatment is not a privilege reserved for some people only; it is essential for everyone who needs it. In the lives of all of us there comes a time when we are totally at the mercy of a hospital and its staff. That is when one wants the assurance that one will enjoy the best facilities under the best conditions. Unfortunately this is not always the case in South Africa, however. The crisis at Baragwanath Hospital again proved this. In this connection I should like to quote a report from the Sunday Times of 3 December 1987. It reads:

I am quoting this report to indicate to hon members how poor our community’s facilities are. In that connection we are looking to our hon Ministers today to help those people. It is true that many other hospitals, for example, in Johannesburg, Coronationville, Eden Park, Natalspruit and Hillbrow—the hospital there was initially reserved for Whites only, but now that it is in a neglected state it serves the Blacks—are deteriorating because they are overcrowded and overutilised. [Interjections.] For that reason the behaviour of the authorities is incomprehensible as regards this Baragwanath crisis, where they want to penalise the doctors because they objected to the disgraceful conditions. If the doctors cannot talk about the conditions, who should?

Hon members know that Mr Dewrance was treated at Tygerberg Hospital. I spoke to him on Tuesday and he was extremely confident about the treatment he was receiving at the hospital— so much so that I was surprised to hear that he had died. This would not have struck me, but my hon colleague in the bench next to Mr Christians lost his wife in Tygerberg Hospital, and he is bitter about the treatment people receive at that hospital. These are things which hurt one and one would like to ask that the authorities look into this. I am mentioning this because at one stage the Government made out a case for our taking over our own affairs hospital. If the Government cannot even get these hospitals to function properly, I cannot see how we are going to manage if we have to battle so for money. One sometimes feels that one must blame the hon the Minister because they do not give us everything we want. But it is not their fault.

I now get back to the Additional Appropriation Bill (House of Representatives). I merely want to look at the two directors’ posts which the hon the Minister announced a while ago. I want to associate myself with the hon member Mr Douw who asked that we appoint our people in these posts. We must not simply allocate these posts to people of another colour, but rather use our own people, who at least have our interests at heart. When we look at the R6,9 million which was ostensibly “saved” as regards housing, one can blame this partially on our department, those highly paid directors and officials. When one approaches them, they play with one. The town council tells one that they have applied. However, if one approaches the department they say that they have not received one’s application. One then has to travel back and forth about four times from the town council to the department until the money is lost or the expiry date for the Vote has past. That is why this R6,9 million has ostensibly been saved. They are simply describing this euphemistically. It should actually have been R6,9 million more.

I now come to the computer services the hon the Minister spoke about. Our hon Minister of Health Services and Welfare has already frequently heard from us that our people are experiencing problems with the payment of their allowances. When I last made enquiries—I hope this is not still the case—the department’s computers were not linked to the Post Office’s computers and the money could not be withdrawn directly from the department’s account and paid into the pensioner’s account at the Post Office. I want to ask that this additional amount of R9,8 million be used correctly so that our people can enjoy that advantage—if it can be called an advantage.

We then come to increase of R5 million for agricultural purposes. I merely want to ask whether this amount also makes provision for our farmers who have suffered flood damage because it sounds rather little to me if we consider the extent of the damage. The hon the Minister of the Budget is visiting Keimoes today. In my constituency there is a town called Eden Park which is referred to as “Klein Keimoes” because a very large number of the people of Keimoes moved there. For this reason I am of course very interested in what is going on at Keimoes and the neighbouring islands. The roads on the islands have always been very bad and there is virtually no infrastructure. However, I do not want to say too much about this, because I do not want the hon the Minister of the Budget to hold this against me. I nevertheless know that the people there have complained that the roads are sometimes impassable and that the farmers—our people—cannot travel along those roads with farming implements. The gravel roads cross low bridges and threshing machines can frequently not cross them. I want to know whether the amount of R5 million includes the damage caused by the floods. We often see that where there has been a flood—if we take Laingsburg as an example—the town has, as it were, been upgraded. In this connection I want to address representations that when the water has subsided on the islands in the Orange River we will see to it that a proper infrastructure is developed there. Proper roads must be laid, because our people are doing their best to cultivate the agricultural land in the area. In this way our people will also farm more successfully.

I now want to link up with what the hon member Mr Douw said when he referred to the AWB. In this connection I want to quote what the hon the Leader of the Labour Party said during our party congress when he addressed the AWB. However, he addressed them in a friendly manner and not in the same way they addressed the country on Saturday. I am quoting from Pretoria News of 29 December 1987:

With these words I should like to conclude my speech.

Mr Chairman, as hon members know, there are so many shortcomings in our areas that one does not always know where to start.

A question I want to ask today is how we are speeding up “affirmative action” by means of merit promotion in our offices, and I am including other officials in our administrative offices, for example. According to my information promotion is very slow here. I also want to know from the hon the Minister why our people are not assisted when we apply for work on their behalf. I personally have already applied for work on behalf of six people, but thus far all I have been told is “the matter is receiving attention”. I hope that friends or relatives working in the offices do not benefit one another, although such allegations have been made.

I also want to know what cleaners, tea girls and security officers earn; what benefits they enjoy; at what age men and women retire and what amounts are paid out to them as pensions when they reach retirement age.

I want to thank the former Minister of Education and Culture for the repairs to primary schools. In this connection I want to quote from New Times of 19 February 1988:

Manenberg Senior Secondary, Red River Primary, Easter Primary, Manenberg Primary, Downhill Primary, Edendale Primary, Silverstream Primary, Primrose Park Primary, Sonderendweg Primary, Rio Grand Primary.

Pioneer Senior Secondary, Boundary Primary, Rosewood Primary, Klipfontein Primary, Mimosa Primary, Bonteheuwel Senior Secondary, Modderdam Senior Secondary, Arcadia Primary, Cedar Primary.

In my constituency of Heideveld the following schools received attention, and I quote:

Dagbreek Primary, Willows Primary, Heideveld Primary, Woodlands Primary.

Schools in other areas like Hanover Park and Kensington have all had similar treatment. The oldest school in Mananberg, Easter Peak Primary, which has been around for 21 years, is still being seen to by the contractors. Been around for 21 years! The principal Mr Harold Kruger expressed his delight with the changes.

I am therefore able to say today that the Ministers’ Council is doing very good work and also that the former Minister of Education and Culture did a great deal for our people.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of previous speakers as regards this vote.

Before I go any further, I want to say that I will definitely miss Uncle Lew a great deal. He was the chairman of our standing select committee on Trade and Industry. We will miss both him and Mr Lewis a great deal. They set me a very good example. The voice we heard in this house, is now silent. God silenced it, but we know that he will give us someone else in their place.

Before I discuss the flood and the fact that there is a such a shortage of schools and technikons in our constituencies, I want to talk to the AWB, the CP and the HNP on a spiritual level for a moment. [Interjections.] I am very glad that previous hon members have already said something about people of this kind. According to newspaper reports and the way in which these people talk and carry on, it seems to me they have their own White God and their own heaven. I really do not know how they read the Bible. I simply do not know. If people say such things they must be deaf and blind to all around them.

As we have learned from the Word of God, Jesus is the way, the truth and the light. What course are these people adopting? By what door will they enter, if Jesus is the way and the door? By what door will I, a Coloured, have to enter? By what door will the White man enter?

By the back door!

They must not forget that they are visitors in this world. They are simply visiting here; they are going back where they came from. But how are they going to get back? [Interjections.] Sir, these are serious matters. We must pray for these people. We must bring them to their senses, otherwise their souls will be …

Lost!

… lost, and when they open their eyes they will be in the wrong place. [Interjections.] While there is still time, they must open their eyes and ears.

They must come to their senses, because this is a serious matter. They are hurting God’s handiwork. Hon members in this House are trying to bring about unity in the country, but they are destroying everything. I am sorry for such people. I pray for them.

One day they will be asked what they have done with God’s children. They will be asked why they cast us off and chase us away. We did not make ourselves Coloured. We did not make ourselves Black. We were born out of the union between a White man and a Black woman! [Interjections.]

That is right. They like us!

The Whites must know that we are their children! [Interjections.] I want to go further.

They like Coloureds!

My maiden speech in this House began with the words: My surname is Grobbler. Sir, where did I come by this surname?

It is an Afrikaner surname!

Yes, I got it from my father! [Interjections.] Today he denies that I am his child! [Interjections.] My father did not support my mother. My mother had to battle to support us. That is a fact. [Interjections.]

Since the tricameral Parliament has become a reality, the Immorality Act has been amended.

Is your father looking for you?

Will the hon member for Bonteheuwel please give me a chance to finish speaking? [Interjections.] Now my father must support his child, thanks to the Act which has been changed. Every Englishman, every CP, every HNP and every AWB who makes our children pregnant must support those children! Now they can be prosecuted.

I want to ask our White friends not to meet our Coloured children after dark. [Interjections.] The law has been changed. Whites can now meet Coloureds in broad daylight! [Interjections.] If a White man is in love with a Coloured girl he can marry her. It is not a sin in the eyes of God. I hope the people are listening to me.

In my constituency the schools lack many things. A few schools do not even have sports facilities. There is no college in the Free State. After pupils have passed matric, they must lie around in the streets. They cannot be accommodated at other colleges. We are really battling a great deal. The hon the Minister recently replied to me and said that we did not have enough children. I want to ask him please not to hinder us like this. We have enough children who have passed matric and pupils from Johannesburg and Aliwal North can be accommodated in the Free State. Consider for example how many children must go to Kimberley from elsewhere. They live near Bloemfontein, but they cannot be accommodated in the Free State. Will the hon the Minister please see to it that we get a college in the Orange Free State? If this is impossible, we can share the facilities with the Whites. [Interjections.] Then we need not duplicate school facilities.

Just consider what apartheid costs! It is costing us a lot of money! Everyone is talking about the disaster and asking where the money is to come from. If there had been one school and one college that would have saved a great deal of money but now we have two or three schools. We could have had far more money to help the people who suffered as a result of the flood. However, the flood did not differentiate between the rich and the poor. It affected everyone. On Judgment Day God is not going to ask whether a man was rich or poor. He is going to judge everyone according to their sins and injustices. Come, my White brother, let us become as one and fulfil our mission.

Mr Chairman, today I am rising in support of this appropriation, but first I want to put a matter right. Early in the no-confidence debate it was said that I had chased my wife around wielding a knife. In Graaff-Reinet I am known as the lion of the Fish River. I have never carried a knife around in my pocket, because I believe that if I lay my hands on a scoundrel, I will strangle him with two fingers. That is my knife. However, what is most amusing of all is that I am supposed to have chased my wife around wielding a knife, but we are still devoted to each other. My advice to hon members therefore is that if one is experiencing problems with one’s wife but one does not want a divorce, one must simply chase her around wielding a knife, and she will never leave you. [Interjections.]

Hon members have digressed a great deal, but I shall confine myself to my constituency. What a pity, the unfortunate platteland is still being treated like a stepchild. A high school was proclaimed in Fort Beaufort and the land was surveyed. I now want to ask the hon the Minister to place that school high on the building programme, because the need is so great there, so that our parents can keep their children at home as long as possible. Mr Chairman, you know what dangers there are when one has to send one’s child away from home.

I want to agree with the previous hon speaker. There is a very large school in Edgemead which is standing empty because there are no White children to attend it. I have made appeals in this House for these schools to be used for our people, but because the school is situated in a certain group area it is standing empty and is not being used at the moment. When the unrest in that area was at its worst the Defence Force used the school.

I want to make a serious appeal here. We have spent billions of rands on apartheid. The entire world is against us because of apartheid. Now I am asking the Government of the day in all seriousness—as my hon colleague said, we want to discuss them as Christians—whether they are really Christians. Do they really consider us to be God’s creations?

What is happening in Graaff-Reinet? That historic college is also dead and buried; it is going to be closed one of these days. I have also appealed for it to be thrown open unconditionally, without considering colour. If we are serious about reform—that is why we are here—this must be done. I said last year we should consider our position in respect of reform, because it does not really seem to me as if there actually is reform. I am asking seriously that they look into these matters and see what they can do. We must have this high school in Fort Beaufort as soon as possible. The hon member for Border’s constituency is next to mine, and he knows that part of his constituency, which is not far outside my area, is suitable for a high school.

I support the hon member.

I now want to say something about Somerset East. There is a camping site called Bestershoek. In the past the camping site was open to all races, but after the tricameral system was established they set aside certain areas for Whites.

We again addressed representations to the municipality. The matter has now taken another turn because the municipality has said that part of Bestershoek is now going to be made available for privatisation. Hon members will realise that this merely means that apartheid will now be implemented in a new form. The person who is going to lease that section will put up a notice board saying “Admission reserved” which will mean that it will be reserved for certain people. If that person does not want you to enter that area because you are a Coloured, he can keep you out. I want to ask the hon the Minister to investigate as soon as possible how they can establish a camping site for the Coloureds of Somerset East too.

In Graaff-Reinet it is the same old story—I shall not stop talking about this—concerning housing. Since the tricameral system has been introduced Graaff-Reinet is the only town which has not yet built a single house.

Disgraceful!

Smaller towns with smaller populations have already built houses. There is Cookhouse, for example, where I helped to build 34 houses. Graaff-Reinet with a population of 22 000 has, however, not yet built a single house. The municipality has one excuse after the other and the most recent excuse is water. They cannot build houses because there is no water. I want to ask the hon the Minister to see how soon he can get us good quality water. We have a waiting list of 1 000 and there are 200 people waiting for plots. They cannot buy plots because there is no water.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to try to get the regional services council working in the rural areas as soon as possible. I think our hope lies in this, because the salaries and wages of the people in the rural areas are small and there are insufficient funds. In Graaff-Reinet for example there are only a small group of taxpayers and with their incomes they can certainly not see to it that a street is tarred every year. For that reason I am asking that the regional services councils be established as soon as possible. In this way the burden of tarring roads and beautifying the towns will be taken off the shoulders of the people.

I want to conclude my speech by associating myself with my hon colleagues who spoke about the AWB. I did not see it myself but I understand that this morning there was a protest march without firearms, pistols or whatever, next door …

It was a church service.

I accept that it was a church service, or consisted of clerics in any case. However, the point I want to make is that it was a peaceful protest march. I am speaking under correction because I was not there, but I understand that Dr Boesak was locked up. [Interjections.]

Yes, it was a disgrace!

Lock him up.

Some of my colleagues are saying “lock him up”. [Interjections.] That is all very well, but why do my hon colleagues not say that the AWB who marched to the Union Buildings carrying rifles and pistols should also be locked up. [Interjections.] Why are they not also locked up? They are far worse than our people who are protesting peacefully. Now my colleagues are talking about locking people up, but these farmers should be locked up too! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am speaking in support of the Additional Appropriation Bill. At this stage, in the fourth year since we were elected members of Parliament, we see that particularly in larger towns in the rural areas development has speeded up a great deal. We see that the matter of housing has been addressed well and that services such as electricity, sewerage, stormwater drains, tarred roads, etc, are being provided well and at a good pace in the towns.

However, I am concerned about the smaller towns in our constituencies. Municipalities in the smaller towns lack courage and good foresight. It is in these towns where in many cases not a finger has been lifted. For four years all that has taken place in the small towns is planning, and this can be ascribed to poor relations between the management committees and the municipalities. Municipalities in the small towns are still of the opinion that management committees can simply be thrown overboard. Their views and ideas are trampled on and this is not a proper state of affairs.

I am also concerned about the position of our farm workers compared with that of people living in the towns. At this stage farm workers are mainly under the protection of the White owners of the farms. We in the House have little control over the development of farm workers on the farms of White farmers. The budget for Government pensions is increasing annually. We see this again in the Additional Appropriation. On the farms we are creating people who become dependent on the State. It is they who eventually have to apply for Government pensions because a salary of R15 per week—or R60 per month— cannot make them self-sufficient. This does not meet a person’s needs at all. What do clothes cost nowadays? What does food cost? Then I am not even talking about the cost of building a house. The farm worker gets old and his services are no longer needed on the farm. Then, as the hon member for Haarlem said, he must clear out. That worker goes to town and applies to the management committee to be put on a waiting list. The management committee says to him: “Sorry, but we have an extremely long waiting list; we cannot put your name on the waiting list. If we do that, you will have to wait five or six years before you can be cared for properly and given accommodation.” We have farm workers who become disabled (ongeskik)—I do not mean discourteous (onbeskof)—and can no longer work.

That farm worker must then leave the farm, because the farmer simply says that he does not have the infrastructure to provide the worker with a house. We even have Government farms where the manager says frankly that they cannot provide the worker who no longer works for them with a house, because they do not have the infrastructure. They simply say that they do not have the land. Then that worker must seek refuge elsewhere. Now I want to ask that this be borne in mind when the budget is drawn up. We must apply a specific policy in respect of the farm worker.

I am not suggesting the idea of a “farming village”. I am simply saying that many owners of farms have land on their farms, which they cannot use for agricultural purposes. Can such land not be used for schemes to accommodate the farm workers who are old or disabled? Can this House not provide that farm worker with something better? We will definitely have to give attention to the needs of the farm workers, because this situation is eventually going to become untenable. In view of our present economic progress it is going to become increasingly difficult for us, and we cannot get away from the fact that our farm workers are eventually going to find themselves in straitened circumstances.

Sir, I am worried. I see this particularly in the Wellington area, and now I am talking about the constituency. There are approximately 200 farms in the vicinity of Wellington. Of the farmers on those 200 farms, 15—this was the case when I last made inquiries—belong to the Rural Foundation. The other farmers are not involved with the Rural Foundation at all. I am not saying that those owners of farms who do not belong to the Rural Foundation are mistreating their farm workers. I do not want to say that. However, I do want to say that I am worried that there is no control over that farm owner. It is those owners of farms—and there are many of them—who mistreat our farm workers. It is on those farms that our farm workers are treated like dogs—and they put up with this simply for the sake of a roof over their heads. This is exploitation and it cannot be condoned!

I know there are many farmers who do a great deal for the welfare of their farm workers. They also do a great deal in respect of sports and recreational facilities. However, we must also consider the realities, and we must realise that there are also farmers who are not financially able to uplift their farm workers. That farmer has the wish and the desire to farm, but at the same time his farming enterprise is such a failure that he cannot make anything of his farm. Then his farm worker suffers. How are we going to reach that poor farm worker? How are we going to uplift him? We will have to budget for him somewhere. We will have to start some or other strategy to accommodate that farm worker. I feel very strongly that this must receive top priority.

If we do not take the needs of our farm workers seriously, our upliftment campaign is not going to succeed. Large numbers of our Coloured community are farm workers, and the children of those people are slaves to the circumstances in which they find themselves. We shall have to change the set-up and the circumstances. If a farmer is not able to uplift his farm worker we will have to tackle a bigger joint programme. That farmer must, however, not simply assume that he falls under the agriculture which is a general affair; he must realise that he is dealing with a Coloured person, who is the responsibility of this House. If this is the case he must realise that we are going to intervene and uplift our people.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the Whips for the opportunity they have given me to say something here today in support of the Additional Appropriation Bill.

In the first place I want to thank the hon the Minister for the promotion of Messrs J Matthee and Oliphant as task heads at the Worcester Regional Office. Since I became a member of Parliament in 1984 I have been addressing a certain request to the hon the Minister, and now it has eventually become a reality in 1988. I also want to thank him for appointing the matriculants on whose behalf I applied. I now want to talk about the transportation of school children.

In the vicinity of Matjieskloof and Napier the children have to get up at 5 o’clock in the morning because the contractor there provides a very poor service. The contractor in question uses one bus on two different routes, and for that reason he starts at 5 o’clock in the morning. The children do not get home before 4 or 5 o’clock in the afternoon, and I want to ask the hon the Minister to have the matter investigated.

I also want to ask the department to launch a further investigation in respect of the fact that some children have to walk from Buffeljagstrand to Gonnakraal. The children walk 50 km a day, 25 km in the morning and 25 km in the afternoon after school. I hope the hon the Minister will give attention to the matter. I also want to thank the hon the Minister for the mobile classrooms at Klipdale, Gonnakraal, Pearly Beach and Ouplaas. However, we need another two mobile classrooms at Klipdale and one each at Gonnakraal and Pearly Beach respectively. I addressed the problems at Pearly Beach before when the buildings were collapsing on the children. I am very grateful for the one mobile classroom they erected there, but we need a second classroom.

In 1984 I asked the hon the Minister to consider pensions and medical funds for the people at the timber plant at Genadendal. It is now 1988 and I again want to request that these people’s interests are taken care of.

One of my biggest problems is the Worcester regional office, and I am asking for a computer to be purchased for the office. When salaries, or whatever, have to be paid out, the particulars first have to be transmitted to the Bellville regional office. Three months later the people have not had any feedback yet, and when they make enquiries at the Worcester office, they are referred to the Bellville office. If they make further enquiries, Bellville says it is Worcester’s fault and Worcester says it is Bellville’s fault. I hope the department will give attention to the matter.

I also want to refer to the matter of the payment of board and lodging grants. In my constituency the people frequently have to wait for nine months for their cheques. This is definitely a disgrace, and the department must please put its house in order. We have been addressing this problem since 1984. It is now 1988 and nothing has been done yet.

I also want to refer to the transport contractors, and ask the department to pay the people. Then there is the further matter of school caretakers and the leasing of schools. We definitely need a computer, because there are approximately 10 000 cases a month and now numbers are being referred to Bellville. How can one run an office as large as the Worcester regional office without a computer? The department must please give attention to the matter.

Next I want to ask the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture for funds for my own constituency. You know, Sir, I am not in favour of subeconomic houses. I do not want them in my constituency, because self-help is a success there. I am probably the biggest supplier in respect of self-help schemes in the whole of South Africa. I want to ask the hon the Minister to see to it that I get the money. In Genadendal alone I need money for 300 houses; I do not even want to talk about the other places. Genadendal is a derelict place, where corrugated iron shacks are the order of the day. We have now started self-help schemes, but the hon the Minister must please see to it that I get the money so that we can build.

I have a further request in respect of beach resorts. Sir, you know that the Whites turn us away everywhere. If this is the NP’s policy, we must be given money to develop our beach resorts. We must convert them into decent beach resorts. I want to make a further appeal to the department. We need a school at Klipdale, because if we have a central school there, we can close the farm schools in the neighbourhood. We can transport the children to Klipdale.

I should also like to say something about the appointment of a superintendent at the Albert Myburgh school. I am not very happy about what happened there. The department’s policy is that a teacher or headmaster must hold this post. However, if no teacher is prepared to do so, the department can give permission for another person to hold the post. Fortunately or unfortunately I am a member of this specific school committee. We held interviews with candidates who applied for the post, and a recommendation was made to the regional office. Now we find that the headmaster, who interviewed the candidates with us, is suddenly the superintendent of the school. Now I ask myself why people’s hopes were raised unnecessarily. A post was advertised, but not one of the people who applied for the job got it. A person who held the interviews with us, got the job. I want to ask the department please to put their house in order.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon members who took part in the debate on the Additional Appropriation for own affairs.

A great many more are going to participate!

I am pleased to see that opposition members are so quick to make interjections; I like responding to interjections. Hon members of the Official Opposition must get their politics in order.

†You know, Sir, it is nice to form a political party, but then one has to formulate a political philosophy and have a programme of action. I can already see the dilemmas facing the Official Opposition as far as general and own affairs are concerned.

There is no dilemma. In my opinion there is no dilemma.

We will state the case during this session, when many Votes will still be discussed. However, I want to thank the Official Opposition for their participation.

I specifically want to point out to the hon member for Border that the Bill before this House today deals with the additional monetary requirements of the Administration: House of Representatives during the present financial year ending 31 March 1988. This is not the Main Budget for the coming financial year. Be that as it may, I want to give the hon member the assurance that attention will be given to the things he mentioned. The respective hon Ministers will reply to the matters he raised when their Votes come up for discussion.

I want to make an appeal to the Official Opposition in this regard because we expect them to be an effective opposition party—they must learn how a budget works.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon the Minister is quite capable of making his own reply. The hon member for Fish River must contain himself.

I come now to the whole question of the establishment of this department. If the hon member for Border had done his homework, he would have found that we had been creating new regions in order to expedite the provision of housing. We had to appoint people in every regional office.

The Orange Free State now has its own housing office under this department, because of the need that exists there. We also demand effective machinery.

However, the hon member for Schauderville—I am sorry to see that he is not here—and other hon members of the opposition have accused us of extending own affairs.

*How can the hon member fling such accusations at this side, when this is what hon members on the opposite side are pleading for. I should like to read to hon members from a letter. Before I come to that, however, I want to say that I am pleased that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can always succeed in getting hold of such confidential documents. If we get hold of confidential documents about him, however, he has to appeal to the protection of the Chair. [Interjections.]

†I wish to quote from a letter dated 10 February 1986. It deals with the post of regional representative for community services in Johannesburg, and I quote:

*Hon members of the opposition say there is nothing wrong with this. But that is not what they said in this House this year. That is not what they said very recently! If there is an argument, it is always against own affairs! Their whole principle is wrong.

The appointment of a person has nothing to do with own affairs.

Sir, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and I know one another well. We grew up together in the CRC. He knows me like the palm of his hand, and I know him just as well. We know one another’s politics very well too, and this kind of double-dealing politics is something I understand. If one is not too happy in one position, one tries another. There are people in Parliament today who pretend to be political philosophers. We shall deal with the opposition’s objections to own and general affairs, however.

The LP has faced every dilemma. We have not shied away from anything. Hon members in this House do not only fight for the long-term objectives of their people, but also see to their daily requirements. We need not hide what we have done.

I do not want to rake up the past, but after all, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that we must rectify things now. These things should have been rectified years ago—when he was still the leader of the Federal Party in the Transvaal. He could have achieved certain things in the Transvaal, because he was still a member of the LP then. [Interjections.] He could have done so! If ever there was a man who got money for his constituency, it was he!

And I am going to ask for money again!

Hon members have asked for answers, but they will receive these answers. We shall tell them how we want to extend this work. Hon Ministers in this House—the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture—know that we cannot budget for a disaster. We cannot budget for unemployment or for people’s disabilities. Information meetings are held, however. It was at such a meeting that people found out for the first time that there was such a thing as an attendant’s allowance. People should be grateful for the overspending on welfare and pensions. They are being assisted, but the funds have to be found now.

†Hon members of the opposition want to know if this department is being run properly. This department is being run so well that extra funds are needed to run our welfare section. We have to see to the needs of the needy.

Our hon Ministers are doing their jobs so well that this is now being seen to.

It is easy to play “tricky Dick” politics. [Interjections.] It is nice to come now with a political philosophy. I sometimes wonder whether the hon member for Durban Suburbs knows what goes on in the suburbs of his constituency. I do not know whether this story is true—this is the style he used in this debate—but I hear he has a lock on his gate so that people cannot come to see him when he is there. [Interjections.] People spread this kind of story! [Interjections.]

I went to Singapore and then it was said that somebody paid for my trip. I was asked to confirm or deny this, but everybody knows that I went at the State’s expense. However, the story must be spread slyly that somebody else paid for it, and eventually the Minister must get up and deny it.

However, we all know from correspondence that the hon member for Durban Suburbs supports companies which charge more for housing.

Disgraceful!

I can prove that. I proved it last year from correspondence. Then he comes here and he talks about the House of Holidays. He says he comes here on vacation, whereas he has to work in his own constituency.

With regard to the Vote on housing, I want to say that there has been a return of capital to our department because we have sold houses.

*I explained to hon members that we have a revolving fund. The money is returned as we sell houses, people pay rent and people get loans from building societies to purchase houses. I do not know how big that budget is going to be.

Sometimes it is more and sometimes less. That is how the department works, however.

†Now they say we must run the department properly.

Yes, it is your duty.

Mr Chairman, we have done it so well that the newspapers have mentioned it. Let us take the Sunday Times Extra. I am glad to see that this newspaper writes so well about the opposition. However, the Sunday Times Extra now has an extra section on housing, and there is no newspaper that sells Blue Downs, the new scheme at Eerste River, better than this one. It is money! Hon members can come and drive past Eerste River. It was my old constituency. We fought to have Eerste River declared a Coloured area, and hon members can go and look at the housing schemes. Much remains to be done in Eerste River, but hon members can go and look at the housing schemes being undertaken there because of the leadership of this party. We took a leading role and we have control over Eerste River ourselves. We have appointed our own development committee. This is own affairs! The hon member for Macassar is a member of this development committee. Why do they not take him off?

That is why it is doing so well.

Mr Chairman, you see, we did not get rid of him. He is sitting there as a member. He takes part in the planning. Who is developing own affairs now? [Interjections.] Yet they come to this House and accuse this party of extending own affairs.

We were talking about your legislation; not about your party. [Interjections.]

Come on, Jac! Mr Chairman, surely the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can debate better than that. After all, I know him. [Interjections.]

†We know him as an able debater, but he must state his case properly. Now he has an intellectual problem. He gets confused about own affairs and general affairs. He does not know how to present his case.

Leadership problems.

That is correct. He established a political party and now he has to cook up a political policy and strategy.

I want to come back to the subject, however. I want to thank the speakers who took part. Mr Douw did good work. He helped me a great deal. He dealt efficiently with many people who did not know how a budget works. [Interjections.] We also travel. We do not need to broadcast the news of our visit to Kakamas and Keimoes. We were there a long time ago.

†I was in Mariann Ridge at the time of the floods.

But you have not built any homes for them. [Interjections.]

I am glad the hon the Minister mentioned that because it shows that he does not know what is being planned. [Interjections.]

Being planned?

I want to tell the hon member that those homes will be erected. Hon members must understand that the floods came again and that retarded the progress. There is only one family in Mariann Ridge which is not housed. That family is living in a créche. Every other family has been rehoused. Does the hon member know that people in his constituency are having nervous breakdowns because of the floods and that we are seeing to those people? We can walk into homes in Mariann Ridge any time, but I wonder whether that hon member is so privileged. [Interjections.] I think I have spent enough time on the Official Opposition with regard to the work that we are doing.

*The work must be done and we are doing it. Even before the flood, we established 200 serviced plots in Koffiefontein. [Interjections.] We work where our people need us.

I should like to thank the hon member Mr Douw for his support. As far as the two directors’ posts are concerned, I should like to inform him that the request will be addressed to the hon the Minister of the Budget who will give him an answer. As regards the subsidy formula, it is a matter that will be addressed by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. I regret that he is not here today, but there were problems with their flights.

I appreciate the positive contributions made by hon members such as the hon member for Alra Park, the hon member for Heideveld, the hon member for Heidedal and the hon member for Fish River, and am grateful for their support of the Bill. The matters mentioned by the hon members concerning appointments and promotions will be dealt with by the hon the Minister of the Budget at a later stage.

I merely want to say that the sacrifices made by this party will go down in history. We are trying to supply the daily needs of our people. We all know that in the days of the CRC we struggled with leadership which revolted against the Government. We wanted to obtain a position of power in politics in order to fight for our people’s daily needs. This party was responsible for the abolition of the CRC. I do not want to rake up the past, but the schools of those days, the old De Nova schools, are so bad that after 20 years we are having to replace them. In this respect I want to pay tribute to the hon the Chairman and leader of our party. When he was in control of education, he put his foot down and said that bricks should be used to build schools.

†Since then the quality of our school buildings has improved because we worked within the system in order to see to this particular need. Those of us who have the old prefab buildings in our constituencies know what we have to contend with. Today, 20 years after those buildings were erected, we have a great deal of problems with them. In my own constituency of Stellenbosch we also suffer from the consequences of those badly constructed schemes of those days. Of course the amount that we are asking for is not enough. We need far more, but one must remember that we have just had two floods in this country. Furthermore, the needs of the Black community are becoming of paramount importance. We must look at that aspect too when it comes to housing.

*We must not accuse the Government, as other people do, of doing more for the Blacks than for us. If ever justice has not been done to a group of people, it is the Blacks of South Africa—particularly in the sphere of housing.

†We have to correct this.

I once again want to pass a remark about our regional offices. We are trying to appoint a project leader for self-help housing schemes in every area so that the needs of the community can be seen to. Twenty-five per cent of our housing is now self-help housing. We have to take a further look at the rental structure as this is giving us problems. We have to declare new policies for dealing with this question. Hon members must come forward with proposals. We should reward the people who are opting for the self-help scheme and building their own homes.

Of course, as far as our own people are concerned, there is not enough money for agriculture. I clearly want to state—with special reference to the hon member for Fish River—that we will have to develop a strategy on a regional basis. It is a well-known fact amongst the hon Ministers that I have a problem in regard to the whole question of water supply.

*We must move away from the argument that we cannot develop water schemes because the people cannot afford them. We must bring about development. Development must take place where enough water is available. The argument remains, however, that the people would not be able to afford the water should we make it available. It has come to our attention that in some places people cannot use the water that has been made available to them because it is too expensive. That water is running into the sea. That is why we are appealing to the authorities in control of the water schemes to subsidise people in certain areas so that they can supply their own water.

I agree with hon members who thanked the former Minister of Education and Culture, the hon member for Southern Cape, for the work he did in connection with the renovations to school sites. I want to express my appreciation to him in this connection.

Hear, hear!

We must learn to share buildings, and I am pleased that hon members broached the matter.

†This is also going to confront us in our planning for future education. If one looks at White education, one will see how the White population is dwindling. People in the White community are having fewer children. Therefore there are fewer primary and secondary schools and training colleges. Hon members are quite correct in asking that we share buildings. We will have to share services and do things jointly.

The flood damage, particularly in the Orange Free State and in the Northern Cape, has taught us—even the hon State President has said this—that there must be joint action by the various communities and by the different departments to solve this problem. In order to utilise money wisely we will have to come together in one structure to see to the needs of our community.

*It is clear to us that political structures for the different race groups on the level of local government are a thing of the past. The Government does not have the necessary money or staff. It does not have the necessary sources of income to ensure that we establish separate local authorities for the different race groups. We do not have the money. That is clear when the Government says it has no more money for teachers—including Whites—or money to increase the salaries of White public servants, and that indicates a shortage of funds. That is why we must determine how we are going to co-operate on the local level or the educational level in order to cut down on expenses.

The hon member for Berg River spoke about the farm workers. I want to tell him that we are preparing plans to identify certain areas in which we can house our farm workers when they leave the farms. I have started in my constituency. We must establish a small town for them in an area in which people live.

We must obtain land, or use the land that is owned by this department, and house these people. We cannot leave them there. There is one thing that we may not forget, however, and that is that South Africa is an agricultural country.

†We have just four main industrial centres in this country, namely the Witwatersrand complex, Durban, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. The rest are merely platteland areas; and if we neglect the platteland in our future planning, we shall pay a heavy price for our neglect.

That brings me back to my argument in favour of development. Whenever I bring that up I am told that people cannot pay for development and that they cannot pay for water. If, however, the Whites were to leave Graaff-Reinet, it would really be a case of the job creators leaving. One need only study the figures with regard to the depopulation of the platteland to see that the White man is still the job creator. That is an economic fact. That means that if the White man were to leave the platteland, the Coloured and Black people will leave with him. They will come to the cities. Therefore, we need firm action on a regional basis so that we can plan properly.

*We are still fighting for water for De Aar. The people in those towns—Graaff-Reinet is such a town as well—cannot live only from subterranean water. If I were the owner of a factory, do hon members think I would go and establish a factory in De Aar if I had to use camp water? De Aar is situated very close to the Orange River, but how can it ever become a growth point if no pure water is supplied? We want to appeal to people in Government circles to stop saying that the people cannot afford development in that town. We must establish development there so that the people will remain there. That is a wonderful thing about our people in South Africa; they want to live in their rural towns, even if they are living in Kuboes in the Richtersveld, or in Koffiefontein. There is no point in trying to persuade them to move away to Bloemfontein or Kimberley where there is development. The only answer one gets is, “No, I live here. I was born here and I want to die here. Come and build here.” That is the case with people of all races, and there is no point in talking to them. My request, therefore, is that we take an in-depth look at this matter of development in the platteland. It is not merely a matter of broad politics now.

†We are a party in terms of our constitution. Sure, we consider the political spectrum as a whole. The needs of our community, however, are a priority with us. It is in this respect that we have often been accused of being part of the system, of giving in. Mr Chairman, one cannot distance oneself from the needs of the people one represents, only to go back to them five years later and ask them to vote for one. One cannot try to persuade them to vote for freedom and a new dispensation while one neglects their needs.

Mr Chairman, I want to conclude by thanking the hon member for Genadendal.

*If ever there was a man who worked hard for his voters, it is that hon member. For such a tiny man he is a big worker. He sets an example to many hon members of Parliament. He leaves no stone unturned. We in the department sometimes regard him as a pest, and I say that in good spirit. One need only take a look at the self-help schemes he has begun in Genadendal, Napier and Bredasdorp. He wants development to take place in every little place he visits. Even in Bredasdorp there are farm dwellers—we have photographs of them—who have built their own house.

†We cannot leave our people orphans. We must see that the job gets done so that the needs of our community are served.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

Vote No 4—“Health Services and Welfare”:

Mr Chairman, I should like to say something about old people who are subjected to unnecessary suffering. I have here a letter from WP Private Detectives in which they are demanding an amount of R333,56 from a pensioner, plus R63,36 as their collection fee. In this case the person involved, Mr Bantom, lost his wife. He is a pensioner—I am in possession of his book—who paid into a funeral policy for years. When he took out the policy years ago, R200 was sufficient to bury his wife, but in the course of time the value of money has diminished and when his wife died, he could pay only R200. He could not pay the balance, because he is a pensioner. There are hundreds of people like this who took out these simple policies years ago and who find now, years later, that these policies are not sufficient to bury their relatives. They are then handed over to private detectives who simply add an amount of R63,36 to the original debt.

These people are threatening to hand over the case to a lawyer. That is what should really have happened in the first place. If the case had been handed to a lawyer earlier, no injunction could have been issued against this person—that is if he had had to go to court—because no injunction can be issued against a pensioner. Just because they cannot get things done by means of the court, they are using private detectives to get the money from these old people by means of threats.

There is a threat in the letter which reads as follows:

They quote a certain section of the Act which does not apply in this respect at all. These old people are often illiterate, and someone else reads the letter to them. They are very frightened that they may have to go to prison for 90 days because they cannot pay the debt.

We should like to instruct the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare to warn our old people via the offices of his department throughout the country against people who suddenly descend on them with demands of this kind. Often smooth-tongued salesmen sell furniture to old people, and the same kind of thing happens to them. We must protect our aged against these vultures in the legal sphere who have no right of existence.

Vote agreed to.

Schedule, Clauses and Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

Order! The hon member Mr Lockey requested permission to make a rectification. I grant him an opportunity to do so.

Thank you, Sir. During a debate last week, I used the words “verbal diarrhoea” with reference to a speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I withdraw that.

I thank the hon member for his honesty and sincerity. That is what I expect of all hon members.

Before the House goes into Committee, I want to address a request to the Whips. When any financial Bill comes up for discussion, the Whips must please decide beforehand whether a Committee Stage is going to take place or not.

†The debate on the Second Reading on an Additional Appropriation Bill is confined to the subjects and amounts contained in the schedules and the reasons for the increase or decrease thereof.

*That is all I should have allowed. Hon members started talking about certain matters which should have been discussed in the Committee Stage. I appeal to the Whips of the respective parties to assist me by arranging these matters timeously and then informing me of the arrangement.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, hon members will forgive me for emphasising once again that in order to strengthen the economy of South Africa and ensure maximum leeway for private sector activity, Government spending must be curbed as far as possible. The tempo at which Government spending has been increasing from year to year can no longer be sustained. I can assure hon members and the taxpayers of South Africa that this Ministers’ Council is fully aware of its responsibilities in this regard. Continual monitoring of departmental expenditure is therefore undertaken to identify areas in which overspending seems likely to occur, with a view to taking timeous remedial action where possible.

Hon members will, however, appreciate that it is virtually impossible each year to calculate in advance the exact amount which will be needed by the Administration: House of Delegates to render all the services for which it is responsible.

Variations on the originally voted amounts occur from time to time—some involuntary and other intentional. Unexpected climatic abnormalities which cause social and agricultural havoc, price and tariff increases over a wide range of commodities and services, etc disrupt planned maximum levels of expenditure of the Administration. These are involuntary increases over which we have little or no say.

Hon members must, however, not believe that, because of its duty to economise, this Ministers’ Council is concerned solely with curtailing expenditure. On the contrary, from time to time I myself as Minister of the Budget serving on standing committees—as well as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the Cabinet—do all in my power to ensure that the specific needs of our community receive more funding. These augmentations are intentional. However, along with all other departments we must, in the final analysis, cut our suit according to the available cloth, particularly insofar as intentional additional expenditure is concerned.

Within these constraints the Ministers’ Council has considered and approved the augmentation of the Votes for 1987-88 to the extent of R34,6 million. I shall now briefly deal with the Votes for which additional funds are requested.

Vote 1: Budgetary and Auxiliary Services:

Additional Amount to be voted—R500 000

The increase in estimated expenditure of the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services can mainly be attributed to the following: An increase of 65% in the State’s contribution to Sanitas medical scheme as was dictated by the scheme’s commitments. This matches the increased cost shouldered by members themselves. Additional expenses with regard to the extended Parliamentary session of last year could also not be foreseen; as stated earlier in my speech, cost increases such as telephone services, printing, stationery, etc also contributed to the shortfall.

Vote 2: Local Government, Housing and Agriculture:

Additional Amount to be Voted—R7 660 000

The increase in estimated expenditure by this department flows from general increases in the prices of and tariffs for various commodities and services as well as the following:

As the department has progressed in identifying land and initiated projects for housing, it has become apparent that the amount provided for consultancy fees will be inadequate.

Flood damage suffered by urban and rural Indian communities in Natal during the latter part of September last year totalled R4,2 million.

Vote 3: Education and Culture:

Additional Amount to be Voted—R15 989 000

Mr Chairman, the Department of Education and Culture has the largest staff of all affected by the increase in the State’s contribution towards the Sanitas medical scheme.

Then, too, hon members will recall that at the beginning of last year there was a public outcry over student teachers not being appointed after they had successfully completed their training. Largely to meet this criticism some 528 teachers were, during the course of the year, appointed without budgetary provision having been made. An additional amount is now needed to cover their salaries and related expenditure.

To promote computer literacy of school children, Mr Chairman, it was the intention of the department to provide, over a number of years, micro computers to all secondary schools. However, a tender for the simultaneous supply of computers to all schools was so favourable that it was deemed in the public interest to complete the task in a single year. Delivery is to be effected this year. Hon members may rest assured that the mere availability of economies of scale—a general manifestation—was not decisive, but the welfare of pupils in a fast developing field.

Flood damage was also experienced by certain schools and additional costs had to be incurred in order not to interrupt the school programme.

Vote 4: Health Services and Welfare:

Additional Amount to be Voted—R5 603 000

Mr Chairman, the Phoenix Community Health Centre, which was previously the responsibility of the Natal Provincial Administration, was taken over by this Administration with effect from 1 September 1987. Although funds were voted for the centre, they were provided through the estimates of the Provincial Administration. The Treasury therefore suspended an amount on the provincial estimates and this must be revoted on the Vote of the Department of Health Services and Welfare of the Administration: House of Delegates. At the time of the preparation of the provincial draft estimates for 1987/88, calculations were based on the proposed policy of reducing welfare expenditure by 0,4% per annum and no provision was therefore made for an escalation in the number of beneficiaries. In practice, however, the number of our beneficiaries has actually increased this year by about 7,6%.

Mr Chairman, apart from the foregoing, the increase in expenditure of this department can also be attributed to general increases in the prices of goods and services similar to those experienced by other departments, but particularly in relation to pharmaceutical goods

Vote 5: Improvement of Conditions of Service:

Additional Amount to be Voted—R4 842 000

Mr Chairman, part of the additional amount now requested, represents the cost of specific occupational group improvements introduced during the course of the year by the Commission for Administration, and the rest is the cost of the general salary adjustment in the Public Service effective from 1 July 1987 after re-calculation on updated statistics.

The additional amount of R34,6 million represents an increase of 4,5% on the Main Estimates for 1987-88. On a year-on-year basis this brings the augmented estimate in 1987-88 to a level 4,6% higher than in 1986-87—well below the inflation rate. I believe that, given the difficult financial circumstances of the Exchequer, this represents a notable contribution towards the goal of limiting State expenditure consistent with the needs of our people. The additional amount requested will be partially funded from the State Revenue Account (R10,7 million) and partially from the Revenue Account: House of Delegates (23,9 million).

It is my pleasure also to inform this House that we in the Administration: House of Delegates have now in our fold the new Director-General, Mr R. P. Wronsley, and the Chief Director: Budgetary and Auxiliary Services, Mr J. J. Kruger. Both these gentlemen are from the Department of Finance and have long experience in finance. We in the House of Delegates welcome these personnel into our fold and wish them a very long stay in our Administration.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House, I would like to associate myself with the concluding remarks made by the hon the Minister of the Budget, vis-á-vis the accretion to the administrative staff of highly qualified personnel, who, we have no doubt, will help to a large extent to see to it that some of the concerns expressed in this House from time to time will be eliminated, ie that the Administration will be cleansed.

I have sympathy with the problems confronting the hon the Minister vis-á-vis the floods and I do not think anyone can reasonably object to the additional amount of money expended by way of relief for the flood victims.

While one may wonder why the medical aid fund for civil servants is called Sanitas, it is true that we of course need a great deal of sanitation within various aspects of community life. However, we do not know why the term Sanitas is used for that particular concern.

The additional expenses with regard to the extended parliamentary session of last year, could, according to the hon the Minister, not be foreseen. If this is so, it involves a failure on the part of the Administration, because the elections which were to be held on 6 May were bruited long before the hon the Minister presented his Budget speech last year. He ought therefore to have anticipated that the session would be extended and there would be extra expenses involved.

Having said that, I also applaud the fact that more people are now first-time home buyers and qualifying for the interest subsidy. I accept entirely that no-one could have foreseen that particular development. It is a good development and if it meant overrunning the Budget to some extent to provide for that, I think it is justifiable.

Worthwhile expenditure!

Yes, worthwhile expenditure! However, the hon the Minister has not yet explained to this House why valuable public money was spent on buying Checkers sites in Chatsworth and Phoenix, as well as being used to take over petrol service station sites. This is public money which could have gone into housing. Why was this used for purposes of trading and trade-offs and all kinds of activities? The hon the Minister of the Budget is answerable to the House for this.

He refers to the problems in education. We applaud the fact that these 528 teachers were employed. It is of course so that 156 of them were employed as a result of the insistence by this side of the House outside the House. It was at about 11 pm one night that we said that these people should be employed and the next morning by 9.30 am it was announced that these 156 teachers were going to be employed. We therefore cannot complain that the employment of these teachers cost extra money and we have to approve of it.

This Budget deals with own affairs, and own affairs relates to housing, health, education etc. Hon MPs who belong to the House of Delegates and who deal with own affairs are newly elected from time to time. It is unfortunate that we lost the very valued hon member for Tongaat through the unnatural cause of a heart attack as a consequence of which a by-election was held on 26 November 1987. Certain further developments arose from that election which I am sure concerned every hon member of this House. As a consequence of these developments I addressed a letter on 23 January 1988 to the hon the State President, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, the hon the Minister of Justice and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The letter went as follows and I quote:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Are hon members allowed to read newspapers in this House?

Order! Hon members who are reading newspapers are asked to refrain from doing so.

Mr Chairman, may I give you an explanation? I am looking for an article that is relevant to the debate. [Interjections.]

I continue to quote:

Order! I should like to point out to the hon member for Reservoir Hills that the debate on the Second Reading of Additional Appropriation Bills is confined to the subjects contained in the schedules and the reasons for the increase or decrease in expenditure and should not re-open the question of the policy involved in the original grant. Only when an entirely new Vote or item appears in the additional estimates may full discussion on the service take place.

Mr Chairman, Additional Appropriation is requested under the heading of Education and this letter and the annexures thereto refer directly to the conduct of a senior official in the Department of Education whose salary is paid from the Budget and from the Additional Appropriation requested. That is why the matter is germane to the issue being discussed this afternoon.

Order! I repeat that debate on the Second Reading of Additional Appropriation Bills is confined to the subjects contained in the schedules and the reasons for the increase or decrease in expenditure. The matter that the hon member is referring to— this official he is speaking about—has no bearing on any decrease or increase in the expenditure.

Mr Chairman, may I explain that I am raising this matter for two reasons. Firstly, because an additional expenditure of R15 980 000 is being requested in terms of an additional amount in the Vote: Education and Culture and, as I have said, this deals with the conduct of a senior official of the Department of Education.

Secondly, I will, as I always do, take the Chair and the House into my confidence: I also raised this because certain majority party statements which also include perjury have been made by certain individuals and I have reason to believe that a member of this hon House intended to abuse the processes of this House in order to repeat that perjury here.

Therefore I intended to deal with the matter so that the House will know exactly what is going on.

Order! That has got nothing to do with what I am drawing the hon member’s attention to.

Mr Chairman, do I take it that no member of this House, not even the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, will be allowed to deviate from what you have just said?

Order! Yes.

Mr Chairman, in that case I bow to your ruling. I shall raise this matter under the Education Vote or under an appropriate Vote.

Order!

Yes indeed, the hon member is at liberty to raise this matter under the appropriate Votes.

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to you.

Under the Education Vote I want to bring to the attention of this House that during the Tongaat elections a certain lady who was a teacher—and this involved additional expenditure—and was employed until the end of November 1987, applied for a further job.

Unfortunately what the Education Department does with temporary or locum tenens teachers is to employ them only up to the end of November so that the teacher will not qualify for the holiday period of December and January.

This particular teacher—she is not present so therefore I shall not mention her name here at this stage—sought reappointment in January 1988. A senior undersecretary of education whose name is A K Mohamed—although he is not present here I am deliberately mentioning his name because his name has been mentioned on oath in affidavits submitted to the hon the State President—took the trouble to get that woman involved.

She also got members of her family involved in garnering votes for a particular political party. Because that woman got 15 votes from members of her family for that particular political party, she was given a job at a Phoenix school in 1988 by Mr A K Mohamed personally. That is a very serious state of affairs. I am sure the hon the Minister of the Budget would not tolerate that kind of situation if it came to his personal knowledge, and I am bringing it to his personal knowledge because he is the Minister charged with administration of education. No other Minister is entitled to intervene.

I want to mention the name of a Mr Raghunath. Mr Raghunath was given a job in the House of Delegates administration, only there was no vacancy because Mr Bipul Persadh was instructed by a Minister, who is not the Minister of Education and Culture, nor the Minister of the Budget, to give Mr Raghunath a job. A job was created for him. The records of the department will show that.

I ask the hon the Minister of the Budget to consider whether that kind of conduct on the part of any department in the Administration: House of Delegates is proper or decent.

In the Department of Education there are a number of fully qualified teachers who are unemployed simply because there is an alleged, artificial, so-called surplus of qualified teachers. I say artificial, and I shall explain why I call it an artificial surplus.

Mr Lalla was a fully qualified teacher. He was employed as a laboratory technician by a certain petrol company. This Mr Lalla wished to leave his job and get into the Department of Education in the House of Delegates. That was a strange thing to do, since he had a good job. There were numerous fully qualified teachers who were unemployed, but Mr Lalla was given assistance to leave his job. Not only that, he was given the opportunity to choose which school to go to, and he has been appointed at a school called Welbedene. It is possible that I did not take down the name of the school correctly; it may have been Welbedere. However, I have no objection to Mr Lalla’s getting a job because he is a qualified teacher with a B.Com, HED. Why should he, however, who already had a good job with the petrol company, be given precedence over other fully qualified teachers, with experience, who are unemployed? The reason is that he belongs to a particular group favoured by a particular Minister who is not the Minister of Education and Culture, nor the Minister of the Budget in this House. [Interjections.]

I want to know from the Minister who controls administration in the House of Delegates. Does he? Do the Ministers who hold the portfolio of that particular department control it, or does somebody else—a superboss—give direct instructions to officials in the department? In this particular instance the name of this gentleman, called Mr A K Mohamed, was of course referred to in the affidavits which were submitted to the hon the State President. It does not matter very much that the person that made one affidavit now alleges that he committed perjury. He himself says he committed perjury. No one else accuses him of having done so.

Of course, however, those people who suborned that witness into committing perjury are greater criminals than the perjurer himself. That will come out in due course.

However, reverting now to the Department of Education itself, I want to explain why I say that the so-called surplus of Indian teachers in the Department of Education is a fictitious one. The average number of pupils per class in White schools in South Africa is just over 18. The average number of pupils in Indian schools in South Africa is just over 22. The norm in good schools, where good education is practised, is 18. This means that on average, each teacher has to deal with a minimum of four children more than he is required to—I am using average figures here.

However, we know that in certain schools, particularly in the matriculation standards, the number of children per class is very often much less than 18. The consequence is that in other schools, certain classes have as many as 39 pupils. This means that the teacher is not able to give as much attention to each pupil as he ought. He is not able to give the kind of consideration to each pupil as he, being a good teacher—when he is a good teacher, and most of them are good teachers— would want to. As a result, education suffers.

The additional money which the hon the Minister is requesting for education, if education is to be properly conducted, is grossly insufficient. Thus I charge the hon the Minister with not having done his homework properly. He ought to come to this House and say: “I need a thousand more teachers.” His colleague, the hon the Minister of Education, should come to this House and say: “I want to reduce the average number of pupils per standard in schools under my control to the desirable norm of 18. I need more teachers, therefore I need more money.” They have not done that. Therefore they are either negligent, or else they have not given the kind of attention to their work which they ought to have done.

There is another aspect of education I wish to deal with. We were given nonsensical figures indicating that the matriculation pass rate last year was 93%. That was absolute rubbish; it is fiddlesticks! The actual matriculation exemption pass rate was 38%. Only 38% of those who sat the examinations obtained a matriculation pass. It is common knowledge that matriculation is that examination the attainment of a pass mark in which, on aggregate, would enable a pupil to go into tertiary education, more particularly university education.

Now, Sir, 62% of those who sat for that particular examination did not qualify to go through to university; they did not get their matriculation exemption.

It is said that statistics can lie. In this instance, statistics have been used to tell the public something which is completely untrue, and that has got to be nailed.

Mr Chairman, my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget requires that this House deals with this Appropriation Bill for the balance of the financial year ending 31 March 1988.

I want to offer my congratulations to my colleague. I believe that in the circumstances, he has done a job as well as he possibly could have.

In keeping with the hon the State President’s view, my colleague has made reference to the fact that in order to strengthen the economy of South Africa and ensure maximum leeway for private sector activity, Government spending must be curbed as far as possible. We have positive proof of this when we look at the Post Office Budget and the SATS Budget. These mini-budgets which have been presented to us, are indicative of the fact that the State departments themselves are determined to reduce the rate of inflation. I believe that the private sector and organised labour should, in fact, support this effort that is being made on behalf of the State to bring down the rate of inflation which has been so rampant in recent times. When it eventually is brought to manageable proportions, the country at large will definitely benefit.

I offer my congratulations to my colleague, but I do believe that if we give him a carte blanche and a pat on the back at this stage, saying that he has done a good job, he might not do equally his best with the main appropriation. It is therefore incumbent on us that we tell him that he has done a good job, but that we should see if we can do better with the main appropriation.

Over the years many hon members have been concerned with the continuous cuts in disability grants which our people are experiencing. I believe that this cannot be attributable to any single person or that anyone is doing this with deliberate intent to deprive our disabled from what is rightfully theirs. However, we do not want it to be said that there is any intention to affect savings by discontinuing these disability grants. I believe that once disability grants are discontinued they are never reinstated with retrospective effect. This is cruel. I know of instances where people are suffering from incurable diseases or have faint hearts and cannot possibly earn a living for themselves. They have their grants discontinued and I would like to state that serious consideration must be given to ensure that a stop is put to this.

As the hon member for Reservoir Hills said, more and more people are taking out housing loans and an additional amount is required for the interest subsidies. We know that these subsidies were not very well advertised before for our community. They were not as available as they are now and I welcome this advent. I feel that any assistance in whatsoever manner for the provision of much needed housing for a community which is so deprived is indeed welcome.

I also welcome the fact that the processing of applications for 90% loans has been speeded up. There was a time when it took up to 12 months or even 18 months to process these.

Now they are taking two years.

No, I do not believe it takes two years. I know for a fact that things have been speeded up. That matter has really been seen to.

However, if the hon member for Southern Natal knows of any instances in which delays that have been experienced in the past are still evident now, I believe he should bring them to our notice and we will remedy them.

I just want to speak about one or two parochial matters that are of concern to me in my own constituency. After all, I am a member of Parliament and I should be failing in my duty, Mr Speaker, if I did not raise some matters of concern with my hon colleague.

One such matter concerns the bridging module readiness classes that are available. I cannot understand why we do not have a single bridging module readiness class in Ladysmith, whereas in another town in that area, namely Newcastle, a second one has now been approved, and in Dannhauser and Glencoe, where there are smaller communities, we also have these bridging module readiness classes.

Who is the MP there?

Well, if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not aware who the member of Parliament for that constituency is, I want to indicate to him that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, is the member of Parliament for that constituency. [Interjections.]

Is it, then, the case that these bridging module readiness classes are being provided in certain areas represented by particular hon members of Parliament and that they are not being provided in areas represented by other hon members? [Interjections.] Is that the inference? I do not think that is the case. However, I just want to say that the M L Sultan School in Ladysmith has applied, and I want to lodge an appeal in this regard. The reason why I have brought this matter up, is simply because I want to appeal to my hon colleague that he should, in fact, make the funds available for this much-needed service.

Do you not talk in the caucus?

We do a great deal of talking in the caucus—as much as the hon member for Springfield does in his caucus. The caucus is a place where we talk, but there are certain matters which we discuss in this House and not in the caucus. [Interjections.] My appeal, then, to my hon colleague is: Please do my people in Ladysmith a favour—no, not a favour, I think they deserve it—and give them this service. [Interjections.]

I want to link this matter to a decrease that is being noted. When we talk about money and decreases, then although there may be a valid reason for it—my hon colleague may well explain away the decrease—the very fact that there is a decrease at a time when we in this House are looking to provide additional services and to upgrade certain services, is a matter about which I am generally concerned. There is a decrease of R500 000 under Programme 2. The motivation for this is given.

An additional amount of R3 450 000 is required for interest subsidy on mortgage loans to assist home owners. The current low interest rates by financial institutions and the popularity of this scheme resulted in an increase in the number of applications for assistance.

This, Mr Speaker, we welcome. This amount can be financed from a saving of R3 950 000 in respect of provision of dwellings and infrastructure which will not be required because local authorities will not be able to utilise the funds as anticipated.

Now this is the area of concern, Mr Speaker. This is the area of concern which I mentioned in a debate here last week. Local authorities are not, in fact, utilising the moneys that we have set aside for the provision of much-needed housing.

For that reason I make the appeal that where local authorities are in fact not utilising the money that we set aside and are not co-operating, the Administration should take steps to provide this much-needed housing. Let me illustrate this. In June last year our Housing Board approved 60 subeconomic houses in Ladysmith. We had sites serviced for these 60 houses. We also obtained approval for 50 starter homes and sites were also serviced for these. During the floods we applied for 20 homes for flood victims and sites were serviced for these. We therefore had 130 sites serviced. We had money lying in the ground which would have provided much-needed housing for my people.

Flooding is a topical issue today. Last week I saw poor people battling to mop up their homes, destroyed furniture falling apart, people lying newspapers down on floors to soak up water. Yet, since June last year we have had sites serviced. I do not want to point fingers, because I can point fingers in many directions and I do not want to do this. However, it is hurtful that some of the tenants who are now in this terrible plight were not afforded the homes. Had the municipality applied for these homes during July 1987, we would have been able to house many of these people who are now under tremendous pressure. This is why I say that any decrease in expenditure, whilst there is such a dire need for homes for our people, cannot be accepted and justified.

Speaking about floods, we in Natal know what suffering floods bring to people and we are at one with those people in the Free State and parts of the Cape who have been inundated in this serious flooding. I believe that this House has great sympathy for these people. We know that their suffering is intense, more particularly those people of the lower income group, the unfortunate labourers, who have lost all their belongings in floods. This has happened in Watersmeet and Ladysmith where the water simply came, houses collapsed completely and people walked out with what they had on their backs.

I want to reiterate the appeal I made during the last debate, that Ladysmith and the Klip River district need to be declared a disaster area. Without State assistance and the generosity of members of the public, commerce and industry, the people in and around Klip River, like the people in the Free State and the flood-inundated areas of the Cape, will not be able to recover. I believe that they need assistance from the disaster fund and I hope and pray that my appeal will meet with success.

There is also a concern when it comes to housing. I make no apologies for speaking of housing, because housing is one of the main areas of concern, together with education, to which we have to apply our minds. Hon members might have seen on television that people have been evacuated from their homes in Mooi River today. They have also been inundated. Applications were made for the servicing of sites and tenders were called, but somewhere along the line documents got lost and duplicate documents had to be issued.

I do not want to say that these occurrences are pertinent only to my constituency but they do concern one when there is a need for development, applications are made for the approval of a contract and then we are told that approval cannot be obtained. That sets the development of the community back.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned the fact that that side of the House had much to do with having unemployed teachers employed. I do not think that only one side of the House tends to concern itself with these public matters. I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills should be big-hearted enough to admit that all the hon members in this House concern themselves with matters of public interest. [Interjections.] All of us are concerned with the needs of the community and it is a matter of teamwork.

I wish I had a constituency that was relatively developed. My hon colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture has a wide-ranging under-developed constituency and I am sure that he too wishes that he would not be required to stand up here and make a plea for his under-developed areas as I must also do. There are some hon members in this House who are fortunate in having relatively developed constituencies. They can apply their minds in other areas and they can use their time profitably with regard to other matters.

To illustrate the problem of housing in my home town I would like to quote part of a letter that I received today. I received it from an industrialist who will remain unnamed. It concerns accommodation for Asian families and I quote:

1. (1) Durban factory move. By 25 March 1988 we will have moved our Durban factory to Ladysmith where we will invest some R750 000 in creating some 50 jobs. Certain of the skilled Asian production staff— there are plus minus seven families—have agreed to move to Ladysmith but only if there is accommodation available. Without accommodation for these people we will not be able to train local staff and so commence production.
2. (2) Ladysmith housing. According to recent discussions with various industrialists and local authorities and specifically our town clerk Mr Peter Hurter last week, there is no land on which houses can now be built and the backlog is substantial.

Yet from June 1987 there were 130 serviced sites available which we could have utilised for housing. But the town clerk said to an industrialist that we have no land. I quote further:

1. (3) SATS houses. We understand that there are certain houses in the White area which are vacant at present and which as a temporary measure could be used for accommodation if the authorities would allow this. We would greatly appreciate if you would investigate the possibility of housing for our supervisors and look forward to hearing from you in this regard.

We have a waiting list of 1 000 persons who need houses in the area. We have industrialists applying pressure on us for houses. We have 500 persons who were affected by the floods. Yet there is a dragging of feet.

Hon members may think that I am rather over-critical with regard to the provision of housing but as the MP for that constituency I believe it is unavoidable that I will trample on toes in order for my people to get what they deserve.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister of the Budget told us at the beginning of his introduction that Government spending must be curtailed so as to keep down inflation. I do not think we have any problem with that. We all agree with that. The only thing is for a number of years we have been chasing inflation and meeting its demands rather than bringing inflation down. We are always caught up with inflation. I say this with respect because even insurance companies always load their premiums to meet inflation. However, I think we are now going to tackle the problem in a very pragmatic way by bringing down inflation rather than chasing it with more funds.

We on this side of the House are very confused when a Deputy Minister of Housing who belongs to the Ministers’ Council of the ruling party stands up here with all his complaints. This leaves us quite confused as to who is running the show. He is the Deputy Minister of Housing and he has a lot of problems.

He deals with “verkrampte” local authorities!

Yes, I understand that but the point I want to make is that when the Department of Community Development was constituted and the National Housing Board was there they did not sit around waiting for the local authority to do something. When the local authority did not do its work they went there and established that much needed housing.

I believe that if this Ministers’ Council has not got the power then something is wrong somewhere. We must acquire that power. One cannot be a Minister of Housing when one does not have the powers to do the things that are necessary with regard to housing.

We now come to the speech of the hon the Minister of the Budget—this is not an attack on him—and in it he states under Education Increase:

But that is a scandal. Five hundred and twentyeight teachers were not employed and were not taken into jobs, but when the criticism started they were employed.

Did the hon the Minister not know that there were these 528 teachers who were going to come from university and that they had to be appointed? This should have been budgeted for before and not after criticism was levelled. Criticism is all very well, but it should only be a minor reason for getting things done. A big thing like this should not entirely be as a result of criticism. If it is I think we are in big trouble.

In the beginning we touched on the sharing of assets in the Department of Community Development and the National Housing Fund. We touched on this in the beginning when there was going to be the division of this whole thing but we never heard anything further after that. I say with respect that there were a lot of funds that were with the Department of Community Development and in the National Housing Fund and I hope someone is taking good care of the assets.

When we come to the question of floods we see that there is some provision for the floods. This leaves me wondering: Floods are a natural disaster and should we attribute that to own affairs or general affairs? I think we must think about this.

Mr Speaker, I also want to take the opportunity of complimenting the hon the Minister of the Budget for his presentation in this House this afternoon. I want to make a particular reference to it by reading the following quotation from his address:

I think the hon the Minister of the Budget together with his hon colleagues on the Ministers’ Council is endeavouring to do everything possible in order to find the best ways of providing funds for all aspects of their work and their functions, particularly for our community.

I want to refer briefly to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I must admit that he is a very eloquent speaker and he presented a very good address this afternoon. However, what I am particularly concerned about is that he did not address matters concerning his community. I think that hon members who are representing constituencies should be able to put forward matters relating to their constituencies and to their communities as far as the needs and desires with regard to housing, welfare and other matters are concerned. What he has done is merely to carry out a post-mortem in respect of an affidavit or affidavits that he obtained in a by-election that took place in Tongaat. Moreover, he did everything possible to be critical, and to say that certain senior public servants were involved. It is absolutely ridiculous to bring up the names of people occupying senior positions in the Public Service and to try to use them to their political benefit.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member Mr Thaver allowed to deviate from the discussion of the Additional Appropriation? It was ruled earlier on that hon members cannot speak …

Order! The hon member Mr Thaver may proceed.

I am replying to matters that are very relevant in this debate.

It is also interesting to note that that hon member quoted from certain affidavits, but I must advise the hon member that there are various contradictions in respect of those affidavits. If anyone has caused anyone else to commit perjury, it was done in their own interests, and as a result of their own political frustrations and desires. There are therefore affidavits and counter affidavits that have been made in respect of this matter, and I must warn hon members that there are serious consequences for those people who have taken those affidavits and persuaded innocent people to commit the crime of perjury.

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

Mr Speaker, I am not taking any questions.

I want to repeat once again that the affidavits that were referred to by the hon member for Reservoir Hills were the net result of a by-election that took place in Tongaat …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to draw your attention to Standing Order No 112. Is the hon member’s speech not irrelevant to the subject matter for discussion this afternoon?

Order! I was on the point of asking the hon member Mr Thaver to come back to discussing the Bill. The hon member has gone far enough in reply to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He must now please come back to the Bill.

I also want to say that the budget deals with various issues, particularly housing. I must also compliment the hon the Minister of Housing for taking into account the amount of flood damage suffered by the community of Chatsworth. He provided housing for those people whose houses were damaged in the last flood in September.

Whether or not he was given a garland, I think he needs more because of the attention he has given to the sufferings of those communities. I also think that the hon the Minister of Housing, together with other hon Ministers, have visited all those areas in Natal which were most affected, to see the amount of suffering for themselves. They have attended to the many needs of the community.

I also wish to deal with the question of licencing matters, particularly the home industries in Chatsworth. I would like the relevant department of the Ministers’ Council to look into some of the matters that concern unemployment. As a result of unemployment, various people have now created or started small home industries, and there have been some side effects in that the Durban City Council is probing the home industries.

Some of the people who do not comply with the health regulations are being faced with a situation in which they are being charged under a certain criminal code. This is a great setback and these people cannot continue with that particular home activity. It would appear that there are a great many of these people who have created these home industries to supplement their income or to find some income, owing to the unemployment.

There is a major article which has appeared in the newspaper. I do not have the time to read it, but I shall refer it to the relevant hon Minister and to the Minister’s Council. I will be pleased if they will take all necessary steps to overcome the difficulties encountered by the people who set up home industries.

Once more I wish to pay a compliment to the hon the Minister of the Budget and the members of the Minister’s Council for the very good work they have done and for the presentation of this Additional Appropriation Bill today. I think it will receive the approval of this House.

Mr Speaker, I refer to the plight of the market gardeners at Merebank who were affected by the 1987 floods. I wish to direct my requests and my comments to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture.

This particular land was earmarked, and plans were announced in August to the effect that the hon the Minister of Transport had this land available for the local farmers. I addressed several letters to the Ministry in this regard—it was a general affairs matter. Finally I wrote to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, some time in October. On 6 October I received a reply from the hon the Minister stating that he had received my letter. Two months later, on 8 December 1987, the hon the Minister informed me that the matter was currently receiving attention.

However, I was surprised to read on 28 February 1988 in the Sunday Times Extra that the Minister had made certain statements regarding this land. I want to express my disappointment, in the sense that being a local MP for the area, I had taken up this matter, and he did not even have the decency to arrange for a suitable reply to be sent to me.

However, the newspaper received the news first and it made an announcement. I quote:

This hon Minister has made a statement in the newspaper, but I would like to correct that erroneous statement. That land was earmarked for the farmers long before the floods. Since the floods affected them, they were allocated this land. This was neither because of the floods nor because of the hon the Minister’s presence. I would like to quote further:

I would like to put the record straight. Those farmers needed the land. The land was available in the first instance and in the second instance the floods caused the damage and every effort was made to accommodate them. However, do not emphasise the importance of a Minister of Local Government and Agriculture’s office as being sympathetic towards those people, putting party politics first before the welfare of our people. I would like to make this point very carefully and emphatically. I expect some sort of co-operation from the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. When I see the hon the Deputy Minister begging for money, there is something wrong with the system and with the Ministers’ Council.

Mr Speaker, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

Mr Speaker, I have only a few minutes left to speak. I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture to expedite the allocation of the airport land to the affected market gardeners of Merebank. Those affected farmers are starving without any income or livelihood. We would hate to see any further delay because of red tape, uncertainties and indecision. I do not want to use the word ineffectiveness. I am honest and sincere when I say that the allocation of this land should be expedited.

Mr Speaker, I would like to respond to the hon member for Merebank. If one recollects my statements in this House with regard to agriculture it must be abundantly clear that it is not my intention to spice agriculture with politics. Furthermore, the hon member for Merebank should reflect on his own attitude. During last year we had an agricultural gathering in Durban. The hon member was invited, but he did not attend. Apart from that, he is fully aware of my personal attitude and openness towards these crucial issues affecting our people. However, he found it fitting to write to the Ministry under general affairs about something which we have achieved in this House. This House is aware of the efforts that we have made and the announcement that I personally made with regard to that land. Understandably we were successful in securing 110 hectares in pursuance of the crisis of a shortage of land within the Indian agricultural community. It must be understood that, after securing that land, we were faced with the devastating floods during September. What does one do under such circumstances?

We changed course. How have we changed course, Mr Speaker.? [Interjections.] We have changed course in order to be of assistance and to consider the plight of all those small market gardeners who have been affected. In doing so, I have held two meetings in Pretoria, since this particular land falls under the auspices of two Ministries. One is the South African Transport Services and the other is the Public Works Department. In all these exercises there are certain norms and formalities but I had to negotiate a settlement that would suit those people who had been affected, and the settlement that we have been able to arrive at, is to subdivide that land. One cannot simply subdivide that land overnight. We have had to call in surveyors. We have had to call in specialists to survey that land, which we were successful in doing.

Then the other question is that of the rental structure. We cannot expect those people who have been affected—those small market gardeners who have been depending on their smallholdings for their livelihood—to pay market rental value. Therefore, we had to negotiate on that aspect, and negotiating with a Government department is not something that is done overnight. [Interjections.] However, we have been successful in negotiating a rental structure, so much so that for the first two years the land will be rent-free.

I want to tell this House that on Friday, when those people were called in, there were tears in their eyes on account of the relief they had been given due to the progress we had made in that direction. Moreover, it must be understood that at no stage did we politicise the issue by dragging party politics into it. I want the hon member for Merebank to understand …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether the member of Parliament for that area was invited to that meeting to which the farmers were called?

I want to tell the hon member that I invited the executive of the Farmers’ Union, together with the representative of those affected parties with whom we had held negotiations. [Interjections.] Moreover, the hon member for Merebank has been aware, since the time he came to Parliament, of where the offices are. However, he made no effort in this regard. Therefore, what is important is what we have achieved for those people who have been subjected to these hardships, and that is more important than dabbling in party politics.

I therefore want to give the hon member for Merebank some advice. He did show some interest, but he must also understand the importance of being open-hearted in these discussions rather than remaining aloof, and at the same time, writing to the general affairs Ministers and enquiring about something which he knows full well this House decided on. It was this House that made those representations, and it was this House that made all those recommendations. [Interjections.] Therefore, let us not dabble in party politics at the expense of those poor people.

Mr Speaker, under Vote 4: Health Services and Welfare, the Phoenix Community Health Centre has been taken over by the own affairs Administration: House of Delegates in order to improve the lot of the Indian residents of Phoenix and its environs.

This is yet another addition to the entrenchment of own affairs. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council very often devoutly defends the concept of own affairs for the socio-economic development of our Indian community. I should like to put the following fair question to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council: If he is using own affairs for the upliftment of the Indian community, why is he allowing his party to be implicated in the recent imposition of drastic curbs of 17 community organisations? The hon member Mr Thaver …

Order! I do not think that particular issue has anything to do with this Bill. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, may I point out that this matter concerns this House and that this is an own affair? Whilst we profess in this House that we are the champions of own affairs, we tend to ignore that profession when we deal with matters of a general nature.

That is why I mention this here. The leader of the NPP has up to now not rebutted Mr Thaver’s support. It is abundantly clear that the NPP supports the banning of 17 organisations. We from this side of the House wish to dissociate ourselves from the irresponsible utterances of the hon nominated member. Solidarity reiterated its call for the creation of a conducive political climate, for an integrated and peaceful settlement, and hence for the unbanning of political organisations and the release of all political prisoners.

Mr Speaker, I want to take this opportunity of conveying the condolences of this House to the family of the late Mr Louis Dewrance, the former MP representing the electoral division of Eersterus in the House of Representatives.

Mr Speaker, sometimes when it suits people, they welcome own affairs. The hon member for Phoenix may be positive, but he was critical of the fact that the community health centre in Phoenix is now under the control of this Administration. However, I want to assure the hon member for Phoenix that he will witness, as a result of the actions of my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, a marked improvement in what is provided in the Phoenix community. However, never on a single day have we received a demand from the hon member for Phoenix for that institution to be declared own affairs.

Mr Speaker, is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council prepared to take a question?

Mr Speaker, I have no time for questions.

Since September 1984 there is nothing recorded in Hansard …

This party as a whole demanded it.

The party as a whole may say that for the Press gallery in an act of superficial ostentation. I am emphasising the utterances of the hon member for Phoenix. I have been present at a meeting where the hon the leader of his party supported the desirability of two pieces of security legislation. I do not want to say anything more. Many people were witness to that in an office in the House of Assembly building.

How is that related to the Bill?

It may not be related to this Bill, but I am making a comment on what the hon member for Phoenix said this afternoon, in spite of the fact that he received a ruling from the presiding officer.

I want to come back to housing. One of the most encouraging things is the number of homes that are being built for first-time home owners. If we look, not only at the Durban metropolitan region, but throughout South Africa, we find the result of the upliftment of our education. More and more people who are applicants on the waiting list for accommodation are moving out of the self-help group, earning more than R1 000 per month. I think in the next few years the percentage of those who earn under R1 000 will decrease and the percentage of those who earn between R1 000 and R1 800 per month will increase.

With inflation.

Whether it be with inflation or whatever, the point is that there is an increase in the levels in our community. Of course, we want to see an increase in the levels of all communities. However, we must safeguard certain things. We must ensure that this is not abused. I want to give the hon member for Reservoir Hills a task, because I have given quite a few members of Parliament tasks on matters relating to their electoral divisions. I want to suggest to him to investigate whether this is being abused in his constituency. During the weekend I received a visit from a person who told me that in Newlands he is required to pay R66 000 for a house in terms of the first-time home-owners plan. That means that if he pays R38 000 for the house, the land costs R28 000. We are examining where contractors or developers are building houses above the R40 000 limit, giving a price-tag of under R40 000 and adding the additional amount to the price of the land.

If that is the case it amounts to fraud because according to the rules our administration accepts a certificate from a registered financial institution. However, we had a deficit and we cannot refuse any person who qualifies in terms of the regulations. If 500 000 persons make an application in the next financial year we have to make financial provision for them because it is a statutory provision. Likewise, if the number of applicants for old-age grants doubles, we cannot refuse them on the grounds that there is a shortage of money.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? Adverting to the task the hon the Minister assigned to me, will he agree that if he is aware of fraud having been committed by some developer but takes no action in bringing that person to book, then he is socius criminus?

Yes, I know about socius crimini. Let us not bandy this phrase about.

Order! I am not prepared to allow that question or even that suggestion at all because the hon the Minister did not make any suggestion of the kind.

I indicated that if this was abused it would be the same as in the case where we are allocating money to local authorities who are charging rentals and instalments according to a person’s income. If a person submits a false income he is committing a wrong and the taxpayer is losing.

I gave the hon member for Reservoir Hills a task. I will not say how adequately he fulfilled that task—I reserve that comment to myself. If I say that the hon member for Reservoir Hills did not do his duty properly in respect of the problem relating to his constituency which I brought to his attention then he will say that I am speaking here with vengeance. I want to say that the very fact that we have boosted the provision of homes in that area where attention should be given to the matter and the very fact that an additional R3 450 000 was required over and above what was budgeted in the past financial year, speaks well of those who are providing housing and the necessary infrastructure for housing in this country. I can assure the House that as a result of the efforts of the Ministers’ Council and the housing administration, this figure will not only double but will treble in the next financial year.

We needed the additional amount, of course, and my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget has explained that this has been offset by the fact that we expect that an amount of R3 950 000 may not be used by local authorities. This matter was emphasised by my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture last week and this week. I want to deal with this matter to a large extent in our main Appropriation because this is the biggest area where we are finding problems in seeking solutions to our housing needs.

We allocate money for housing in two different ways. Firstly we receive an amount from the Treasury every year—this is our Appropriation—and secondly we get returns from our administration, our own products, local authority products, the products of utility companies, etc. I want to say that the figure for the financial year 1987-88 is shocking with regard to the number of local authorities who are not able to make use of the money that has been allocated to them.

We have two types of local authorities. Firstly there are those who request an allocation of funds but who are not really prepared for it. They then come back to us after six or nine months to tell us that they are not even able to do the necessary preparatory work. Some local authorities are not really at fault. They are willing but they have problems with the Group Areas Act, the province and the Department and Ministry of Agriculture that have to give them the necessary clearance.

The other problem is where we have the land available but the local authority is unwilling to undertake the task in spite of the fact that money has been allocated.

I want to deal with Ladysmith. In Ladysmith we have the peculiar problem where the municipality adopted a resolution—I want hon members to listen to this—that they would have nothing to do with Indian housing and that it must be the responsibility of the Ladysmith Indian LAC and the House of Delegates.

However, we could not step in because the LAC, which in my considered opinion and that of our administration is an important body, asked us not to intervene. They informed the Minister of Housing and our administration that they would sort these problems out at local level. I announced last week that they had sorted out the problem.

The reason why I want to mention this is because the chairman of the LAC informed me from time to time that it was because of outside interference that the municipality of Ladysmith adopted that attitude. There was somebody who was trying to interfere with the municipality by asking them to award a contract to a particular building contracting company. It is because of that that the Ladysmith Municipality adopted a resolution. However, since the LAC requested the House of Delegates not to undertake the project itself we have decided not to intervene.

I want to say that it is our policy that where there is an unwilling municipality, as in the case of Howick, we intervene and get housing projects off the ground. Our biggest problem is the inability of local authorities to move timeously. We have now decided that in order to enable us to move faster, we are going to take the bull by the horns as we have done in Pretoria. We are going to undertake the projects ourselves in the East Rand and possibly in the western side of Chatsworth, in Tongaat and possibly north of Durban and the west of Verulam.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills will understand—he has given us Latin phrases previously—there is a word “auxilium”. So we have a Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services and I want to tell him—time is too short in this debate—to study the functions of the Department of Budgetary and especially those of Auxiliary Services.

We are concerned. We always worry about the pupil-teacher ratio. In White education it is 18 to 1. We would like to see the day when the pupilteacher ratio in Indian schools is 18 to 1. But let us not only compare Indians and Whites. Are the Coloureds and Black children not human? Do we not want to see a reasonable pupil-teacher ratio average throughout the education fraternity, regardless of whether it is Black, Indian or White? [Interjections.] Let us not try to reach equality with the Whites. Why have we not had details in respect of the pupil-teacher ratio in Black schools this afternoon? It is very pathetic.

If the fiscus, the treasury and the country can afford additional money for education we would welcome it. Last Thursday the hon the Minister of Finance during his Vote in this House clearly informed the House of the efforts which our Minister’s Council is making to get additional funds not only for welfare services but also for the improvement of education.

As far as our Indian market is concerned, we must be consistent when we want to ask why we are spending money buying this and that garage site. If a speaker utters those words and if that speaker is consistent then he must not threaten the hon the Minister of Housing and tell him to buy a particular garage site because he represents a client, not as a member of Parliament, but as an attorney. One should be critical. If we want to criticise, let us be consistent in our criticisms.

I want to say to the hon member for Phoenix that I still say if we take the responsibility of providing services in our areas we will make the necessary improvement. In certain areas, however, we are not able to provide the necessary infrastructures because we are heavily dependent on the speed with which a general affairs department functions. The fault then cannot be ours. I shall deal with this matter, as I have stated, at greater length during the main appropriation. However, if we want to be critical, let us be consistent. There is a Latin phrase: Let us learn the cause of own affairs. However, ever since this administration has taken over the responsibility, it has not been possible to fault us. I want to reiterate what I said during the no-confidence debate and that is that a wrong is a wrong. We will never condone a wrong. We will never condone the actions of anyone who does wrong in an election. We will not condone anything that is wrong in our administration. However, let us not be vindictive, let us not be vengeful in our criticisms. Let us be positive and forget party politics. I do not think any hon member on the other side could with honesty and sincerity be critical of any hon Ministers on this side of the House. I can give the example of the hon member for South Natal. He has had severe problems in his constituency, but our administration did not look at his problems as those of an opposition party MP. We bent rules and went out of our way, to help looking at the problems of the people residing in his constituency and regarding them as human beings, relating to them as one human being to another. I therefore want to compliment my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget. I also want to compliment the hon the Minister of Education and Culture—he is going to speak later on—for the excellent role he has been playing in respect of finding jobs for our teachers. The problem is not ours. The problem lies in the fact that we have separate education in this country. There is an oversupply of qualified teachers in two departments, and a gross undersupply in another two departments, which are unwilling to employ qualified teachers to improve the quality of education in those respective departments.

Mr Chairman, I would like to draw the attention of hon members of this House to the fact that we have hon members on the other side of the House who are also deeply committed, as I and other hon members on this side of the House are. It surprises us most that when we have important Bills and debates such as this one, we do not get the kind of response one would expect. From my observation I note that there is only one hon member on the other side of the House who, although he is a Deputy Minister, still speaks from his heart. He still speaks from the heart on the aspirations of the people he represents.

I think there must be some conviction, and some deep sense of responsibility, among hon members who come from areas like mine, Chatsworth in particular, where the Indians face many problems. I refer to Health Services and Welfare, and during the hon the Minister’s speech during the discussion of the Part Appropriation on Thursday, I made some observations. The hon the Minister of the Budget informed this House that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is at the moment preparing a memorandum which deals with discrimination in the means test.

When I stood up here to ask the hon the Minister a question, he refused to answer any questions although he had a further 20 minutes to speak on that Vote. I would like to know from him, as the hon the Minister for Health Services and Welfare then, which is two years ago, what he was doing. Was he not aware of the fact that these deficiencies existed with regard to the means test, or has it been brought to his notice only now, now that he is the hon the Minister of the Budget? [Interjections.] What were they doing? Our call from this side of the House is a definite, positive call because of the ineffectiveness of the hon the Minister on the other side of the House.

I want to refer hon members to Vote no 4— Health Services and Welfare. It is with a full heart that I raise this matter, and I should like hon members such as the hon Chief Whip on the other side to deal with this and to tell me what he thinks about it.

The hon members for Allandale and Tongaat are, I think, people who come from the poor communities, where they have the same problems as I have. I want to read from Vote no 4— Health Services and Welfare. My hon friend here read the first part concerning the Phoenix community centre, but I go back to section 2, and I quote:

I should like to know what this is all about. What policy are they talking about? Are they trying to compare this type of policy with that of the Whites? There is such a disparity! One cannot compare the Health Services as far as the Blacks and the Indians are concerned. I am quite surprised that this policy was accepted without further ado.

You do not understand it.

It would appear from the latter part of the hon the Minister’s speech that by cutting down they are the good boys of the Government, at the expense of the poor disability grantees and pensioners.

[Inaudible].

I mentioned in this House that there are hundreds of people who collected disability grants in the past, for the last six years, but for some reason, when the House of Delegates took over social welfare and pensions, all of a sudden large numbers of people who had had disability grants, eventually found that they had been cut off. [Interjections.]

This clearly indicates that it is attitudes of this nature that result in hardship as far as my community is concerned. There has been no positive contribution from the other side in as far as these deficiencies are concerned. [Interjections.] What for? Are they quite happy to be part of the Government and to keep their mouths shut?

Where is your leader?

My leader has gone to do a job! [Interjections.] He is not sitting in this Chamber but has gone to do a job that will further the cause of those very people that we are fighting for. [Interjections.] That is what he has gone to do; he has gone to walk the streets of the world just to get more money to feed the Black community; the Whites have enough. Let us all admire him for his courageous attempt. Even in this present climate he is going out to talk to people and persuade them to invest more. [Interjections.]

These are the inefficiencies of the administrations that we highlight from time to time. We do not try to score points as an opposition, and when we raise issues of this nature we expect hon members opposite to receive this in the manner it is presented to them. However, a lot of speakers on the other side furnish answers which are irrelevant and even make us upset. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am being confused by other hon members … [Interjections.] I am unlike the other hon members who speak on behalf of others; I speak for myself. They support the votes and the Bills, but we speak from the heart, and I want to tell the hon the Minister that in fact he has failed; he must get out of his seat! He knows …

Who is confused?

I do not know whether he has visited the Verulam constituency ever since he became Minister of Health Services and Welfare to see what the welfare needs of the people in Verulam are. It is true that he did go during the recent floods in September …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is talking about the 0,4 reduction and very conveniently overlooking the 7,6% increase?

Yes, that is what I am going to deal with. They have made no provision … [Interjections.] There are aged people in all sections of life—in all departments. There are many people in the White and Indian sectors who are also aging, but no provision is being made for them. However, I do not wish to deal with the other issues; I shall deal with them from time to time. I want the hon the Minister to furnish a reply to this House—in doing so I want him to be true and sincere to himself—as to whether he has gone back to his own constituency to find out whether those people that suffered in the September floods, were helped or not. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in support of my colleague’s Bill concerning the Additional Appropriation, I have a few remarks to make to those hon members who addressed education. The hon member for Reservoir Hills talks about reemployment of teachers who were appointed on a locum tenens basis and re-appointed at the beginning of the next year. That is the normal way in which things are done in my department. If we require a teacher for a certain period, then that teacher is only employed for that period. If his or her services are required again, depending on the needs of our department, then that teacher may be put on a permanent basis from the beginning of the year. This is exactly what happened to the teacher that the hon member mentioned. He also mentioned that we appointed someone else, from outside our training department.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

The hon member will understand that we are constrained by time. If at the end of the period I have the time, I shall take that question. In a similar vein it was mentioned that we had appointed someone from outside our establishment. If we need anyone—from the University of Wits or any other university— because of our requirements, we will employ that teacher. That is the done thing and there was nothing irregular about that.

Mention was also made that we had a surplus of teachers last year. That is the truth of the matter. However, we did mention that we had problems as far as finance is concerned. Mention was also made in great detail that the finance generated for the various education departments dependents on a formula, albeit the formula has not been put into use or operation to the letter. I wish to repeat that last year we did ask for a moratorium as far as the House of Delegates is concerned in respect of the application of the formula. In keeping with the present economic situation and the request by the hon the State President we are trying to force the rate of inflation down.

The same hon member also made mention of the pupil-teacher ratio. This ratio is indeed a little higher than that of White education, namely 18:1. Cognisance must be taken of the fact that certain other ratios have not been taken into account, such as 1:1. I can give an example as I did last year. At times we have one teacher for one pupil, especially in the higher standards and particularly in the case where a child may be writing an exam in music or any other subject. Overall that is why we have this average. However, 39:1 is the exception and not the rule.

Mention was also made that 93% was based on wrong information given as far as the pass mark for the matriculation examination was concerned. The truth of the matter is that we did have a 93% pass. [Interjections.] With regard to what my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister had to say about pre-primary education. I would be the first person to adopt the policy of having preprimary classes with particular reference to bridging modules as an ideal in every school.

However, I also want to inform him that he must bear in mind that in the difficult circumstances under which we are operating, we have to take the depressed areas into account. More specifically, I want him to consider whether Ladysmith is more depressed than Glencoe or vice versa, and whether those pupils who come from these areas experience necessitous circumstances. Those are the factors that are taken into account. I should have expected by hon colleague rather to have complimented us on the fact that we restored those schools that were affected by the floods to a state of normality within the shortest possible period of time. Unfortunately, they have been affected once again, but they were put back into operation within a very short space of time. [Interjections.]

I am aware that I am constrained by time, but I should also like to touch on an article which relates to education and which appeared in the Extra section of the Sunday Times a week ago reads: “Transvaal MPs confront Minister Ramduth”. I want to say that it is absolutely erroneous in stating the following:

I want to say with respect that there was no confrontation, but rather consultation. [Interjections.] There was consultation, and I wish to correct that erroneous impression.

Firstly, all the Transvaal MPs consulted me. [Interjections.] I stress that there was no confrontation, but rather consultation with the MPs in the Transvaal, and that applies not only to the Muslim MPs but to all of them.

Secondly, whilst I am in agreement on the principle that schools may close at 12h15 or thereafter on Fridays with the proviso that there is no reduction in the overall school time, hon members must bear in mind that this will be done in consultation with the principal, the education committee and the parents, in keeping with the democratic principle.

Thirdly, this will necessitate a change to the existing handbook of regulations, and this cannot simply be done overnight. However, if schools comply with all the requirements as outlined, then this will be regarded as a third option to the two others already provided for by the administration earlier on. I feel sure that this will satisfy the community in the Transvaal.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start off by broaching the subject raised by my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister with regard to Ladysmith. He will be very pleased to learn that at 11 o’ clock on this coming Thursday morning I shall be accompanied by the Administrator of Natal together with Mr Visser, who is the chairman of the Flood Disaster Fund, on a visit to the Ladysmith area to investigate the possibility of declaring it a flood disaster area. On our return we shall have to report to the chairman, who will then submit his report to the hon the State President. If that comes about—which I feel confident it will—the community will certainly be assisted.

Mr Chairman, whilst I appreciate the announcement which the hon the Minister has just made, may I ask him whether, in view of the fact that Ladysmith has been subjected to floods four times in a single year, there should not be an understanding with regard to this particular situation so that this area could be declared a disaster area without any prior investigation?

What is happening, is that a committee has now been established to investigate two possibilities. One of these is the building of a dam near the catchment area and the other is to clear the area completely. This report will be forthcoming. A committee has been appointed under the Chairmanship of Mr P D McEnery. I think this is something we have to do. [Interjections.]

In consultation with the people?

Yes, of course.

Mr Chairman, I am happy to learn from my hon colleague that he will be going on Thursday. This is news to me. I would like to know from the hon the Minister if, when an arrangement of this nature is made, members of Parliament of that area are invited to join this type of investigation?

Mr Chairman, for the benefit of my colleague: The committee is not appointed by the Ministers’ Council, but emanates from the hon the State President’s flood disaster committee. Negotiations are taking place with the local authority. I thought we would have met later today. Unfortunately I can not invite an MP, because the Administrator is in charge of this.

I continue with other issues which were raised by my hon colleague. With regard to the question of the cancellation of grants and whether this will be paid back retrospectively, I have certainly taken note of this. Hon members can be assured, and I am sure they are aware, that when reviews are done, these are paid back retrospectively.

I have spoken to a colleague who was to speak this afternoon, but unfortunately cannot do so, regarding the Lenasia South Hospital. I want to say to the hon member for Lenasia Central that the chief director of my department and the Director of Health Services were in the Transvaal last Thursday. They are presently negotiating with the Transvaal Provincial Administration on the issue of the Lenasia South Hospital. It is a question of funds. I am aware of the problems in that part of the country, but hon members can rest assured that we from our side are doing our level best.

The hon member for Havenside is not here. Unfortunately, it appears that there are some communication problems in that particular party. We have a study group and we met just a week ago. Hon members who attended this will verify it. The hon members for Bayview and Phoenix are members of that study group. They will perhaps appreciate that during our study group discussions we play open cards because I do not believe in hiding anything at all. I have a document here which I presented to that study group. Hon members can have copies of this. It is an open document. There is nothing for me to hide because the representatives of Solidarity are fully aware of the problems we have. I can give hon members a copy of this document. It clearly indicates our deep concern about disparity. We are also concerned about the various cancellations. We are concerned and the matter is being taken up at a very high level. Individual cases are brought to my attention and these are also taken care of by me personally.

However, I just want to say something. It is very easy to come along and just expect my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, to provide parity tomorrow morning. I think all of us would like to see this happening. However, one must look at the aspect of the actual cost. The financial implication just for pensions and so forth, is about R5 million per annum. When we look at the other disparities where we are trying to reach parity with regard to the envisaged increase for 1988-89, we are looking at something like R13 million and the figure for the next three years is about R29 million. So we are really looking at pounds, shillings and pence.

But we must measure that against human suffering.

No, we are concerned about it and we are looking at particular cases.

The other aspect about which one is perhaps particularly concerned—and I am very much concerned, my study group representing the entire House are well aware of this—is the aspect of cancellations. We have the figures; we know about this. Unfortunately, I am in no position to challenge professional reports. These are drawn up by a panel of doctors. When they come to us, unfortunately, whether we like it or not, it is not my function to challenge them.

[Inaudible.]

No, this is a fact. It is quite true. The family doctor perhaps issues a report to declare one unfit. This goes along to a district surgeon who gives another report and the panel gives one yet another report. They claim that it falls within their professional field; that it is done in a very scientific manner. Unfortunately, I do not have the power to go against the panel. However, if the hon member for Havenside consults with his party members, he will become well aware of the figures of disparity. This is an open secret. I am taking care of this together with the Ministers’ Council.

Order! I regret to inform the hon the Minister that the time for this debate has expired. The hon the Minister of the Budget will now reply.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank hon members for their participation in this debate and the contributions that they made. I would like to thank my colleague the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council for replying to some of the points raised in the debate.

I want to refer very briefly to the points made by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He raised the issue of the extended parliamentary session last year and the unnecessary expenditure as a result of this. In previous years the second session that followed a general election was usually a normal affair and of short duration. In 1987 a fairly lengthy and substantial session developed. This was an unexpected an expensive turn of events.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills also referred to the Additional Appropriation Bill. I want to answer him by informing him and the House that many appropriations had already been finalized before the election date became known. I am sure the hon member knows how the budget cycle works and I believe he will accept my explanation.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Reservoir Hills in regard to the figures that he supplied concerning the number of school children in every class in relation to the different population groups. We must not make too much play of the issue of the educational requirements of all the population groups in the country. Both capital and current expenditure are taken into consideration when grants for education are determined according to formulae applied by the Department of National Education and agreed to each year by the Ministers concerned with education. Naturally these hon Ministers would all like to have more money and the present educational Vote is an augmentation that we were able to secure.

I am not quite clear from where the hon member for Reservoir Hills got his information concerning the numbers of pupils in the class rooms. The figures available to me for the year 1987-88 are as follows: The ratio for the Indian population group of pupils to teachers is 25:1. For the Coloured population it is 33:1 and for the Black population in the self-governing states it is 71:1.

Shame!

For the Black population in the RSA it is 43:1.

That is bad.

This averages 57:1. I am happy to note that the hon member Mr S Abram endorses that this is bad. The State and all the Ministers concerned with education are interested in improving the situation.

Closing gaps is high on the Government’s list of priorities, but the figures speak for themselves as to where the need is the greatest. That is where my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, the hon the National Minister of Education and the other hon Ministers of Education and Culture in the other Houses are putting in their effort to see that the service goes where the need is the greatest.

I now want to refer to the hon member for Havenside. I believe this particular hon member of this House indulges in rhetoric, emotions and sentiments without realising the consequences of his folly. By his own admission he seems to be a very confused man.

There is this natural phenomenon—and no one can get away from it—that when pensions are paid to a certain category of people they are old age pensions. Naturally that is what one expects in that category of programme. Therefore when the hon member for Havenside makes so much play of the percentages I have given in my speech, he very conveniently forgets the increase of 7,6% which was unexpected and for which we had to make provision.

I want to tell the hon member for Havenside— and for the general information of this House— the agreed policy which I talked about in my speech relates to the eventual target for all the population groups, namely parity of social pensions. Parity of rates is one leg of the deal and parity of percentage of population which receives social benefits is the other.

Why the second leg? I cannot understand that.

They are interrelated. The one is the deal in relation to parity and the other is percentage of population.

The second one is based purely on race.

No, Mr Chairman. It comes down to the figure of one, the policy of one. I agree that one cannot have both.

Separate but equal.

I agree, I am not at variance with the hon member nor do I disagree with him, but I am saying that these are true factors that one needs to have in a policy, a policy that one projects. But I agree that we cannot have both.

However, theory and practice are hard to reconcile. The target for Indians in respect of percentages was that in 1987-88 the total should have shrunk by 0,4%. But as I said earlier the facts of demography confounded the theorists, hence the numbers went up by 7,6%. It is all very well for the hon member for Havenside to point a finger at this side of the House and particularly at me when I had the portfolio of Health Services and Welfare. However, I would suggest to the hon member for Havenside that he reads what I have had to say in Hansard.

When one works within the Government requirements there are certain norms that have to be adhered to and in the process what I had started as the Minister at the time, my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is continuing. He is doing so with the assistance of members in that standing committee which is partly comprised of members of the study group, as it were, of the Opposition.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister a question. We have been in this House for four years running. We have been sitting here for a long, long time. The submission by the hon the Minister on Thursday really had me guessing because I did not know whether he knew what he was talking about, or whether it was in fact the truth or whether he was trying to deceive us. He himself mentioned that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare was preparing a memorandum. After four years he is still preparing a memorandum! What has he been doing for the past two years when he was himself the Minister? Did he take the initiative in preparing the memorandum? [Interjections.]

Is that a speech or a question? The hon member for Havenside is really confused, confounded, and does not comprehend. I said this was a continuation of what had been started. How conveniently the hon member for Havenside forgets that over the past three years we have brought about parity in relation to the allowances each year.

He just wants to create an impression.

I think the hon member for Havenside is more concerned because I believe he should be looking at his book every day to seehow much his pension will be at the end of his term. He will be losing out on his job. [Interjections.]

You came back to Parliament …

You are the one that looks at the books every morning.

I want to thank again to all those who participated in this debate. I think the factors that have influenced the Additional Appropriation have been properly motivated in the memorandum that has been presented to hon members in this House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.