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

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, before I actually commence with my speech, I am sure you will permit me to convey to hon members the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s apology for his absence.

†He has indicated to me that he is not able to be present here this afternoon. Hon members will know that there has been a change in the schedule regarding this debate. He had a prior engagement in the Transvaal and will only be back tomorrow. [Interjections.]

*ECONOMIC BACKGROUND

Mr Chairman, I should briefly like to sketch the background against which this budget has been drawn up.

The national Budget which the hon the Minister of Finance introduced in Parliament yesterday aims at the short-term consolidation of the good performance of the South African economy in recent years. By now implementing financial discipline we must ensure that we do not again forfeit all the positive achievements of the past few years owing to overspending, high inflation and further balance of payments crises.

The Appropriation for the Administration: House of Assembly, which I shall presently present to the House, has the same aim, which in every respect augments what the hon the Minister of Finance said yesterday. For the sake of a sound national economic policy, we simply must apply strict discipline in regard to the expenditure of all Government bodies.

It is also in this light that the Administration: House of Assembly approached its budget.

Review: Appropriation 1988-89

In my humble opinion, during the 1988-89 financial year the Administration: House of Assembly has been extremely successful, within its financial capabilities, in furnishing an exceptionally effective service. As was clearly apparent from the Additional Appropriation, which has already been submitted, by implementing and maintaining strict financial discipline the Administration: House of Assembly has achieved positive results.

The mere fact that an additional request for only R318,475 million, or 5,4%, could be submitted, attests to strict administrative and fiscal discipline which, of necessity, has had to be implemented and maintained throughout by all my colleagues and their officials.

What actually makes this slight increase remarkable, however, is the fact that it includes new services which were transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly—R23,901 million—in the course of the financial year and which, in reality, involve merely a reallocation of funds, as well as the allocation for the improvement of conditions of service—R118,987 million. If these items are not taken into account, and if it is also borne in mind that we were able to finance R119,511 million of this from our own funds, the increase is a mere 0,9%, which in my opinion attests to extremely effective discipline.

In spite of this very slight demand, at the end of the 1988-89 financial year the Administration: House of Assembly nevertheless expects to close its revenue accounts with a surplus of approximately R100 million for transfer to the 1989-90 financial year.

For excellent performance in this financial year, which has virtually wound to a close, I should like to thank my staff, colleagues and everyone who assisted them in achieving this.

INTRODUCTION TO THE MAIN APPROPRIATION

At present the Administration: House of Assembly is entering its fifth year and, in spite of the predictions of prophets of doom, we are a successful administration confidently striding ahead to meet future challenges. [Interjections.]

We have not nearly reached our final goal yet as far as the transfer of new services and functions to this administration is concerned. Here I am thinking, in particular, of specific local government functions, hospitals, further public resorts and museums which are still to be transferred to this administration in the course of the financial year under discussion. This is clear proof that positive progress is still being made when it comes to augmenting own affairs.

Nothing can more clearly illustrate the growth of the Administration: House of Assembly than the fact that we have progressed from a budgetary allocation of R2 350 million in the 1985-86 financial year to the present amount of R6 615 million that has been requested. This is an overall increase of 181% or more than 36% per annum.

Since we are proud of the growth we have evidenced, let me also hasten to add that as far as we are concerned, growth is not an end in itself, and I should like to point out that this growth can largely be attributed to the transfer of services and functions which were previously vested elsewhere and which were financed under other Votes. They therefore do not form a new charge against the Exchequer or the taxpayer.

Although the Administration: House of Assembly is still in its developmental phase at present, it could nevertheless also contribute its share to the staff stand-still measures, which came into operation on 1 December 1987, and has succeeded in abolishing 409 posts up to 1 April 1988.

In regard to existing functions, 340 posts were created during the period 1 April 1988 to 31 January 1989, while 355 posts were abolished during the same period. What is more, a total of 22 posts were created for services which were taken over from, inter alia, the provincial administrations.

Bearing in mind all the staff changes during the period under discussion, the net result is that the overall establishment has had to be augmented by a mere seven posts. I want to add that there are more than 87 000 people in the administration. That it has only been necessary to augment the establishment by seven posts can be regarded as an exceptional achievement.

Since my appointment as Minister of the Budget and Works I have become fully aware of the important responsibility I have in regard to the maintenance and consolidation of financial discipline and control in the Administration: House of Assembly. It remains a high priority, with the augmentation of an own affairs administration, to guard against unnecessary duplication and overlapping. Functions and services must consistently be subjected to the test of necessity and efficiency.

From the outset I have therefore made it my main priority to promote sound financial administration. I am satisfied that the Administration: House of Assembly’s financial discipline is being implemented on an effective basis at present, despite limited resources. This is being done, inter alia, by making use of a prescribed inspection programme by means of which heads of department and their administrations can be kept abreast of the position with regard to financial administration on a quarterly basis.

Any anomalies or non-compliance with provisions are immediately reported, and where necessary extremely stern action is taken. Training in financial management is also given to the relevant officers where necessary. In spite of this, it is still a cause for concern to us that we cannot recruit sufficient suitable financial staff in competition with the private sector, but rest assured, Sir, that it remains our earnest endeavour to solve this problem.

What is more, as far as it is possible for the Administration: House of Assembly to do so, for the purposes of the Auditor-General’s annual report all return dates are adhered to and the co-operation of the various bodies furnishing agency services has been obtained up to the very highest level. That is an achievement, particularly if one notes that the Auditor-General requires no fewer than 450 annual statements from us in comparison with other Government departments which each have to present only approximately 56 annual statements.

As further proof of the seriousness with which the Administration: House of Assembly regards financial control measures, the Ministers’ Council welcomed the fact that performance auditing would be undertaken within the administration when it was presented with this possibility.

For us it is also a matter of pride that we are one of the first departments undertaking this exercise, and we give the Auditor-General our full co-operation, and the staff are also co-operating wonderfully in carrying our administration to new heights of efficiency.

Performance auditing, or “prestasie-ouditering”, must be seen as an independent auditing process carried out to evaluate and report on measures aimed at advancing the economy and the effective employment of resources.

Specifically because of the scope of the budget of the Administration: House of Assembly, performance auditing is welcomed by all concerned, since it embodies, inter alia, the following benefits:

• — improved public accountability
• — elimination of inefficiencies and wastage
• — enhancement of policy, procedures and structures and
• — creation of mechanisms for evaluating the measurement of achievement.

In short, it forces us to make the most efficient and economical use of State funds, something which is also in the taxpayer’s interest.

It is also a pleasure for me to announce that the Treasury component of the Administration: House of Assembly has been augmented further to give it directorate status. This ought to consolidate financial control even further. It is therefore also a pleasure for me to welcome Mr A J J Fourie from the Department of Finance to the post of Director: Treasury in our department.

†ESTIMATE OF EXPENDITURE

For the 1989-90 financial year the Administration: House of Assembly requires an amount of R6 615,028 million. This represents an increase of R360 million or 5,7% compared to the revised amount for the 1988-89 financial year; or R678 million or 11,4% compared to the original estimates.

The particulars of the estimated amount of R6 615,028 million are contained in the printed estimates tabled today. There are, however, a few aspects in respect of the various Votes to which I wish to refer.

CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

An amount of R3,597 million is requested for the financing of expenditure under this Vote. This represents an increase of R2,248 million as compared to the previous financial year.

R1,798 million of the increased amount was transferred from Vote 5: Budgetary and Auxiliary Services to provide for Ministerial Representatives. The functions of these representatives cover the activities of all the departments within the Administration: House of Assembly and provision for this service can more suitably be accommodated under this Vote. The balance of the increase can be ascribed mainly to the carry-over effect of the cost of improved service conditions as well as the escalation of normal running costs.

AGRICULTURE AND WATER SUPPLY

An amount of R696,594 million is required for this Vote.

I would like now briefly to refer to the agricultural situation in South Africa in general.

As we all know the disastrous drought situation in some parts of the country during the past few years as well as flood damage in Natal, the Free State and the Northern Cape at the end of 1987 and early 1988, dealt a severe blow to agriculture. The farming community faced sequestration on an unprecedented scale.

To counteract this situation, the Government took exceptional steps to give financial aid to the farmers. During the 1987-88 and 1988-89 financial years the Government made the most generous financial contributions ever, namely R1 327 million, to assist stricken farmers.

This assistance was aimed mainly at alleviating farmers’ short-term cash flow problems. In its investigation into the restructuring of agriculture, the State President’s Economic Advisory Council did, however, emphasise the importance of structural changes in the long term.

One of the strategies to achieve this aim is the so-called Land Conversion Scheme, in terms of which the Government provides financing to convert low-potential croplands into permanent stock grazings in the summer rainfall cropping areas. This is expected to reduce the maize areas—of which there is a surplus production at present—and to relieve the pressure on the already overstocked veld grazing. This multipurpose strategy, which will promote greater variation and a smaller farming risk, was well supported during the first year. Applications for conversion covered 125 000 ha. An in-depth investigation is also being undertaken to analyse the position of farmers in the Western and Southern Cape and to make recommendations also in this regard.

A second long-term strategy that is progressing successfully, is the Grazing Strategy. The purpose of this strategy is to introduce, in a coordinated and programmed manner, all the possible prescribed and supporting measures so as to utilize natural grazing of South Africa to the maximum and to preserve it for posterity. Climatic conditions in the summer rainfall areas improved considerably during the second half of 1988 and at least 80% of the grazing is at present in a better condition than before. This gives momentum to the achievement of the objectives of the Grazing Strategy.

Other matters that currently receive the urgent attention of the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, and which he will attend to during later debates, are the following:

1. (a) Extension of the agriculture servicing structure
   Adjustments to the servicing structure of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply are currently under consideration. Investigations are also being undertaken on the commodity extension and advisory services for the purpose of structuring these services in such a way that research findings become available to the agricultural producer sooner and more effectively. Findings will be implemented according to the needs of the individual farmer, taking into account his resources and financial position.
2. (b) Financial assistance to farmers
   To bring assistance to the agricultural sector more into line with financing by means of sources other than the State, privatisation of this assistance is at present being investigated, and the Land Bank, among others, will play a more prominent role in obtaining loan capital from the private sector so as to relieve the burden on the Exchequer. However, the State will still, as in the past, grant assistance by way of special assistance schemes to certain branches of the industry or in cases of disasters such as floods and droughts.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE

The amount of R4 392,681 million requested in the estimates of expenditure for 1989-90 reflects an increase of R642,077 million in comparison to the amount of R3 750,604 million which was appropriated for the 1988-89 financial year.

The increase on the Education Vote can be ascribed mainly to the carry-over of the cost of improvement of service conditions of teachers with effect from 1 December 1988 and the general salary increase of 15% with effect from 1 January 1989. An amount of R552,364 million has been included for this purpose.

The amount of R4 392,681 million does not, however, represent the total amount requested in the estimate for Education and Culture. The total amount required for Education and Culture is R5 100,152 million. The proposed appropriation of these funds is explained in the informative Schedule G to Vote 3. This schedule is included in the printed estimates tabled today. As will be noticed, for example, the amounts in respect of capital services (R172 million), contributions to pension funds (R490,5 million) and contributions to medical aid funds (R43 million) are provided for on other Votes.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND WORKS

The requirements of this Vote amount to R305,588 million for the 1989-90 financial year.

The increase of R11,2 million in comparison with the appropriation for 1988-89 can be attributed mainly to the increase on the Programme: Development and Housing Aid. The increase is reflected in the additional funds which are required in order to continue the interest subsidy scheme for first home-owners in its existing form. At present there are 16 630 participants in the scheme and it is anticipated that this number will increase to 17 300 by 1 April 1989.

The functions attached to own affairs local government matters are to be transferred from the various provincial administrations to the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works with effect from 1 April 1989. The most important of these functions are: township establishment; land usage; matters relating to capital development funds; and land trust funds which will further extend the activities of this department.

The transfer of these functions is coupled with the transfer of funds, posts, personnel and other means, but will not result in an immediate additional expenditure for the Administration: House of Assembly.

The decision by the Ministers’ Council last year not to proceed with the erection of a modern head office complex in Pretoria to house all the departments of the Administration: House of Assembly is already a well-known fact. With this in view it is perhaps appropriate to focus on policy as it affects the accommodation of the Administration: House of Assembly.

The Ministers’ Council decided in 1988, in view of economic considerations and constraints, not to build a new head office complex, but instead to concentrate wherever possible most of the various elements of the Administration within the precincts of Church Square, the “Ou Raadsaal” and the nearby Church Street West in Pretoria. The reasons for this include (a) the fact that Church Square has always enjoyed pre-eminence as a seat of government, centring around the Old Council Chamber or “Ou Raadsaal”; (b) we want to allow and encourage the utilisation of culturally significant and historic buildings, and thus to make a contribution to conservation and urban renewal on the western side of Church Square (West Facade) and Church Street West; and (c) a significant number of elements of the Administration: House of Assembly are already located in this area in their own or rented premises.

These factors encouraged the Ministers’ Council to acquire the three historic buildings known as the “West Facade” on Church Square. The buildings, namely the Old Law Chambers, the Café Riche and the Netherlands Bank are at present being carefully restored and will soon be transferred to the Administration. Upstairs the building will house, inter alia, two Ministries of the Ministers’ Council, namely the Ministry of Health Services and Welfare and the Ministry of Local Government and Housing as well as the office of the Ministerial Representative for the region.

The most sensitive planning possible is being done in order to restore these buildings to their original condition for the benefit of the people of Pretoria and the public benefit of the country as a whole. Church Square is a national asset that we will preserve and protect at all times.

Similarly, as was announced in Parliament recently, the Administration: House of Assembly has acquired the National Mutual Building on Church Square in Cape Town for use by the National Cultural History Museum, thereby again killing two birds with one stone, ie saving an important landmark building and solving longstanding accommodation problems for the museum.

In short, our policy is one of acquiring and arranging suitable affordable accommodation with the co-operation and on behalf of the departments concerned on the most cost-effective basis possible, having regard to the overall needs and resources of the Administration.

BUDGETARY AND AUXILIARY SERVICES

The Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services is, as its name indicates, a department which renders services of a staff nature to the other departments within the Administration: House of Assembly in order to help them perform their duties.

These functions are determined by and stem from the Public Service Act insofar as personnel services are concerned, and the Exchequer and Audit Act as far as financial matters are concerned.

In order to achieve these goals an amount of R28,076 million will be required for the 1989-90 financial year. The increase of R6,341 million against the 1988-89 estimate is ascribed mainly to the general salary adjustment with effect from 1 January 1989, occupational improvements, essential expansion and the escalation of normal running costs.

As already mentioned, the provision of funds for the Ministerial Representatives has been transferred from this Vote to the Vote of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, which has accordingly resulted in an increase in the latter Vote.

PUBLIC RESORTS

Responsibility for the Transvaal Ordinance on Public Resorts, 1969, will in future be vested in the Minister of the Budget and Works. Items for assistance in respect of capital expenditure for public resorts have therefore been created on this Vote. A nominal provision of only R2 000 is made for the 1989-90 financial year and will be adjusted as necessity may dictate.

The present position with regard to public resorts is that the Transvaal resorts have been transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly, and the resorts of the Orange Free State and Cape Provincial Administrations are presently in the process of being transferred.

The Transvaal resorts are managed by a statutory board, namely the Transvaal Board for Public Resorts. It is the intention to augment the powers of the board in such a way that the board should also be responsible for the management of those resorts in the other provinces that will be transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly. This will take place in co-operation with all of the parties involved and will include a renaming of the board and a broadening of its representation.

The resorts, especially those in Transvaal, have a very interesting history if one thinks that the mineral spring in Warmbaths was purchased by President Burgers in 1873 in order to erect a sanatorium for “the suffering public”. In 1915 “Het Bad”, as it was then known, was placed under the control of the Transvaal Provincial Administration, and I quote, “om dit te hou as ’n plek van openbare ontspanning en vermaak”. President Kruger also gave Badplaas, previously known as Komati Bad, to the people of the Eastern Transvaal as, and I quote, a “gesondheidsoord vir die ewigdurende gebruik en genot”.

The Ministers’ Council has great understanding for the traditional pattern of usage that has established itself over many decades and it intends maintaining that tradition.

Spending a weekend or longer at these resorts has over years and generations become a family tradition and has grown in popularity to such an extent that these resorts are almost all fully booked, especially during peak holiday periods.

These resorts have not been regarded exclusively as business enterprises, but have rather become an essential service which is rendered to ordinary members of the public who prefer an inland resort, for those who cannot afford the cost or time travelling long distances and those who cannot afford the expense of a sea-side holiday.

As far as privatisation of these resorts or aspects of their activities is concerned, the Transvaal Board for Public Resorts has appointed private consultants to investigate this possibility. The Ministers’ Council has also initiated an investigation into the feasibility of privatisation of these resorts or aspects of their activities.

I wish to state categorically that privatisation of these resorts, if considered at all, will be considered with great circumspection selectively and with due regard to all of the factors that I have mentioned.

*IMPROVEMENT OF CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

This Vote evidences a decrease of R38,511 million for the 1989-90 financial year. Provision for expenditure under this Vote is identified by the Commission for Administration, and in the aforementioned financial year, after the increases which already commenced on 1 January 1989, an additional amount of only R7,044 million was identified.

WELFARE

For this Vote an amount of R1 019,214 million is needed for the 1989-90 financial year. This is an increase of R150,142 million or 17,3% as against the provision for the 1988-89 financial year.

The increase in the amount requested can chiefly be ascribed to the increase in social pensions and allowances with effect from 1 January 1989 which has a carry-through effect of R87 million over a full financial year.

In spite of considerable other obligations, the Government decided that relief for those suffering most severely under the present tight financial conditions, ie the social pensioners, could no longer be postponed. Once more this proves the Government’s sympathetic attitude towards the less-privileged citizens of the country.

An amount of R33,6 million was also included for the carry-through costs for the improvement of conditions of service, and a further amount of R16 million is needed for the adjustment of subsidies and the subsidising of new welfare projects.

HEALTH SERVICES

The amount required for this Vote is R162,234 million for the 1989-90 financial year. The increase in the requested amount, as against that of the previous financial year, can chiefly be ascribed to the transfer of own affairs hospitals from the Cape Provincial Administration—R47 million—the transfer of pharmaceutical services from the Transvaal, Cape and Orange Free State—R6 million—and the carry-through costs for the improvement of conditions of service—R15 million.

As far as the transfer of own affairs hospitals is concerned, on 1 April 1989 four hospitals are being transferred from the Cape Provincial Administration to the Administration: House of Assembly. Provision could not be made in the 1989-90 appropriation for the 40 hospitals being transferred from the other provinces on 1 April 1989 since negotiations about the suspension of funds at the provincial administrations could not be finalised in time. This aspect will be dealt with during the Additional Appropriation for the 1989-90 financial year.

ESTIMATE OF REVENUE

It is estimated that an amount of R115 million will be generated from our own sources. In addition a supplementary amount of R6 392,984 million will be available in terms of section 84 of the Constitution, plus the amount of R7,044 million from the Vote: Improvement of Conditions of Service, for the financing of expenditure from the Revenue Account: House of Assembly.

The balance of R100 million, which is necessary to finance the overall expenditure of R6 615,028 million for the 1989-90 financial year, will be made good from the surplus funds in the Revenue Account: House of Assembly. Total revenue is consequently estimated at R6 615,028.

FORMULA FINANCING

In view of the expectation that formula financing, for which provision is made in section 84 of the Constitution, would already have been implemented at this stage, I indicated in my Additional Appropriation speech that more particulars about this would be given during this budgetary discussion.

As I have previously explained to hon members, specific problems are still being experienced with the implementation of this method of financing. In order to obviate these problems, specific proposals were made to serve as alternatives for formulae financing. These proposals have already been approved by the Public Finance Branch of the Department of Finance, and in due course we expect Cabinet approval which will enable us to announce the relevant details and to implement these proposals.

CONCLUSION

I should now like to thank Mr F W de Klerk, Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, for his brilliant leadership and support during the past year. I also thank my colleagues, the Director-General, Mr Wessels Meyer, and my department head, Mr Koos Snyman, and the officials. For everyone in the Administration: House of Assembly who contributed towards making this Budget possible, I extend my sincere thanks. I realise that thorough planning and many sacrifices were needed to enable them to satisfy their essential needs within the guidelines laid down. Everyone helped, and even made a considerable contribution, towards relieving the prevailing pressure on the Exchequer.

It is now my privilege to present to the House, for its consideration, the fifth Main Appropriation of the Administration: House of Assembly.

Today I have also had a brochure placed on hon members’ desks, a brochure setting out the services furnished by the respective departments of the Administration: House of Assembly. I trust that hon members will be able to use it as a handy reference document relating to the activities of this Administration.

TABLING

I now lay upon the Table:

1. (1) Estimate of Revenue and Estimate of Expenditure of the Administration: House of Assembly for the financial year ending 31 March 1990 [RP 6—89].
2. (2) Memorandum on the Estimates, 1989-90, of the Administration: House of Assembly.
3. (3) Comparative figures of Revenue for 1988-89 and 1989-90.

Mr Chairman, after listening attentively to the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works, I want to say that I have come to the conclusion that of all the organisations which exist in this country the NP is probably the one least worthy of belief.

The hon the Minister initially sketched an image of efficiency and vigour to us here and how the Administration: Own Affairs was being developed. More than one Minister of the Budget has made promises to us and this hon Minister did so too. We were told that formula financing would already have been implemented but now the hon the Minister comes and says no, it is too difficult and they are considering alternatives. This is typical of them. One cannot believe a word of what they say.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council promised more than a year ago that own affairs would be better defined and developed. South Africa and the CP in particular look forward to this gigantic development of own affairs. What have we heard here in the budget speech? Almost nothing. Almost nothing about the development of own affairs. What is more, this Budget itself confirms that the Government affords own affairs no priority because the general budget grew by 15% while this Budget grew by 5,7%.

That is where the Government’s priority lies. There is no priority discernible regarding these affairs because, if the development of own affairs is estimated in real terms, it becomes negative. It retrogresses!

The stories which the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply tell of their sympathies which lie with farmers should to my mind no longer be told because they are now becoming the biggest joke in South Africa. [Interjections.] The fact that the hon the Minister’s sympathy lies with farmers is really the biggest joke and he must really not try to assist the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation at Moorreesburg because he is making a flop of the whole affair. He had better stay away from there.

I think I should give you a hand at Lichtenburg.

If the hon the Minister wants to do me a favour, he must stay as far as possible from Lichtenburg. He can come to talk politics there but, when he walks across a land, the maize dies. That is why we do not want him to set foot there. [Interjections.]

While we have been saddled with these problems over all these years, this budget decreases by more than 20% as regards agriculture and that is agricultural financing! There is not a single Vote of significance. By how much is housing to rise? It will probably rise by 3%. This has not been accorded any priority. I think that this debate is one of the debates in which we will be able to disclose why no person in South Africa and the world can trust this Government any longer. There is so much material in this Budget which may be used in this debate that it compels me to move:

Agreed to.

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

1. (a) muzzle the free press in South Africa;
2. (b) suspend and/or close down publication of newspapers and periodicals opposed to it; and
3. (c) harass, restrict and detain journalists doing their jobs.

In essence, while reaffirming this House’s commitment to the right of the public to be fully informed on the events occurring in the Republic from time to time, and particularly as an essential part of the democratic process, the motion seeks to condemn the Government’s use of arbitrary executive powers to muzzle the free Press in South Africa; to suspend and/or close down the publication of newspapers and periodicals which are opposed to it and also to harass and detain journalists who are doing their jobs.

There is no doubt in my mind that a free and enquiring press forms part of the very foundations of democracy. Allow me to illustrate my point. Several years ago a massive power failure occurred in New York City. The lights went out and the lights stayed out for several days. Normal lives were disrupted, communications were hampered, transport services faltered and at night it was unpleasantly dark.

Now this was no doubt no hardship to lovers—but those few days and nights were to become a long-remembered nightmare for most Manhattan residents.

What happened during that period? Crime quadrupled. The looting of darkened shops, the destruction of public facilities, assaults and robberies proliferated. Virtually the entire city was gripped in a wave of theft, violence and destruction. When the lights went back on again some four of five days later, the crime rate dropped dramatically and instantaneously.

To illustrate the point further, much is often made of the high level of violence which is experienced in the Black townships of South Africa, though not too many observers notice that the crime figures in townships which are not served by electricity are considerably higher than they are in built-up localities which have electricity.

The trouble with the PFP is that the lights went out with … [Interjections.]

That hon member walked away from the light and has been in the darkness for at least ten years. [Interjections.]

From all this even an untrained observer can draw at least two correct conclusions. Firstly, that in ideal conditions of darkness, of secrecy and security from discovery, those whose trade it is to perpetrate evil can thrive unchecked. Secondly, that under those same conditions many people, otherwise law-abiding, will perversely do things and commit acts which they would never contemplate if they thought that they would ever be found out.

These unpleasant yet basic realities are not confined only to crime and violence. They transport themselves into many spheres of life, into business transactions, into financial dealings and most particularly into the conduct of public life. It is in this respect that the Press and the media are the steetlights of society, that is, if the Press is free.

In a society in which a free Press is not allowed to operate, virtually no form of democracy can survive. In a society in which only “officially sanctioned facts” may be disseminated, politicians, bureaucrats, policemen and soldiers will govern without any checks or balances, largely to the advantage of themselves and not to the advantage of the majority they govern.

To take the point out of the political sphere—it is the threat of public exposure which plays a real role in discouraging large corporations from exploiting consumers who have little other means of protection. The Press therefore should be, and is in most Western countries, the watchdog, the guardian of the rights of the individual.

In any society, in any government structure which labels itself democratic, a Press independent of that structure is essential if that structure is to retain and practise any of the elements of democracy.

A free Press is not limited to the “street light” function only. Particularly in the context of South Africa it has another equally vital function to perform. This is its informative and educative function. This is the role, which in its own context is essential in promoting a society which is dynamic, capable of adaptation and/or reform in a rapidly changing circumstance, able to survive in the face of hostility and a society equipped to effect reconciliation on issues and lifestyles.

Political people to the left of the Government are often criticised by the Government for arguing the case of the right of the public to be informed. Yet this argument has a sound base. Several serious major consequences flow if that right is inhibited.

Accepting that whatever Western-oriented government is in power, our country will nonetheless have enemies, and accepting that there are forces at work to establish a new order by revolution, a new order which is probably unacceptable to the majority of South Africans, Black, White and Coloured our greatest ally in that struggle is an informed and educated but not blinkered or propagandized public. The public can only gauge the dangers facing South Africa if it is aware of and understands these dangers. That means that the public must be informed of the aspirations and grievances of those people who are without franchise.

Full information minimises rumours and panic. Furthermore, preparedness for change can only be brought about if our citizenry is educated to the need for change and is in a position to exercise rational judgements. It is my contention and the substance of this motion that the Government has gone a long way to destroy both the “street light” and informative functions of the Press in South Africa, and in doing so has damaged the state of democracy in our country and has seriously impaired the right of all South Africans to be fully informed on the current events and developments in our country.

This attack on the Press in recent times has taken three forms: Firstly, the muzzling of the Press by means of laws and regulations. Secondly, the harassment and detention of jounalists. Thirdly, the closure of newspapers and periodicals. This is the formidable armoury available to the Government in its war against the publication of facts. One may say that that is a pretty far-reaching statement. Certainly it is.

I will now proceed, with the help of my hon colleagues who will speak later, to prove my case. Let us start with the allegation on muzzling.

Every newspaper is subject to the laws relating to obscenities, to laws relating to the protection of official information, and furthermore to some laws which are so widely drafted as to be capable of preventing any reporting on such matters as detentions and the like. The Internal Security Act limits the right of newspapers to publish facts. Every newspaper is published subject to the Prisons Act, the Police Act, the National Key Points Act, the Defence Act and the Petroleum Products Act, to name but a few. All in all, there are approximately 100 laws on the Statute Book which directly peg the Press down and which ensure that the Press can hardly give offence to an oversensitive Government.

On top of that, those newspapers which are not subject to the Newspaper Press Union, that is the NPU code—that are not part of the Media Council system—are indeed subject to all the provisions of the Publications Act, which grants to the authorities the right to censor and even ban publication of material believed to be undesirable.

But as if that was not enough, South Africa has for two years since the state of emergency was declared, suffered under successive and repressive media emergency regulations, containing as they do critical and almost fatal inroads into the capability of the media to inform the public on vital news.

For instance, and, inter alia, in terms of these regulations, the media are prohibited from publishing what the Government defines as “subversive statements”. These so-called subversive statements are so widely described as to limit severely the capability of newspapers to comment or report upon many activities which are quite legitimate.

Reporting on virtually any police action or unrest in the Black townships is made impossible by these regulations. The Government has since 1987 drawn an iron curtain around the Black townships of South Africa, leaving people outside ignorant of what is happening there.

Reporting on detentions, or even on the treatment of detainees while detained, or of their release, is made impossible.

Reporting on strikes, boycotts and certain public gatherings is restricted. Only “official facts” released by the security forces are allowed to be published. Small wonder that most newspapers publish each day in a small block a statement warning the public that its reports are censored and that they perhaps do not convey the full or complete story. In other words the newspapers acknowledge to the public that they are unable to keep the public informed on current events as they occur.

I must move to the second leg of this motion, that is the allegation of harassment of journalists.

This is a major pressure on journalists—and the worst of this is detention without trial. It is held over journalists as a constant threat. A few examples: Brian Sokutu has been held since June 1986, mostly in solitary confinement. Zwelake Sisulu was arrested on 12 December 1986 and was held for well over a year. His eventual release was coupled with a stringent banning order.

What are we talking about—arbitrary imprisonment—no reasons given, no charges brought, no access to the courts—what sort of barbarism is this?

There is more—half of the country’s editors of even the major newspapers have convictions of one kind or another against them for breaches of the myriad of laws which govern the Press. What an indictment of our system!

The way to deal with troublesome foreign journalists is in fact quite easy and the hon the Minister does it himself—just refuse their visas or work permit applications. If they are already here, do not renew the visas or permits when they expire. Peter Sharpe of ITN, Michael Beurke of the BBC and Steven Mufson of Business Week all suffered this fate. In 1987 and 1988 more than 50% of all journalists’ visa and work-permit applications were refused.

What is the position in the rest of Africa? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if that hon member is going to compare our system to the systems to the north of us, in the rest of Africa, then he is descending into a realm into which none of us wish to go. [Interjections.] Surely, we compare ourselves to countries … [Interjections.] We compare ourselves to countries who uphold a … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members should afford the hon member for Sandton the opportunity of continuing with his speech.

Thank you, Sir. We should compare ourselves to countries which uphold and practise a form of democracy which we respect. Therefore, I do not compare our country to those countries to the north of us. [Interjections.] I must say that I think … [Interjections.]

Order!

As I was saying, Sir, in 1987 and 1988 more than 50% of all journalists’ visa and work-permit applications were refused. [Interjections.]

Order! There are hon members who seem to enjoy making interjections. I suggest they stop it if they do not want to force me to mention them by their names. The hon member for Sandton may continue.

Thank you, Sir. The most recent newspaper to suffer harassment is the Vrye Weekblad—that spunky and delightfully informative Afrikaans weekly which recently made its appearance. [Interjections.] Hon members may laugh, but I want to tell this House that that little newspaper is rapidly acquiring a readership far beyond what this Government would like. Why, Sir? Because it is a newspaper which is not scared to criticise in a fearless and factual manner. [Interjections.]

In November 1988 the editor of the Sowetan, Mr Aggrey Klaaste, was awakened in the dead of night by the police and interrogated about a speech he had made and about an article he had written. Then, of course, there are the threats—threats to introduce an all-embracing register of journalists; a throw back to the Steyn Commission of 1982. There are also threats of introducing even further and more oppressive legislation. Only in November last year the hon the State President sank to the lowest level to which I have yet seen a politician sink, when he said in a speech that newsmen were like jackals—or like “lunsrieme”, as he put it so delicately. I wonder what the Afrikaans Press thought about that. [Interjections.]

So, Mr Chairman, harassment is a tool being used more and more these days to whip the Press and journalists into line.

There is, however, a third tool which the Government is not afraid to use in its quest to obtain a docile reportage of its mismanagement of our country. That is the weapon of closure—closure of a newspaper or periodical, either temporarily or permanently. But this is not a new story. In 1977 the Government closed down The World and detained its editor, and in 1981 Post suffered the same fate.

Now, however, in terms of the media regulations the hon the Minister of Home Affairs has developed a new and weird, drawn-out system of slow media strangulation, requiring the hon the Minister in a formal manner to form an opinion as to the newspaper’s activities, requiring him to issue several warnings to the newspaper, requiring him to receive representations, and then, having done all that, empowering the hon the Minister to close down the newspaper concerned for varying periods—always with crippling results for the victims. Among others New Nation, South, Weekly Mail, Grass Roots, New Era and Work in Progress have suffered this fate.

This form of harassment has mainly been aimed at what is known as the alternative Press. The alternative Press are publications, varying in size, varying in circulation—some larger, some smaller—but all of them publications which are rooted in the communities which they serve. By and large these are periodicals which to a greater or lesser extent act as a very real safety valve for the rising temperature of the people among whom they circulate.

Or to incite them! [Interjections.]

Their closure exacerbates the feelings of oppression harboured by their readers.

Perhaps the worst feature of the exercise of this power is that the hon the Minister’s decision is not subject to appeal to an independent court. The hon the Minister, God-like, can prosecute, judge, sentence and execute any publication opposed to his Government, and he has done it as in the cases I have mentioned. He can do all this without any true recourse being allowed to the victims of his opinion.

This represents a gigantic stride away from the democratic roots which we hold dear. It represents the loss of a valuable freedom—the freedom of the Press—hard won in South Africa over 150 years ago.

Speaking of the so-called “total onslaught”, we have in the past two years witnessed a Government orchestrated total onslaught on the freedom of speech and expression in the Republic.

It is time, I believe, that South Africa made an effort to regain the respect of our friends in the West. It is time that this legislature committed itself to the restoration of Press freedom in our country.

As a start, these infamous media regulations must be withdrawn!

I am in good company in making this call: The SA Media Council, the NPU, the lawyers of South Africa, Assocom, the advocates of South Africa, the SASJ, various religious organisations, university heads, 26 editors around the country and many judges of the Supreme Court all back this call that I have made now. I want to know, Mr Chairman, are they all wrong? Are they out of step and is it only this hon Minister and his Government who are in step? [Interjections.] Are these people who make this call to repeal the media regulations all naive and unpatriotic? [Interjections.]

The time is ripe now. The Government is changing. It is in a state of flux and change. New leadership is moving into this Government and old leadership, hopefully, is moving out. [Interjections.] New insights will hopefully take over in the near future. I say, let us make a start on the road back to real personal freedom—a road which will lead to restored international respect. Let us turn our backs on arbitrary ministerial power, repressive laws, harassment and subjective actions.

I have no doubt that if the Government does this, we will all reap the benefits.

Mr Chairman, it is said, and I think acknowledged, that propaganda is often characterised by generalisations, emotionality, exaggeration and innuendo.

When one analyses the draft resolution of the hon member and after having listened to him, one is struck by the fact that it too is characterised by generalisations, emotional words, exaggerations and innuendo. Instead of assisting the proposer, I think it makes his motives suspect.

At the outset and before moving an amendment, I want to refer briefly to a few pertinent points relating to the draft resolution. I will elaborate in greater detail at the end.

There is general agreement that if rights are to be enjoyed by all, they have to be subject to qualification. Hon members should be mindful of the fact that the leaders in the media world readily acknowledge that freedom of the Press cannot be an absolute right. The British Royal Commission on the Press, chaired by Lord McGregor, stated in one of its reports:

The right to have access to information is no absolute right either.

Throughout the world this right is qualified by essential restrictions which are in the general or national interest. By definition the dictates of general or national interests vary from time to time. Clearly they would not be the same in a time of war as in a time of peace. For that very reason freedom of speech and information in a democracy is restricted by virtue of important considerations, such as the freedom and rights of others, public safety and the maintenance of law and order.

*The accusations that steps are taken against individual reporters in terms of the emergency regulations simply because they are doing their work, creates a false impression. Does that mean that other journalists are not doing their work? The Government has exercised its powers with regard to individual reporters with the greatest circumspection. In addition the conventional Press and certain members of the so-called alternative Press carry out their task with great responsibility, a fact to which we attach great value.

For the moment I want to confine myself to saying that the media emergency regulations were not initiated to protect the Government against criticism. [Interjections.] Criticism is an essential part of any democratic dispensation.

In order to debate this subject constructively, I therefore move as an amendment:

1. (1) its appreciation to the vast majority of members of the media who, in this regard, perform their task with responsibility and dedication; and
2. (2) its disapproval of the fact that in these times material which is a threat to the safety of the public or to the maintenance of public order, or is calculated to have this effect, continues to be published to such an extent that it is imperative to address the publishers concerned in accordance with the existing Media Emergency Regulations.”

Mr Chairman, the first part of the motion before the House requires that the House reinstate the right of the public, as an essential part of the democratic process, to be fully informed of events which take place in the Republic from time to time. In short this implies that freedom of the press and an informed public are necessary for a successful democracy.

The CP is a democratic party which believes in democracy and is in favour of freedom of the press. The CP is therefore in favour of the first part of the motion. The party is opposed to any form of State absolutism and feels so strongly about this that it is incorporated in the 16 principles of the party’s programme of principles. [Interjections.] I should like to read number 10 to hon members and they are free to corroborate this:

[Interjections.] A healthy democracy presupposes that the voters who participate in it, are informed and know what the issues are when they go to the polling booths.

In the same breath we believe that freedom of the press goes hand in hand with certain responsibilities. In as much as the second part of the motion implies unqualified freedom of the press, we can unfortunately not go along with it. In the times in which we are living, freedom of the press must be qualified and unqualified freedom of the press can unfortunately not exist. Here I am referring specifically to revolutionary warfare and terrorism which abuses unqualified press freedom in order to ultimately destroy that very freedom. In his book Defence against Total Attack, Harrigan states the following in this regard on page 70:

In this regard we have the problem that freedom of the press is misused for purposes other than informing the voters so that they can take part in the democratic process in a responsible way. Martin defines terrorism as “a form of persuasive communication”, and goes on to write about the relationship between the media and terrorism as follows:

On page 129 of the same article he says:

There is evidence that the Red Brigade, the terrorists in Europe, choose Wednesdays and Saturdays for their acts of terrorism so that, along with sport, they can get into the more substantial Thursday and Sunday newspapers. In a book which deals with terrorism, Wardlaw writes the following:

The chapter in which the quotation appears, has the interesting and significant title which reads:

The dilemma of the modern state and of the hon the Minister is clear from these quotations. In revolutionary warfare, which we have in South Africa, the media are seen as a weapon whereby the revolution can be encouraged and the existing order overthrown by means of violence. Added to that we have in South Africa terrorism which can only succeed with the help of the media. Devine and Rafalko write the following in this regard:

In this regard we support the Government and the hon the Minister when they clamp down on publications which promote revolution and the violent overthrowing of the existing order. Even in Britain, the cradle of liberal views with regard to freedom of the press, Mrs Thatcher had to implement further measures last year which prohibited certain spokesmen of the Irish Republican Army from appearing on television in order to state their case.

For us the problem does not ultimately lie in whether or not the State has a responsibility to intervene. The problem lies in how arbitrary the hon the Minister may be in his use of this power. Does he use his powers to put paid to the real problems of terrorism, revolutionary warfare and incitement to violent subversion or is the hon member correct when he says in the (b) part of the motion that the hon the Minister uses his powers to suspend or terminate the publication of newspapers and magazines which are opposed to him?

I want to mention an example which also poses a question for me. I do not think it is necessary for me to state the differences between the standpoints of the CP and the standpoints of the Vrye Weekblad, but when the hon the State President wishes to bring a libel suit against the Vrye Weekblad and we then read shortly afterwards that the highest possible deposit was demanded from them upon their registration as a newspaper, one wonders whether the motion is not correct and whether the hon the Minister does indeed misuse his arbitrary power.

We are also concerned that secrecy and state security in the Defence Force, for example, could perhaps be used in these days of corruption, not to ensure state security, but to prevent state discomfort.

I want to return to the first part of the motion before the House, namely that this House should reinstate its commitment to the right of the public to be fully informed with regard to events which take place in the Republic from time to time, as an essential part of the democratic process. When one listens to the South African media, according to them that is exactly what they are doing. They are informing the population of the daily events in South Africa, so that we will have an electorate which can participate in the democratic process in a responsible way.

I have listened to various editors of South African newspapers who explained with great enthusiasm that it was their task to reflect the South African realities as neutral observers. According to them the newspaper simply holds up a mirror in which the population is able to see itself. If negative matters appear in the press, they are simply our own wants which we see in the mirror and we should not complain about them—at least according to these editors.

I want to state here today: This is simply not true. For a long time now the media have no longer been prepared to act merely as a mirror which reflects reality. I can understand that the columnists in a newspaper may differ with me and adopt a strong standpoint in that regard—those of us in the CP are used to that—but then I expect as factual a version as possible of what is happening in South Africa in the editorial column. However, the media want to manipulate this reality. The media do not want to keep the population informed of events in South Africa, but want to intervene and, as it were, cause events to happen. They are no longer prepared to report matters; they want to place South Africa on a path which they believe is best for South Africa.

What mandate do they have to decide for the whole population under the guise of freedom of the press, which path they should follow? One takes on an enormous responsibility when one decides, without a mandate, to portray a certain reality of South Africa to one’s readers because it suits one to do so. Just say for instance that one is mistaken in one’s attempt to place South Africa on a certain path? A political party has to renew its mandate at the polling booths from time to time in order to carry out this task, but no newspaper need do that. I want to mention a few examples—I should like to refer specifically to the Afrikaans-language press—to make the point that they do not want to reflect, but manipulate.

A while ago, Mr Willie Kuhn—he is presently with Beeld, because he was promoted as a result of this—compiled a secret working document for members of the editorial of Die Volksblad—that is a publication of Nasionale Pers—in which he laid down guidelines as to how they should report on an election. I just want to read two paragraphs from this, because it deals with the intention to manipulate and not to reflect:

This is an instruction as to how the article—not the commentary—must be written. That is how reality must be reflected. There is an interesting paragraph when he comes to the NP:

[Interjections.] It is interesting that he is concerned about that—

That is an instruction to tell an untruth. It contravenes the ninth commandment if one wants to take it seriously—

The fact is that this is an instruction to manipulate and not to reflect, and I can mention many examples.

Let me mention a further example of what the effect is of this type of reporting. I have here a short article which appeared on page 9 of Die Transvaler of 3 November 1981. [Interjections.] No, I am only quoting from the newspapers of those hon members.

The article deals with a meeting. The title reads: “ape-man by RAU uitgelag”. I was not there, and I am curious to know what happened. The same day’s edition of Die Burger says on page 13: “AWB-leier by RAU toegejuig”. How is the public at large supposed to see the reality of South Africa if newsmen use headlines in this way?

I have in front of me an edition of Beeld of 28 March 1983. That was before the election in the bergs. The headline says here in large letters: “Begin van die einde vir die KP”. They then quote opinion polls which indicate that the NP is going to win hands down and that the other parties do not have a chance. Hon members will remember that election. It is a pity that there is not enough time to quote this terribly authoritative opinion poll. The findings say that even if the votes of the HNP and the CP were added together, they would still not be able to defeat the NP in the bergs. The result was exactly the opposite.

But the Nats did at least come second! [Interjections.]

I want to say something in a lighter vein, just to indicate that sport is also involved. I have here an edition of Rapport of 30 September. The front page headlines with regard to the Curry Cup final read: “Super-Naas: Botha red weer die Blou Bulle”. As hon members can imagine, the newspaper probably sells well in the Transvaal and Northern Transvaal, but it would naturally not go down well in the Cape. The headline in the Cape edition of the same date read: “So amper, WP!” [Interjections ] The words “Super-Naas” were printed considerably smaller, because the reality could once again have shocked the Capetonians. [Interjections.]

What is at issue in this motion is the public’s right to be fully informed as part of the democratic process. The media must not just inform or reflect, but must manipulate the reality.

As an example I want to refer specifically to the Nasionale Pers, and mention Mr Piet Cillié by name. Dr Koot Vorster told how Mr Piet Cillié and Mr P W Botha, the hon the State President, became involved in a heated argument outside the hall at the 1968 NP-Congress, whereupon Mr Cillié said the following to the present hon State President:

That happened in 1968. I am quoting from Vorster se 1000 Dae, p 246, a book which was published in 1974, four years before Mr Botha became Prime Minister. That gives one an indication of manipulation instead of reflection.

Nasionale Pers, which simply had to publish a newspaper in the Transvaal at all costs, in competition with Perskor is a further example. Everyone knew that there was no place for two Afrikaans morning papers in the Transvaal. The argument of Nasionale Pers was that it wanted to have a slice of the financial cake in the Transvaal. Everyone knows that newspapers are not profitable organisations. When Perskor offered Nasionale Pers a half share in all the profitable aspects of the Perskor printing operation, on condition that Beeld would not begin competing with Die Transvaler, the offer was turned down. Why? It was because Nasionale Pers did not want to move into the Transvaal for financial reasons, but for political ones. Nasionale Pers did not want to reflect the reality in the Transvaal but to manipulate it.

What did Beeld do in the Transvaal? On 8 February 1983 Beeld finally won the battle, and the following day Mr Ton Vosloo, the editor, wrote the following in his editorial under the headline: “’n Taai taak voltooi.” I want to quote to hon members what this task was. On 11 February 1983—I am quoting from page 10 of Beeld—he said that his task was inter alia to destroy the Mampoer triangle in the Transvaal. I want to quote him verbatim. He said:

He went further:

He came to the Transvaal, not to reflect a mirror image of the reality, but deliberately to manipulate. My concern is that newspapers see their task in this light at the moment.

What is the effect of manipulating the news? The position in which the NP finds itself today, inter alia with regard to its leadership crisis, is one of the results of this. Mr Piet Cillié and Nasionale Pers decided to back Mr P W Botha until he became Prime Minister. That was not because they were all that fond of him or because they believed he was so terribly capable, but because they believed that he would dance to their tune and do what they believed should be done in South Africa. Let me give hon members an example. In connection with the Information debacle, newsmen won prices for their detective work in search of the truth and for their thorough investigative journalism. Shortly afterwards the Seychelles affair took place. Hon members should read Mike Hoare’s book, and look at the court documents to see to what extent the Defence Force and the Government, up to the highest level, were involved.

The same newsmen suddenly decided that that was not news. There was no urge to establish the truth or to win prizes for good investigative journalism. When I asked one of the newsmen why he had adopted a different approach with regard to the Seychelles affair to the one adopted with regard to the Information affair, he said very honestly that the bosses at the top had decided that Mr P W Botha was moving in the correct political direction and that he should not be hurt. The media created a small world for the hon the State President in which he had to move and in which he believed that he could not make mistakes.

In the Second World War, the German media and propaganda machine created its own reality in Germany. By the end of the war we saw Hitler sitting in his bunker under the ground, making and issuing all kinds of crazy decisions and commands. These were decisions and commands which may appear illogical from outside, but which are absolutely logical and meaningful if one can place oneself in Hitler’s small media and propaganda world.

On Sunday evening, when I was watching the interview between Johan Pretorius and the hon the State President, I could not help thinking of that. For 10 years, the media told the hon the State President that he was on the right path and that he could do nothing wrong. How can they now expect him to suddenly understand their new message, namely that he is in the way? Because they were not prepared to give the facts with regard to South Africa, but wished to manipulate them, they ultimately created their own Frankenstein, which they are now unable to get rid of.

I now want to warn the new chief leader of the NP. The media are now on his side—not because they like him that much, but because they believe that he will move in the direction which they consider to be correct for South Africa. Neither Beeld nor Die Burger were excited about him as the choice. He should have a good look at the articles published during the first week after his election. They only became excited after he had made certain left-wing noises. In the same way that Mr Piet Cillié told Mr P W Botha that he would make him, and is now telling him that he will break him if he cannot use him any more, this also applies to the chief leader of the NP. If he moves towards the left in their eyes, the hear-hears and the praise of the newspapers will not be lacking. However, if he turns to the right, they will also discard him like a sucked-out orange, as they are doing with the hon the State President at the moment because he can no longer help them to achieve their goals.

To sum up, the CP is in favour of freedom of the press and I believe that it is an essential part of the democratic process, as is stated in this motion before us. Secondly, the CP believes, however, that in these times of revolutionary warfare and terrorism, freedom of the press is being misused to destroy the very democratic process which it must serve. Thirdly, it is correct that the State has a certain responsibility to intervene and to ensure that freedom of the press goes hand in hand with press responsibility.

Fourthly, in the exercising of this power on behalf of the State, the hon the Minister may not, however, use his powers in such a way that he misuses them in order to eliminate opponents. Fifthly—I feel very strongly about this—the CP warns against the fact that under the cloak of freedom of the press the media are no longer satisfied today with reflecting this reality, but are actively manipulating the South African reality, with some of the results which we have seen recently.

Mr Chairman, we are naturally grateful that the Official Opposition have indicated through the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke that they, like we, reject this motion, but having said by way of motivation that they reject State absolutism he will have to forgive us for thinking that he was actually speaking a little tongue in cheek. Only a few days ago the great ally of that hon member and his party said that he and his supreme council would simply take the Transvaal if the CP were to obtain a majority there, and incorporate it into some or other homeland. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke cannot in one breath reject State absolutism and then refuse to repudiate his ally. [Interjections.]

Whatever the hon member’s motivation was, we are grateful that he rejects this motion, because we believe that this motion and its introduction by the hon member for Sandton simply serve to show once again what an erroneous conception the PFP and its allies have with regard to what the concept of freedom in a democratic state really means.

Time and again we see that the PFP’s approach is quite simply that if one were to undermine all measures and all disciplinary rules and allow everyone to do his own thing, a blissful peace would descend upon this or any country. We see this time and again. If the State restricts subversive elements by means of temporary detention without trial, this is unacceptable to the PFP. When it comes to military service, the PFP sides with the End Conscription Campaign. In fact, the entire world is striving with all the power at its disposal to bring South Africa to her knees, and the only body that cannot see this is the PFP in this Parliament. On those rare occasions on which it does, in fact, observe something abnormal, its reaction is quite simply that we should merely remove all restrictive legislation, all so-called apartheid, and the onslaught would disappear entirely.

The fact remains that freedom can only thrive in stability and that stability in a State emanates directly from the maintenance of order and justice in that State. This is true of a normal democratic State, but it is doubly true in a state which is engaged in a reform process. The conflict potential inherent in reform is one of the most underrated dangers which those who tackle reform often overlook. People are quick to speak about the inevitability of reform. People often speak about the advantage of reform, but few people realise the risks attached to it. In fact, it is quite a cliché that reform creates a crisis of excessive expectations. For us, with our unique population structure, that danger is all the greater. Moreover, this is aggravated by the fact that we in South Africa are also faced with a communist ANC terror onslaught which is being waged both locally and abroad by way of intimidation, disinformation and propaganda. No government can tolerate such an onslaught on democratic freedom in our country.

If it assumes such revolutionary proportions that the normal laws of the land cannot ensure public order and the safety of the public, any government that is worth its salt must employ extraordinary powers, as this Government has done, by declaring a state of emergency.

By this action the Government is not making itself guilty of authoritarian action. [Interjections.] It is, in fact, making use of the emergency measures to protect the basic values of democracy. The very presence here of these hon members of the PFP who are making snide remarks, and the freedom of extra-parliamentary opposition groups proves that the emergency measures make it possible for political parties as well as a legal divergence of opinion to continue to exist within this democratic state.

One of those democratic values is the freedom of speech and expression. I have already said that the presence of the opposition parties in itself confirms that that freedom exists, but it is also true that the Press lays claim to being one of the four pillars of democracy, in other words the so-called Fourth Estate. In order to prove that claim, the Press ought to guard the maintenance of these democratic values just as jealously as the Government.

I do not have the time to deal with this in detail, but the code of conduct of the Media Council lays down certain standards which may be summarised as follows: The Press must report honestly, objectively and accurately; it must report in the correct context and in a balanced manner; it must report without deliberate or negligent omission of the facts, either by way of distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, and without substantial omission or summary.

According to these standards, Press commentary must be fair and honest; must be clearly presented as commentary; must relate to facts that have been faithfully reported and must be an honest expression of an opinion, without malice or dishonest motives.

There are still others, but time constraints prevent me from dealing with them in detail. The fact remains, however, that this self-imposed code of conduct is respected by the overwhelming majority of publications which are members of the Newspaper Press Union. The members of this union play a vitally important role as informants and watch-dogs of the community. In that respect we agree with the hon member who introduced the motion. It is our contention that the established media play a fundamental role in this community and that they do not commit transgressions, except in highly exceptional cases. Where the hon member who introduced this measure went wrong, however, was in simply labelling these media with the same tag as the so-called alternative media. All that these so-called alternative media have in common with the conventional Press is that they also make use of printing ink and paper.

This alternative Press is just as much a part of the onslaught as the murdering gangs of the ANC. [Interjections.] In instigating a revolutionary climate, it is not an informant or watch-dog, but an instigator and advocate of violence. This was also the case in Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Algeria, Vietnam and the former Rhodesia. This alternative Press hides behind the democratic bulwark of the freedom of the Press and freedom of speech in order to make the community ripe for the acceptance of violence and terror.

The fact that any government has the fullest right to take action against this sort of Press, is stated unequivocally in section 20 of the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. That declaration states that any war propaganda which conspicuously comprises violent revolution and any incitement of national, racial or religious hatred which entails the encouragement of discrimination, rebellion or violence, must be prohibited by law. Restrictions on the media are also justified in so far as they relate to respect for the rights and reputations of others, state security, public order, national health and public morals.

We are not asking the hon member who introduced the motion to believe us. We are used to that party regarding us as alarmists who see a total onslaught behind every bush. But why, then, does the hon member not believe the ANC, that organisation with which he and his party are so keen for us to hold discussions? In the ANC youth magazine Forward, No 6 of 1983, this organization says the following:

I want to mention a further example. In a document dealing with its 75th anniversary in 1987 the ANC’s Secretary General, Alfredo Nzo, made the following call:

Other speakers will quote examples of the sort of subversive propaganda which appears in this Press.

One thing is quite certain, however: If the hon member who introduced the motion thinks that he is a champion of freedom of the Press in interceding for these publications, then he is very wide of the mark. Then he is allowing himself to be misused by those who are attempting to incite rebellion and revolution in our country. Then he is simply another one of those “useful idiots” to whom Lenin referred so contemptuously. Then we shall not even try to persuade him otherwise. Then we agree with the Minister of Home Affairs who said the following at the Star Centennial Conference in 1987:

Mr Chairman, I always find it very interesting to listen to the hon members of the NP talking about the entire matter of the total onslaught, the threats against South Africa and how these are used, because that is why they have come up with these concoctions—to use them to their own political advantage. Last Sunday evening I was very interested to hear the hon the State President also refer to certain elements, and very clearly to the newspapers of Nasionale Pers and his own caucus, as people who are being misused by certain powers and elements in this country which do not have good intentions. The terminology had become so much a part of him, had become so familiar to him that he eventually started talking about his own people. That is the trouble with the hon members. They know as well as I do that 90% of the reason why he referred to those matters, was for propaganda, was to try to improve their own position and to make the electorate outside so angry and so afraid that they would try to support the NP in future.

†The Media Emergency Regulations constitute a very serious violation of democracy. It is no longer possible, I say this with consideration, for ordinary South Africans to make political choices on the basis of adequate information.

Can I ask you a question?

No questions. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members cannot arrange their turns to speak or their leave to ask questions among themselves. The hon member for Germiston District has asked whether he may put a question to the hon member for Green Point. The hon member for Green Point is not prepared to take a question.

The Government are not only aware of this; they also know that it benefits them. They rely on this situation of suppressed information because an electorate in that position is easy prey to their propaganda. The Government are so unaware of the consequences of this and the infringement this imposes on democracy that they have elections left, right and centre in the middle of a declared state of emergency and specifically in the middle of the application of media regulations. We have had the 1987 general election and we have had local authority elections under these conditions.

I want to state without hesitation that, specifically as far as Black people are concerned, the local authority elections last year cannot be considered to have been conducted in a free and fair manner. That is not possible seeing the application of the emergency regulations.

I want to go further and suggest that if regulations similar to these should apply in the general election in SWA/Namibia in November it would not be possible to certify those elections as having been conducted in a free and fair way. It will be interesting to know if the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be prepared to stick his neck out on that issue. I suspect not, because I believe he knows he has no leg to stand on.

Obviously the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, as he and his colleagues have already done, will come back to us and claim that they really believe in Press freedom—that they respect the public’s right to know. I want to tell them: Do not insult our intelligence; do not try to make that kind of claim; spare us the crocodile tears whether they are great crocodile tears or just other crocodile tears, but do not say that kind of thing when nobody can believe you and nobody can take you seriously.

*I listened attentively today to the very interesting speech of the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke. He made the point that revolution and terrorism could not function without exposure in the Press. There is probably some truth in that. I want to take this a step further and say that democracy cannot function without this either.

The hon the Minister says that the freedom of the Press must be restricted because no freedom is absolute. It is as senseless for a Minister to have the right to restrict the Press arbitrarily, and particularly to restrict its criticism arbitrarily as it is to give the Minister the right to choose his own opposition in Parliament. If the Government has the right to decide how it is to be criticised, we are making a mockery of democracy.

What is the purpose of the Press? The purpose of the Press is to disseminate information. If hon members look at the media regulations and try to read anything literal into them, it has nothing to do with this. It is only restrictive. It does not help the Press to disseminate information.

It is also the duty of the Press to let the truth prevail. Is there anything in the media emergency regulations which deals with the truth? There is nothing of the sort in them. There is no power being entrusted to anyone here to take steps when untruths are told. There is nothing in the regulations which encourages the Press to tell the truth. It deals only with the suppression of information.

What must the Press not do? Let me mention only two elements. The Press must not lie. Yet again there is nothing about this in the emergency regulations we are dealing with here. Standards are expected of the Press which are not even expected of Cabinet Ministers.

In the second place the Press must not encourage violence. If any newspaper overtly and obviously encourages violence, there are any number of laws in terms of which the Government can take steps against it, and this is not being done. The media emergency regulations are suppressing the dissemination of information regarding matters such as strikes, riots, police and military action of many kinds. Is it possible for the voters and even members of Parliament of a country to be intelligently informed about circumstances in their country if they are not allowed to know about these matters which play such an important role in society? There may not be news on boycotts. Of course, if the boycotts are convenient to the Government, such as in the case of Boksburg, even the television service is allowed to mention it. Everyone is then allowed to write about it and talk about it; then it is in order, because it is being allowed unilaterally. [Interjections.]

No mention may be made of the circumstances surrounding a person’s detention, or even his release. The fact that people—sometimes relatives of a detainee—are very concerned about his circumstances, and want to know what has become of him, does not matter. The Press may not mention the person’s detention or release.

Mention is made of a restricted meeting and in the definitions clause it is stated that a restricted meeting is not only a meeting which has been prohibited, but that it is specifically also a meeting in respect of which a particular condition has been laid down. Then the regulations go further and place a total prohibition on the publication by newspapers of the time or place of such a meeting, which naturally means that whether an organisation is totally banned or whether a specific condition has merely been laid down for it, that meeting is made virtually impossible. No indication may be published of where and when such a meeting is going to take place.

In my opinion the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke illustrated very successfully what a weak position the Government is in to talk about propaganda in particular and to want to take steps against other people and other publications with a view to propaganda. If anyone were to ask me who the greatest abuser of propaganda in South Africa was, I would not look outside Parliament; I would look for him in the ranks of the hon members of the NP. There is no organisation in South Africa, or which even talks about South Africa, which uses and abuses propaganda as much as the Government itself does, and more specifically the NP.

That is nonsense!

It is the truth! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Umlazi spoke about how important it was for law and order to prevail in a democratic set-up. I nevertheless want to say the following to that hon member. One cannot extend and develop democracy while one is undermining it. Therefore to talk about the maintenance of law and order—one can use law and order for virtually any purpose. Stalin did so. Hitler did so. I am certain there are any number of other autocrats in the political history of the world at some stage or other who used law and order to justify their own despotic methods. They undoubtedly did so. I submit that law and order are important. Of course, they are important. However, when one uses them to force one’s own unilateralism on others and to undermine democracy in the long run, one is heading for trouble.

Of course, there is something else the hon member for Umlazi did not take cognisance of. He mentioned the fact that the opposition parties in Parliament can sit here and say certain things, and used this to illustrate that democracy really functions in South Africa. Now I want to ask the hon member something. He has been in Parliament as long as I have—if not longer. Has he not yet noticed that most statutory provisions promulgated in South Africa nowadays are no longer promulgated by Parliament? They are promulgated by Ministers, officials and policemen, under the emergency regulations. The most important statutory provisions, which introduce prohibitions with the greatest legal force, are not discussed or promulgated in this House. Ten years ago this was still the case. Today it is no longer the case. Today this is being done under the emergency regulations.

Like what?

That hon member is asking me for examples. I want to ask him whether he has ever taken the trouble to read these things. They are becoming more voluminous every year. Has he ever taken the trouble to try to ascertain how many further regulations and prohibitions are being promulgated under the emergency regulations by magistrates, police officers, Cabinet Ministers and others? Has he ever taken that little bit of trouble? [Interjections.] If he has not done so, he must not put such a question to me; then he must go and do his homework himself. [Interjections.]

This is unfortunately the dilemma which we are facing in South Africa. Not only democracy, but even the narrower manifestation of democracy here in Parliament, has been so undermined and subverted, has been so isolated, that there are hon members sitting here who do not even know what has happened to them in the process. They no longer even know what is going on in the country outside. They do not even know to what extent they are really functioning as democratically elected members in a country which is supposed to have a democratic tradition.

I have no doubt—I would not think twice—about the correctness of supporting the motion of the hon member for Sandton.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Green Point makes me think of the old saying of Tyll Eulenspiegel, which goes “people hate me, but I ask for it”. If this hon member really wants to give the impression that he and his fellow party members are the only ones who can make sound judgements in the interests of South Africa, I want to tell him that that approach will not get him very far.

In fact this is not the first time they have done this. They have been doing it for years without success. The best proof of this is what the voters of South Africa think of that party.

Let us have an election and see what the voters think! [Interjections.]

I want to concentrate more specifically on regulation seven of the media emergency regulations, because this is actually the only part of the media emergency regulations dealt with by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs. Contraventions of the other parts of the emergency regulations are offences which must be referred to the Attorneys-General and the courts.

The second aspect I should like to refer to this afternoon is the impression which is being created that the Minister can simply decide overnight to stop a publication.

The third aspect I want to discuss is the current notion that the media emergency regulations are aimed at eliminating opposition to the Government in the newspapers.

What are the provisions of regulation seven of the media emergency regulations? I am not going to quote them in full because of the lack of time. I want to refer very briefly to the fact that they state very explicitly that after repeated publications aimed at creating a certain climate amongst members of the public, the Minister may intervene. What is being referred to here? Arguments used in publications to encourage revolution and insurrection in the Republic, the undermining of public order, a feeling of hate or hostility on the part of members of the public towards local authorities or the security force and things of that kind.

Anyone with any common sense and a sense of responsibility with regard to the situation in South Africa would realise that we cannot allow this kind of propaganda to be noised abroad. For the sake of convenience the opposition, or rather the PFP, are tight-lipped about what appears in these publications because it does not suit them.

Let us examine a few of the things being said here. Here is a statement made in September 1987 in which the “armed struggle” is equated with a “disciplined political struggle”. As we know, this is far from the truth. We find a further pronouncement in Grassroots of August 1988: “Women serving long sentences for public violence should be saluted.” Further examples of statements which engender hate or hostility towards the security forces or a certain section of the population are the following: “The police attack anything Black.” This appears in New Era of August 1988. A report on the Defence Force reads as follows: “They killed hundreds of unarmed civilians as a publicity stunt.” This we read in Work and Progress of August—September 1988. One could go on listing the quotations.

It is expressly stated that the Minister cannot summarily close down these newspapers if such a report appeared only once. He warns them and they are then warned not to continue repeating this propaganda. There is consequently a considerable degree of fairness on the part of the Government in its actions in this regard.

The second aspect I want to refer to is, the perception which is being created that the Minister simply has the right to close down a newspaper overnight. Let us look at the facts. As far as the publication South is concerned, there was a period of six months from the date on which the first notice from the Minister was sent to the publisher until the ban appeared in the Gazette. In the case of The Weekly Mail the period was eight months and in the case of the New Era nine months. The length of time between the Minister’s notice and the ban was the shortest in the case of New Nation—a period of four and a half months. But what happened in the case of New Nation? The action taken by the Minister against New Nation was tested in a court case. In March 1988 a full Bench of the Witwatersrand division declared that regulation seven of the media emergency regulations and the implementation of the regulation were valid.

Furthermore, in the process the hon the Minister accepted the representations of the Sowetan and of Work in Progress, and no action was taken against them. This is the best proof possible that the hon the Minister maintains a very high standard as far as the principle of fairness is concerned in his actions against the Press, and all of South Africa should thank him for this. [Interjections.]

The third aspect I want to refer to is the perception being created that by means of the media emergency regulations the Government is trying to clamp down on opposition by the Press.

If we take into consideration that there are approximately 3 000 of these publications in circulation today, and if one then looks at the number of pro-Government publications, one finds that the latter constitute only about 2 dozen of the total number of publications. Between 28 August 1987 and 3 March 1989, eleven out of the approximately 3 000 publications came under fire because they did not comply with the provisions of the media emergency regulations. If these are not the actions of a responsible Government, I do not know.

I want to go further and say this afternoon that if any one of us sitting in this House believes that no matter what section of the Press or what publication we are talking about—excluding strictly scientific publications—a publication can act with total objectivity and evaluate the South African situation, that is indeed a false assumption.

When it comes to the security of the State, we must take into consideration that the State, with its security and intelligence services, is in a much better position to make judgements on the security interests of South Africa and its society. We cannot leave it to the Press to play this role without any control. It is a privilege for me support the amendment of the hon the Minister of Home Affairs.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to dwell on the formulation of the motion before I make any further remarks.

The motion mentions the public’s right to be informed about events which take place in the Republic from time to time. In the juridical sense there is no such thing as a subjective right to information as a human right which can be enforced by the courts. It does not exist here in South Africa nor in many other Western states. At most, one can talk about an indefinable right, in the broad political sense, to inform the public, but even this so-called political right to be informed, is not an absolute right. In this regard we agree with what the hon the Minister said.

However, this does not mean that the CP does not believe in freedom of the press. We believe, without doubt, in freedom of the press as a cornerstone of democracy.

What does Eugéne say?

In the same way we believe in the generally accepted and recognised restrictions on freedom of the press. In this regard I just want to refer to one of those restrictions. There are, however, more restrictions than the one I am going to refer to.

One of the most significant restrictions on the freedom of the press exists as a result of State security. The security of the State then comes first, and not the security of the Government or the convenience or inconvenience of the Government. Let me mention one specific example in this regard. In terms of the emergency regulations in South Africa, quotations of what Oliver Tambo, Chief Leader of the ANC, has said, are prohibited. It is therefore alarming that, while this is prohibited, the Government and responsible Ministers go ahead and grant ad hoc permission to their own press, their own media and to the SABC from time to time to publish and broadcast quotations from speeches by Oliver Tambo or quotations from the programme of the ANC, when it suits the Government and the NP.

This is selective political morality. Perhaps I should put it more forcefully. It is political immorality, because it means that as a result of the prohibition, other parties do not have that advantage which the NP uses when it suits them.

When it suits us, we would also like to make use of that same right to show the South African voting public how strongly we are opposed to the ANC, but the Government claims that right exclusively, to the exclusion of other parties. It is this Government which talks about the broadening of democracy.

Perhaps the greatest disgrace in South African political history is the way in which the Government misuses the South African media and the SABC in particular. The SABC is known as the most powerful media in the South African situation when it comes to influencing people politically.

In this regard I want to make two observations, which include an invitation to the Government. Firstly, there can be no doubt that the Government continues to govern South Africa today on the strength of the support which they receive from their own media and, in particular, from the SABC. If, in fact, the Government mean what they say with regard to democracy, as they have explained it in their standpoints regarding this draft resolution, we want to invite them—I am directing this specifically at the hon the Minister—to appoint at least one CP member to the control board of the SABC. If the hon the Minister does that, it can at least be said that he is serious with regard to objectivity in the media and in particular in the SABC.

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

Mr Chairman, I do not have time for questions now. Secondly, as matters stand at present, the SABC is not a member of the Media Council. I should like to invite the hon the Minister to use his influence in the Cabinet and with the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry, so that the SABC will also place itself under the jurisdiction of the Media Council.

Why should the SABC with its powerful influence on the political course of events in South Africa, remain exempt from the control of the Media council? Why is the Government not prepared to place the SABC under the control of the Media Council? When the SABC is placed under the control of the Media Council, we will naturally be in a position to submit complaints to the Media Council with regard to the way in which the SABC deals with the politics of the day. After all, there can be no doubt as to the degree to which the SABC sides with the Government in order to promote the so-called reform initiatives of the Government.

Let me mention an example in this regard which involved the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, while he was still Acting State President. Two weeks ago we had a debate on corruption in this Chamber. The SABC allowed the Official Opposition and the PFP a time period of a few minutes in which to state their standpoint. The CP was told quite plainly that there was only a minute available in which to sum up the debate. Where did this interview take place?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: What point in the motion is the hon member referring to now?

Order! I am listening to the hon member and I will determine whether or not he is deviating from the motion. The hon member may proceed.

The issue is one of freedom of the press.

The CP was given a minute in which to sum up the debate on corruption, which was an important debate, while standing outside in a windy, open-air environment. The PFP was given slightly more than a minute to state its standpoint in a passage of Parliament. What did the SABC do with regard to such an important debate about which the public certainly have the right to be informed? They gave the hon the Acting State President, as he was then, the opportunity to state his standpoint for several minutes while he sat comfortably in a wonderfully relaxed atmosphere in a studio. [Interjections.] However, it was fortunate that even though the hon the Acting State President had the opportunity to state his standpoint for several minutes on television, the viewers were unable to understand what he said. [Interjections.]

I should like to conclude by referring to the passage which the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke quoted with regard to the instructions given to Die Volksblad by Mr Willie Kuhn a few years ago. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Losberg got off to such a fine start, but then he simply became his old self again. However, something important also happened during the course of his speech, because I take it that whenever one asks for an invitation, one has already decided that one will accept the invitation if it is forthcoming. I therefore feel that one should have it placed on record that the CP would very much like to have a representative on a mixed SABC board. [Interjections.]

I do not find it strange that one should fall into a trap every now and then through not thinking, because I might also place on record that the only CP member I have ever seen who really thought deeply about the future of South Africa, is Prof Boshoff, but the CP simply discredited him at once. [Interjections.]

I think the hon members of the Official Opposition are attempting to score a few points in a fight which is not really theirs. For this reason I would prefer to address myself to the PFP spokesmen. As recently as last Tuesday a speech was delivered here which gave rise to a great deal of pleasure, but something of cardinal importance emerged in that speech. I am, of course, referring to the speech which the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central delivered with regard to the Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Trust Amendment Bill. It was a floundering effort because that hon member had to explain here that the House of Representatives had voted against his Bill. He had to explain that they had not done this on merit, that they had placed a distorted interpretation upon it and had read racism into it where racism did not exist, and he was correct.

We know the hon member as a man who expresses himself very forcefully. He said the following on 1 February 1988 with reference to the role of the President’s Council:

He went on to say the following about the President’s Council:

Now he has fallen into difficulties with what is, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the very first Bill which the PFP has ever introduced in this House. The first time they attempted to make one little law, they came crashing down. What was his subsequent plea? He asked whether the Government would not please take the Bill to the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

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

If I have time at the end of my speech, Sir, I shall answer his question then.

We did, however, learn something very important from that Bill, namely that the hon members of the PFP enjoy making use of clichés and speaking about fundamental rights and human rights, but when it comes to the practical situation, we find, as has happened once again today, that it is a different kettle of fish. The hon member for Sandton says quite simply that Africa has no democracy. We cannot refer to the rest of Africa, because they do not, in any event, have democracy. They apparently do not understand it. This sort of political hypocrisy once again underlay the debate which was conducted here today. Once again we are dealing here with the fact that use is being made of clichés, that vague allegations are being made and that it is being said that the Government is suppressing freedom. What specific instances are being mentioned?

For example, the hon member for Green Point attempted last year in two debates to mention all sorts of examples of unfair action, but at that time he was not prepared to say that he supported what was written there. I want to tell hon members that any right-minded person, having read these quotations which my colleague has already submitted, would insist that this type of publication cannot be permitted. He asks time and again why use cannot be made of the courts of law.

A court of law and not every Tom, Dick and Harry.

A Minister is not any Tom, Dick or Harry. The hon member must listen carefully now, because I have limited time at my disposal. [Interjections.] I am going to explain it properly once and I hope the hon member will listen attentively so that he will not ask these silly questions again.

In the world today one finds basically two systems which are followed in a court. They are the so-called—broadly speaking—accusatorial system and the inquisitorial system. The Anglo-American world chiefly follows the accusatorial system, as we also do. This means that one has two parties before the court and the court sits back. The court is not the body which conducts the investigation or which makes use of its own knowledge to ultimately arrive at a decision.

What do the media regulations state inter alia? They state that judgement must be passed. What judgement? The judgement which must be passed is whether there is a systematic action which will ultimately result in the promotion or instigation of revolution or rebellion in the Republic.

What does that have to do with the inquisitorial system?

I am trying so hard to explain. Just listen. [Interjections.]

Can hon members now understand that any statement that is made must be viewed against the broad background of the circumstances in which the statement is made. A particular set of publications could perhaps be harmless under certain circumstances and yet under different circumstances be extremely dangerous and be intent on inciting revolution. Does the hon member expect that a case of this nature should be taken to court every time and that the entire background of the South African political climate, state security and so on should first be submitted to the court by way of evidence? It then becomes a point at issue and the defence could submit that it is not true at all that South Africa is being threatened.

If they were to govern—this is something that will never happen—they would fall to earth with a terrible crash, just as they did with the Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Trust, because then they would see that all these fine-sounding words would have to be tested against the demands of reality, and that is why we have a system in South Africa in terms of which a responsible person, namely a Minister and not an official, may take decisions. The hon member may come and challenge the Minister’s decision in this House, in public, and expose him. We accept that in our democratic system—and this is the hon member’s prerogative—he may come and state his case here and criticise the Minister. It is also his democratic right to convey what he says in this Parliament to people outside this House in order to see whether the public and the electorate agree with him.

Democracy is a precious and a very important foundation-stone in South Africa. If we in South Africa are experiencing an onslaught on democracy by people who say that they are going to subject this country by way of violence and who add that “the one who is wielding the gun is playing the same role as the one who is holding the pen", then we must take action and we must establish regulations to restrict this activity.

By way of this motion the PFP has proven once again that whenever it is able to perform for the public and for the so-called liberal world, it does so, but that it does so in a reckless fashion without thinking of South Africa’s interests.

Mr Chairman, like the hon member for Sundays River, I believe democracy is a priceless asset but I believe it is too priceless an asset to be entrusted to the care of the NP and I hope it will soon be taken away from them. [Interjections.]

I will be concentrating on section (c) of the motion dealing with the Government’s use of arbitrary executive powers to harass, restrict and detain journalists doing their jobs.

An essential part of a journalist’s lifestyle is to be able to gather information as easily as possible but I believe it is the deliberate aim of the Government to place every possible obstacle in the way of journalists to ensure that they are unable to report accurately on the true state of affairs in this country. They are harassed and restricted to such an extent by the authorities that many of them do not even bother to inform their news editors of individual incidents. It is simply of no significance these days for them to mention to their superiors that they have been denied access to an area or to individuals or that their rolls of film have been confiscated. This has become a part of their daily lives.

There are many ways of harassing a journalist the most telling example being the emergency regulations which prohibit them from being close to any unrest. Let us look at an example. In the event of someone throwing a stone at a passing car, a journalist has to close his eyes, suppress his natural instincts to make inquiries as to why the individual has thrown the stone, at whom he has thrown it, whether he has hit the target and whether he was satisfied that what he had done had met his expectations, be they political or otherwise. The journalist has to vacate the area immediately and contact the police to request permission to report on the incident. Then the merry-go-round begins. [Interjections.] I am glad that the hon Minister is taking note of what is going on here today. I would not be too worried about his performance as the hon member for Losberg is. I would like him to be on television every night. That can only be to our advantage. [Interjections.]

Then the merry-go-round begins once they have asked the police for permission to report. The police are unable to confirm the incident until they have investigated. Days or possibly even weeks later, when the original individual concerned could very well have moved house or may have been detained by the authorities in terms of the emergency regulations, the incident is no longer news and the story is dead. This is exactly what the Government wants as they are able to suppress the news and the public is uninformed about the true state of affairs in the country. The public have been denied the right to be fully informed. In most Western democracies there would have been an enormous hue and cry but in South Africa we have become so punch-drunk that all this is taken for granted.

A further example of the way in which journalists are harassed is the way in which the Vrye Weekblad was forced by the Minister of Justice to pay a deposit of R30 000. This is the highest deposit ever required of a newspaper and restricts them in that their working capital is tied up unproductively, lying in the Government coffers—another form of harassment and intimidation.

I was in the USA when the hon the Minister of Home Affairs banned The Weekly Mail for one month and I want to tell him that this did more damage to the image of South Africa than any other single act of oppression … [Interjections.] … this NP Government has indulged in over the past 40 years. The Weekly Mail is highly regarded in many circles in the USA and their banning was acknowledged as further evidence of the Government’s determination to harass and obstruct journalists. Grassroots, New Era and Work in Progress were banned earlier this year by the Minister after having given these publications the warning required of him by the emergency regulations. This was arbitrary action decided upon by the hon the Minister without any recourse to the courts. The hon the Minister decides and another journal bites the dust. As justification he is quoted as having said that the alternative press is at times “fake and gutter journalism” and that it is “unchecked, loud, insulting, arrogant, presumptuous and even rife with slander”.

I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that this is unbridled language and that if any of the journals he has banned had used similar phrases, he would have come down on them like a ton of bricks. If any of the countless Acts regulating publications in this country has been contravened or if any statement is libellous then why has the hon the Minister not acted against them through the courts or why does he not sue them? He is not opposed to using the courts when it suits him. He and other members of his Government, including the hon the State President, are quite happy to intimidate journalists by threatening actions in the courts when it suits them, partly because they know that they will not be responsible for the legal fees, as the taxpayer picks up the tab for their indiscretions. [Interjections.]

I would like to know how many letters of warning the hon the Minister has sent to various publications and journalists since the promulgation of the state of emergency and the media regulations. Would the hon the Minister tell us, when he replies to this debate, how many warnings he has given and how many journals he has ordered to close?

Furthermore, I would like to ask about Reg Olifant and Derek Jackson, two persons in Oudtshoorn who run a journal called Saamstaan. They are restricted to the magisterial district of Oudtshoorn which means that they are not able to make visits into the district to gather news and they have been harassed and abused to an astonishing extent. I have been advised of one such incident which occurred when they were composing a letter to the Council of Churches. When they left the building to post the letter they were met by a waiting policeman who asked them for the letter. Their conversations had been bugged while they were working on the letter.

Their offices have frequently been firebombed and Reg Olifant’s post has been doctored with pornographic phrases. Reg Olifant’s friends in the USA have been phoned to be told that he is dead. The entire staff of Saamstaan have been detained at some stage or another. On another occasion 9 000 copies of the magazine left the printer in Cape Town and never arrived in Oudtshoorn.

Derek Jackson’s wife was recently in hospital and he was telephoned at three of four in the morning to be told that she was dead. On rushing to the hospital he found that she was alive and well.

Who is responsible for these deeds of harassment which can certainly be described as terrorism? Why are they not brought to book? Why are the people who do these terrible deeds not apprehended? Is the hon the Minister aware that because of the threat of emergency action, informants are reluctant to come forward and offer their information, even to the police? The possibility of retaliation and executive action is a real threat to people who fear intimidation. People who appear on the BBC or other international television documentaries are certain to be questioned. Anyone who talks of the plight of detainees is bound to be interrogated and possibly detained.

We now move on to the question of restricting and detaining journalists. The most famous, world-renowned example is that of Zwelake Sisulu who was held in detention for more than two years. Here I must mention that his release made a favourable impression abroad. However, when he was severely restricted and prevented from practising his craft, that did not make a good impression.

While Sisulu has been released, what has happened about Brian Sokutu, who has also been mentioned? He was detained in Port Elizabeth in June 1986. He is a freelance journalist for the Eastern Province group of newspapers and was apparently not questioned until November 1988 when he was asked about a meeting he had apparently organised. There was no suggestion of any dastardly act against the State or any heinous crime; he was simply locked away for two and a half years and then released without having been charged with or accused of any crime. All this in the name of the state of emergency!

Many journalists are intimidated by police harassment, as has been mentioned today. In support of the motion introduced by my colleague, the hon member for Sandton, I join him in calling for the media regulations to be withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon the hon member for Johannesburg North was once again an eloquent example of the negativity and generalisations of a small Opposition party which has only a nuisance value. I shall pay attention in the course of my speech to certain points which he touched upon.

Every year the hon member for Sandton—this afternoon he succeeded most excellently in making disparaging remarks about all other African states—has a contribution to offer on the media. If an hon member does not complain about the so-called one-sided reporting of the SABC—the hon member for Losberg associated himself with this again this afternoon—then the subject is the so-called erosion of the freedom of the Press. Last year the hon member was abashed when I proved to him specifically in the light of a study by Rhodes University that there had been discrimination against the NP in the proportional attention which our party had received in comparison with Opposition parties in this House. The hon member has now come up with a motion that really does not hold water.

As an ex-journalist, I want this to reaffirm my standpoint regarding freedom of the media. We on this side of the House will always do everything in our power to support the media in their democratic right to keep the public fully informed on events which are of general interest. [Interjections.] I therefore have no fault to find with the initial sentiments of the motion; in fact, I accept that the media should actually fulfil the role of a watchdog toward the public. South Africa is proud that it has one of the freest media interests in the world and has definitely taken the lead in Africa as regards freedom of the media. In saying this I am not being insulting toward Africa like the hon member for Sandton.

Having said all this, there are still certain perspectives which have to be placed in the proper context. I should like to dwell for a while on the British crisis which resulted from the Falklands War in the quite recent past. This conflict between Argentina and Britain was at no time a threat to the British public’s democratic survival.

The British government is often regarded as a model in the application of measures for the maintenance of a free Press. Nevertheless that government took steps during the conflict according to which strict control was exercised over the flow of information to the British public. This created tension between the government and the media, tension which was expressed in various publications and articles on the affair.

If Britain was justified in taking steps to ensure the safety of its forces during that period, how much more does South Africa have a duty toward all in this country to maintain law and order? Our country is in the midst of a revolutionary onslaught in which it is dealing with an enemy which is using every means internally and externally to overthrow the current system and it will even use the hon members of the PFP for this.

There is not a single hon member of this House who can state that the restrictive measures which exist in terms of the emergency regulations inhibit him in any way from impressing his message on the public by means of the media. Even the hon member for Claremont makes use of this House, according to his own evidence and as he will do again now, in an attempt to obtain publicity for his objectionable attack on the Police Force. [Interjections.]

Permit me to dwell briefly on point (c) of this motion. Here an extremely unjustified generalisation is made which in no way holds water or corresponds with the facts. The hon member for Sandton creates the impression that the Government harasses, restricts and detains journalists who do their work. The generalisation in this statement is not only in shrill contrast to the facts but will certainly serve as yet another piece of propaganda which the enemies of South Africa can use against us.

What are the facts? To my knowledge not a single journalists is in detention at the moment in terms of the emergency regulations. Only one journalists—I am referring to the regional and national media now—namely Zwelakhe Sizulu, to whom there was reference earlier, is under restriction at present and for reasons which are known to this House.

Permit me to refresh memories on this. Sizulu’s detention and restriction had very little to do with his journalistic activities. He is an activist who is especially involved in the so-called circles of alternative education. His connection with the National Education Crisis Committee is more than well known and one of the conditions of his restriction is that he is not permitted to visit any educational institution.

They probably want to tell me that, if a man who works for Iscor is detained in terms of the emergency regulations, there is discrimination against Iscor. Surely that is the same comparison they wish to make.

†The right of a government to protect the interests of the state was also accepted by the General Assembly of the United Nations when this body adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 16 December 1966, incidentally on the Day of the Covenant in South Africa.

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

No.

The Universal Declaration, article 20 provides that:

In article 4 of the same covenant it is accepted that restrictions on the exercise of rights, provided they are prescribed by law, are recognised if limitations are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others—that is the United Nations. [Interjections.]

Article 12, which is concerned with the right of everyone to—

also provides that these rights may be subject to restrictions provided by law to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the right and freedom of others.

There are various other articles also referring to this.

What I actually wish to point out is that the United Nations which is actually regarded as the so-called champion of human rights, recognises the right of a state to maintain law and order, while hon members of this House try their utmost to portray measures taken by this Government as draconian and inhuman.

*The media emergency regulations in terms of the Public Safety Act have the specific object of doing or achieving only what and nothing more than is acknowledged even by the United Nations as the right of any democratic state. That revered man Abraham Lincoln perhaps summarised this even more strongly when he said:

This radical statement was made by one of the world’s greatest champions of democracy. It is a fact that the South African measures cannot even be compared with what Lincoln justified. Yet the hon member for Sandton and his hon colleagues assume the moral right to bring this motion before the House.

Freedom is an exceptional concept, a concept that all of us in this House and in this country want to put into practice, cherish and develop further. The greatest and purest form of freedom has to go hand in hand with rules and respect, however. Those rules must be applied specifically to ensure freedom for all in its broadest sense. Here I differ very strongly with the hon member for Green Point.

Those rules apply not only to individuals but also to the media. Far be it from me to accuse the South African media as a whole of irresponsibility; on the contrary, although there will always be inherent differences between state and media in any democracy, it is those very differences which constitute a sound democratic system. With few exceptions, South Africa has exceptionally responsible media with a right to existence in keeping with our character and our community. As a result of the role of our mass media, the information conveyed to our public is good and well balanced. I challenge any hon member of this House to provide proof that the existing media regulations inhibit his right in any way to put across his policy standpoints. Hon members will notice that I have referred more specifically to the national and regional media and not necessarily to the alternative media which frequently publish their work in dark and devious ways.

The Defence Act also provides for certain measures which are aimed at safeguarding military actions, conduct and the safety of our Defence Force. For 10 years I shared in liaising between the SADF on the one hand and the media on the other. There was often conflict during that time but I want to state here categorically that not a single one of those conflicts was left unsettled after they had been discussed at confidential level with the Press Union of South Africa.

I shall conclude by associating myself with the principle that a free Press is essential in a free democratic system but that that Press also has certain responsibilities. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to reply to the hon member for Germiston District. Yes, I must use parliamentary privilege to bring facts to light because the public Press no longer has the freedom to publish those facts. That is the reality of South Africa. [Interjections.] The Government clamps down on freedom of the Press because it wants to prevent details and facts about its maladministration and its oppression of freedom from being made public. [Interjections.]

In January of this year a video and photographs were shown to national servicemen stationed in the Black residential area of Mamelodi. Appearing in that video and those photographs were Rev Nico Smith of the NG Church in Africa and other Whites. The video and photographs were taken by members of the security police from Defence Force vehicles at Defence Force roadblocks in the Mamelodi area without the knowledge of these people, as they were on their way to attend functions in Mamelodi. The video, and photographs of the people concerned were shown to the national servicemen, while the presenter—someone from the Defence Force’s intelligence service—warned these national servicemen to be on their guard and on the look-out for these people—these so-called dangerous Whites. Furthermore, the presenter told them that the people in the photographs and the video were the enemy. [Interjections.] They were the enemy! That is what that man told those young national servicemen. [Interjections.]

Order!

What a scandalous misuse of the Defence Force! [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Defence will have to tell us whether this is Defence Force policy. Is it the policy of the hon the Minister of Defence to misuse the Defence Force in this way in order to malign people whose politics differ from his? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, if it is Government policy to misuse the Defence Force in this way for political purposes, the Government can no longer force young people to do national service. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the debacle involving the hon the State President …

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

No, Sir, I do not have time to answer questions.

Order! The hon member for Claremont’s time has almost expired.

Mr Chairman, it is facts such as these that the Government wants to conceal by restricting freedom of the Press. The Government does not want those facts to be published because then everybody in the country would know that the Government was misusing the Defence Force and also the Police Force to oppress the population. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, having listened to the participation of the opposition parties in this House, I can come to no other conclusion but that some of those hon members used this debate to raise what were perhaps personal grievances and other personal issues here, which were of course not very relevant to the substance of the motion before the House.

A few useful statements and points were made and raised. I want to assure hon members that I took cognisance of them. I think the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke made a few useful proposals. I also think that positive ideas came from other hon members. It is impossible, of course, to reply to the entire diversity of questions that were put. I just want to thank hon members on the Government side very sincerely for having already, during the turns they had to speak, replied to certain of the erroneous questions and allegations raised by hon members of the opposition parties. I thank the hon members on this side of the House for their contributions.

†Mr Chairman, matters cannot possibly be remotely as bad as they are made out to be in this particular motion. One has only to read an article in the Cape Times of today under the heading: “Secrecy and corruption: Role of the Press in SA”. It illustrates that persons wanting to criticise the Government for the imposition of so-called restrictions designed to shroud administrative and executive actions in secrecy, are having a field day in doing precisely that. Ironically, this article serves the purpose of underscoring the extent to which the freedom of the Press is upheld in South Africa, despite its content which seemingly suggests the contrary.

But this dissertation—I invite hon members to read it—is a study in vague generalisations which create the distinct impression that the author’s research did not lead him to a certain conclusion but rather that he had set about endeavouring to prove an already firmly held conviction. Hon members on the other side of the House did exactly the same this afternoon. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, of course the outbreak of unrest, which in some cases was meticulously orchestrated, and the loss of many innocent lives and damage to property which we have been experiencing during the past few years, require emergency measures. National security, including the need to safeguard the lives of people, has after all been recognised for centuries, as is also the case in present-day democratic societies. It is not something of recent origin. Treaties, manifestos and constitutions accord wide recognition to the inherent right of any State to defend itself when its survival is at stake, its legal system is being threatened and when its constitution is being unlawfully subverted. Under such circumstances the State is compelled to apply and adapt the existing protective measures of democracy for the sake of democracy itself, and also to substitute drastic measures for the delicate and considered procedures of the law, drastic measures which can be applied more effectively to combat threats to national security and imminent dangers.

In a British publication Modem Legal Study which was published in 1985 the compilers quote an investigation made by the United Nations into 36 modern constitutions in which a wide diversity of threats to the body politic requiring emergency measures are recognised. These include the following: Unrest, subversion, harmful activities by revolutionary elements, public order and security. Sometimes the mass media play a very important role in promoting unrest, and in other cases they have the opposite effect, and we are very grateful for that.

The role of extreme protest journalism in the present unrest situation must therefore be carefully monitored. The idea of the freedom of the Press up to the level of irresponsibility, merely in the name of freedom, cannot be accepted. This can never promote rights such as the freedom of speech and Press freedom. All citizens, including the Press, have a duty to combat public violence, disturbances, and revolution.

Hon members are aware that propaganda, terrorism and unrest are the most important instruments of revolutionary activism and mobilisation. The hon member for Umlazi, as well as other hon members referred to this. The normal instruments of justice and order in our country, as in other civilised countries, make no provision for the fact that revolutionaries do not subject themselves to any law, and do not have any respect for human life or property.

The hon member for Sandton referred to the numerous laws that are enforceable and said that they ought to be used instead of the media emergency regulations. However, the media emergency regulations make provision for dealing with propaganda. Not one of the other laws make provision for that. Consequently it is essential to use the anti-propaganda measures, for which provision is made in the regulations.

The hon member also referred to the Publications Act. The Publications Act deals with a completely different sphere and the criteria applicable there differ completely from the criteria necessary to control a violent onslaught.

The hon member for Green Point raised the same arguments which he raised last year and during the debate in the first week of this year. [Interjections.] In a civilized society effective measures to cope with these problems are of necessity extraordinary measures.

I submit that it is naïve to deny that South Africa is experiencing a revolutionary onslaught. In this process methods such as propaganda, disinformation, indoctrination and intimidation are applied in order to manipulate people. Viewed in this light the unrest and the attempts which are being made to destroy the considered desire of South Africans who support orderly reform and peaceful development are a danger that has to be dealt with.

Owing to their nature the emergency measures has caused exceptional tension to arise in the relationship between the Government and the media at a stage when understanding and cooperation is essential for the orderly transition to a just, new dispensation. We ought to strive to resolve our differences in this connection. I am resolved to work hard to achieve this object.

†I would like to say that the declaration of the state of emergency and the regulations which were promulgated to contain the violence and other acts which necessitated those regulations, represent an earnest attempt to restore peace and stability and to enhance the prospects of, inter

alia, economic growth and the further democratisation of the South African society in the interests of all South Africans. The decision to resort to the extraordinary measures for which those regulations provide, was not taken lightly. I certainly do not relish the fact that, in terms of those regulations, I have been charged with certain unpopular responsibilities in respect of the media; on the contrary, my colleagues and I look forward to the day when it will be possible to lift the state of emergency and rid the Statute Book of emergency regulations. At the proper time we shall give it the serious attention it deserves.

The hon members on the other side of the House and we on the governing benches probably have certain compatible views as to Press freedom and its importance as a cornerstone of a democratic society. We must move out of the state of emergency as soon as possible and, to my way of thinking, the media has an important role to play in creating a climate conducive to that end, as well as to the facilitation of peaceful reform.

Although we have our differences, we should at all times endeavour to be constructive in our criticism of each other’s points of view.

Mr Chairman, I have listened to what the hon the Minister had to say. Something that concerns me, is that he almost appears to believe that he believes in Press freedom. There is absolutely no point in paying lip-service to Press freedom and to say that we all believe in it and that we are all striving for it when the actions of this Government prove exactly the contrary. We have over 100 Acts of Parliament which limit the Press in what they may or may not say. Why is it necessary to close down newspapers? This is the ultimate form of censorship and the severest form of repression against a publication and a denial of the public right to have access to all points of view on matters of public interest. Why is it necessary to close down newspapers?

I am also concerned about the reasons given by the hon members on that side of the House for the media restrictions. All of us are opposed to revolution and violence, and if it were the Government’s intention and if their actions were aimed at stopping violence and revolution and it was therefore necessary to impose restrictions on the media, we on this side of the House would have supported that, if that was necessary. However, that is not the point of the Government’s action. It is absolutely clear to me that the NP’s actions—I am not talking about their words—in applying the media emergency regulations are simply to oppose effective opposition to NP Government, to keep community leaders who have something meaningful to say and to keep the leaders of the people in this country who want to say something effective in opposition to this Government out of the public eye and out of the newspapers. When something effective is said in the alternative press, then the alternative press is labelled as revolutionary or subversive.

I am not asking the hon the Minister why he finds it necessary to close down newspapers. He has already told us. In a speech in Parliament earlier this year the hon the Minister unashamedly admitted that the media emergency regulations were aimed at curbing anti-Government propaganda. The hon the Minister does not of course use the term “anti-Government.” He refers to “subversive propaganda.” It is, however, clear that the NP’s definition of “subversive” refers to all publicity, news and views which may influence people against the NP Government and its policies or which may promote the growth of democratic movements or action aimed at getting rid of this Government and the constitutional structures which keep the NP in power. That is very clear to me. Any publication which is anti the tricameral system, anti-Nationalist, which is anti-Nationalist oppression, anti-violence from Government and which mobilises support from the man in the street and the people in the townships, is immediately branded as subversive and revolutionary whereas they are merely expressing the point of view and voice of the people whom those publications serve.

Defending his right to be the prosecutor and judge in his own case, the hon the Minister argued that propaganda was so subtle that efforts to define it rendered court decisions futile. What he really should have told us, was that his and his party would not be able to stop anti-NP propaganda if they had to rely on due process of law as no court would construe information of public concern as subversive merely because that information painted the NP Government in a bad light.

They cannot take this sort of thing to court. They have to take the decisions themselves because only the NP will apply these regulations in such a way as to achieve their purpose and the courts certainly would not assist them in this.

Closing down and suspending newspapers or threatening to do so are, of course, the ultimate weapons in intimidation. It is the Government’s way of ensuring that a newspaper will impose self-censorship and become a faithful follower of the dictates of Government. Fortunately, despite these draconian powers and intimidating tactics, many of our newspapers continue, at great risk to their own survival, to publish as much of the truth as they can.

Unfortunately, however, newspapers can go only so far, and so much information about what is really happening in our troubled land is kept from us. We are shielded from the opinions of politicians whom the NP choose to define as subversive or revolutionary. As a result many South Africans live in a cocoon of unreality.

What is more frightening is that so many, and particularly Whites, have been lulled into acceptance of our state of ignorance and have forgotten the worth and importance of free speech and free Press. In 1977, Judge Galgut, who was then the chairman of the SA Press Council, said:

I question whether freedom of speech is today still a valued commodity. Do our people really appreciate the essential worth of free speech and do they understand that one cannot have free speech without a free Press? After a decade and more of turning the screws on legislation aimed at controlling and limiting the Press, culminating in the Media Emergency Regulations, most South Africans seem reasonably content to be blinkered and gagged. Whatever quest for information and truth we still have seems to be satisfied by our daily dose of the SABC sedative.

This complacency is the product of many factors. Amongst Whites, in addition to widespread apathy and ignorance, the fact that we are seldom if ever personally exposed to repressive action means that we do not come face to face with the true value of freedom. Until we are deprived of freedom we will not know what it is. The deprivation implicit in the restricted Press is far more subtle.

Another factor contributing towards our complacency is moral confusion. The NP Government knows full well that South Africans are fundamentally moral and require at least a pretence of justification for Government actions. The tricameral system and even Verwoerdian grand apartheid sought moral justification.

When it comes to the issue of media restrictions, the NP seeks justification for the blanket it has thrown over our Press in the universality of this type of action. They argue that it is universally accepted that the Press has a duty to act responsibly. Facts presented by a journalist should be true; editorial comment should be fair and objective; and the norms of society and State security must be respected.

We accept all of this, but why do we have to restrict the Press? The argument that one has to be responsible is a valid one, but when one links responsibility to a distorted and contrived definition of what is subversive, the whole validity in Government’s argument falls away.

Mr Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the members of the PFP who spoke in this debate, namely the hon members for Green Point, Johannesburg North and Groote Schuur, for preparing their speeches as well as they did and for delivering what I think were very constructive contributions to this debate.

The hon the Minister entered the debate immediately after the motion had been moved and the first thing he said was that the freedom of the Press was not absolute. I am sure that in all circumstances the freedom of the Press is never totally absolute. The freedom of the Press does not imply the licence of the Press. The Press is always, in any democratic country, circumscribed by ordinary laws, laws of libel, slander, laws relating to official secrets and, in our country, virtually a hundred other laws which circumscribe the limitations within which the Press can operate in reporting the facts.

The difficulty that I have with the hon the Minister’s statement is that he believes that it is his, the Minister’s, opinion which is important in deciding to what extent the Press may go in reporting what is happening in the country. My difficulty is that the hon the Minister who maintains that the freedom of the Press is not absolute and neither that the right to information is absolute, denies the right of the Press—and in denying the right of the Press, he denies the right to the public of South Africa—of testing his subjective opinion objectively in the courts.

He went on to say that the motion and the speech that went with it were filled with exaggerations and innuendo. I tend to think that there was very little evidence in the speech that was made and certainly no innuendo in the motion itself. I thought that the evidence presented was pretty clear. The regulations, it is not denied by this Government, have curtailed the rights of the Press and the rights of the public to both report and to know what is going on. The regulations have seen to it that the Press is virtually banned from the townships and that permission is required before any matters can be published relating to the unrest situation, permissions, which I may say, are very seldom granted. There has been no attempt to refute the allegations of harassment. I do not think there has been any exaggeration as to the harassment of journalists; there has been no attempt to refute the allegations which were made; and there has been no attempt to refute the statements made relating to the visas or the threat of withholding visas from journalists.

The closures of newspapers; these have happened. We have listed newspapers which have been closed and the hon the Minister even defends this method of closure. If the hon the Minister is so sure that these newspapers are formenting revolution, why has there been no prosecution of those newspapers? Why has there been no prosecution of the editors and of the reporters who the hon the Minister has said have overstepped the mark? Why are these newspapers not allowed any right whatsoever to appeal against the decision of the executive Minister?

*The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke made a very good speech. I do not fully agree with him on what he said, nevertheless, I want to thank him for his partial support and for his balanced contribution to the debate.

†The hon member for Umlazi spoke of the onslaught on South Africa and he said that the emergency regulations were there to protect democracy. I want to ask him since when democracy can be saved by undemocratic methods. Since when can we fight communism by using the very evils we say we abhor. What democracy, I ask, can survive when the power over the life and death of a journal or a newspaper is given to an executive Minister?

The hon member for Durbanville read from the regulations but admitted that in every single case when he quoted from the regulations, to insert the words which are in those regulations, that certain situations occurred “which in the opinion of the Minister”; every single aspect of the regulations relates to the opinion of the hon the Minister being exercised. It is the the hon the Minister’s opinion in those regulations which is paramount. That is the opinion which cannot be tested in court.

He mentioned that question of the banning of New Nation was tested in the court. All that was tested in the court was the hon the Minister’s power to act as he does in the terms of the regulations. The merits of the hon the Minister’s action and the merits of his opinion were never and was not capable of being tested in the courts.

The hon member for Losberg—I also thank him for his contribution—did not agree with me but I think he is very honest in his viewpoints, and this is much better than the Government who actually plead the cause of Press freedom and then put their jackboot on top of the Press in South Africa. He mentioned the selectivity in respect of morality, the double standards which are applied in forbidding publication when it suits the Government but allowing publication of certain matters at other times when it also suits the Government. This illustrates the point that this power of life and death over the Press, this power of censorship, should not be given to a political executive.

The hon member for Sundays River, who is here today, spoke of the clichés. I do not know whether he did it on purpose but he then misquoted me on my comments on democracy in Africa to the north of the Republic. That was a direct misquote.

Then about the clichés: I do not believe that it is a cliché to say the freedom of the Press is threatened in South Africa. I do not believe it is a cliché to say that the erosion of democracy is occurring in our country. I do not believe it is a cliché to say that we abhor the arbitrary executive powers exercised by this Government. I believe all of this to be true.

He argues that the court is not an appropriate place in which to test these matters. This I believe is a very strange argument coming from a legal luminary such as the hon member for Sundays River. I honestly do not believe that he can be serious in that argument.

He accuses us of using subjective, untested phraseology but he refuses to have that phraseology tested in the courts! He also refuses to allow an aggrieved person whose newspaper is either about to be closed or whose report is about to be censored or stopped, to test that in court. I believe that the greatest guardian of democracy in South Africa and the only major and important guardian of democracy in South Africa is a free Press coupled with the independent courts of our country.

The hon member for Germiston District started with a cheap shot in what he said I had said about Africa. Thereafter, having got his cheap shot over, his speech deteriorated rapidly. The highlight of his speech was when he quoted Abraham Lincoln as saying, “Freedom is a great concept”. I want to congratulate him on understanding or finding that out. [Time expired.]

Debate concluded.

Draft resolution and amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, before I deliver my Budget Speech, permit me to thank my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare for the competent manner in which he handled both the Part Appropriation Bill and the Additional Appropriation for 1988-89 during my absence due to illness. My sincere thanks to him for a job well done.

*The introduction of this Budget today is a historic event, since it is the fifth Budget to be considered by this House. I think this is an appropriate occasion on which to take a moment to see what we have achieved during this relatively short period.

I want to begin with the total allocations as from the 1985-86 financial year when our first Budget for a full financial year was submitted. The following amounts were approved in order to fund the services of the Administration: House of Representatives in the Main Budget. During the 1985-86 financial year it was R1 358 438 000; during the 1986-87 financial year, it was R1 773 510 000—an increase of 30,5%. During the 1987-88 financial year, it was R2 050 355 000, which represents an increase of 15,6% on the previous financial year. During the 1988-89 financial year, it was R2 362 025 000—an increase of 15,2%; and during the 1989-90 financial year, it was R2 764 481 000, an increase of 17% on the previous year. Hon members can see, therefore, that since the 1985-86 financial year, the funds made available for the services of the Administration have been doubled. These amounts do not include the funds allowed by the authorities for the financial years in question in the additional appropriation.

After the Eshowe decision of 1983 to take part in the present constitutional dispensation, the LP of South Africa undertook as its first objective to use the system to promote our long-term strategies. As its second objective, it undertook to accept a shorter-term strategy by means of which the economic and social upliftment of our community could take place in the spheres of education, welfare and housing. The LP has always been convinced that no one can think for anyone else. Consequently we must be here ourselves to supply the needs of our people. In the same way it is absolutely essential that our Black brothers determine their needs and their priorities themselves. The comparison of our budget amounts paints a clear picture, viz that only he who wears the shoe knows where it pinches him.

In the sphere of education our first appropriation during the 1985-86 financial year was a mere R726,3 million. In contrast with this an amount of R1,792 billion is being earmarked for this service for the coming year. This amount has been put together as explained in Schedule A to Vote 1, “Education and Culture”. It represents an increase of R1,066 billion or approximately 146,8%. With regard to the provision of school buildings, we have built 57 new primary and 50 new secondary schools since 1984, whereas there have been extensions to 28 primary and 21 secondary schools. To those who still cannot see any progress, all I can say is that none are as blind as they who will not see.

We have also achieved great success in the sphere of welfare. In his opening speech on 27 December 1988 on the occasion of the LP’s annual congress, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council pointed out that we had still not succeeded in closing the gap with regard to pensions. It remains the endeavour of the Ministers’ Council, however, to fulfil this objective.

†Notwithstanding the fact that we still have to close the gap in social pensions, our success in this field can be seen from the following statistics. In 1984 the amount paid in respect of old age pensions was R39,6 million. For 1989-90 the equivalent amount will be R260 million. Veterans’ pensions amounted to R3,3 million in 1984 against R29 million for the coming financial year. Pensions for the blind have risen from R634 949 in 1984 to R5 million in 1989-90. Allowances paid to disabled people increased from a mere R26 million in 1984 to R196,2 million in 1989-90.

Compared with the amount of R26 million paid in 1984 in respect of maintenance allowances, the amount earmarked for 1989-90 amounts to R175,5 million.

*The preceding is an indication of the total funds made available for these services. With regard to payment to individuals, the position has improved as follows:

Order! I merely want to give a ruling, and I hope hon members on both sides of the House will submit to it. I do not need the assistance of the hon member for Matroosfontein. I am going to apply this ruling strictly. The Speaker gave a ruling previously which also applies to this House, viz that when a Minister is making his Budget Speech, no one may interrupt him. No one must make any comments while a Minister is making a Budget Speech. I am not prepared to discuss that. That is a ruling given by Mr Speaker.

Hon members will agree if I say that this is a remarkable achievement. We have made phenomenal progress in the sphere of housing during the past approximately five years. In this connection the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said the following on 27 December 1988 during the LP’s annual congress:

†With regard to our achievements over the past few years, it seems appropriate to stipulate the future aims of the Ministers’ Council as far as services to our community are concerned. As I have said before, it remains one of our main objectives to close the gap between all pensions and allowances paid to our people—to bring them on a par with the allowances paid to Whites in our country. This will, of course, involve a large amount of money and we cannot expect to achieve this overnight.

On the housing scene we intend to provide suitable housing to the people of our community who really are in need thereof. Where possible, our people themselves, as well as the private sector, will have to assist us, and I trust that we shall experience the same or even better successes in the years to come. We will certainly get much further by joining hands and solving problems together than by compiling lists of grievances and throwing stones at one another.

*In the sphere of education we still have an enormous backlog as far as schools and facilities are concerned. I want to give hon members the assurance, however, that the Ministers’ Council will leave no stone unturned in eliminating this backlog. The Ministers’ Council realises that every hon member in the House knows what the problem is, viz the Act that prescribes separate facilities. That is why the LP says: “Get thee hence, Satan! Away with the Act!” That is why the LP says: “Away with apartheid as a whole.” That is why the LP says: “Away with racial classification which admits only certain people to certain schools.”

Away with Carter!

Order! The hon member for Swartland must withdraw that remark.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

With these obsolete Acts out of the way, there will be enough or nearly enough schools and facilities for everyone in this beautiful country of ours.

†I now want to pay attention to the Budget for the coming financial year. In terms of section 4 (2)(b)(i) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, Act 66 of 1975, the member of the Ministers’ Council to whom the administration of the financial affairs of a population group has been assigned shall, for every financial year, submit to his House of Parliament an estimate of expenditure to be defrayed from the Revenue Account: House of Representatives and an estimate of expected revenue with which that account is required to be credited during that financial year. The object of the Appropriation Bill before this House is to seek approval for expenditure by the Administration: House of Representatives amounting to R2,764 billion.

Before we discuss the estimate of expenditure to be tabled today, I would like to say a few words about the revenue of the Administration. Our income is derived from four different sources, namely the State Revenue Fund, interest and dividends, the recovery of loans and other departmental activities. The main contributor is the State Revenue Fund. Although we asked for more funds, the hon the Minister of Finance allocated an amount of R2,742 billion to this administration. This amount does not include the own income of the administration, which amounts to R22 million.

*For the information of hon members I can mention that we have submitted the following requirements to the central Treasury. We requested R1,331 billion for the Department of Education and Culture. An amount of R1,166 billion was granted, plus R187,6 million in respect of the carry-over cost of the salary adjustments for officials during the 1988-89 financial year. My own Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services needed R64,5 million, of which R60,2 million was made available, plus R25,5 million in respect of the carry-over costs to which I have referred. The requirement of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture amounted to R539,9 million. Of this we received R415,2 million, plus R4 million for the carry-over cost of salary adjustments. The Department of Health Services and Welfare required R735,9 million. An amount of R749,5 million was made available, plus R8,3 million for carry-over costs and R123,2 million for improved pension benefits.

Hon members will note immediately that this department received more funds than we originally requested. This was not an erroneous allocation. The central Treasury also allowed additional funds for expenditure in respect of the operation of day hospitals and clinics, a function which has been transferred from the provincial administrations to the Administration: House of Representatives.

In summary, therefore, we requested an amount of approximately R2,671 billion from the Department of Finance, of which R2,391 billion could be made available to us. To this amount of R2,391 billion we still have to add the carry-over cost of improved conditions of service, improved pension benefits and funds for occupational specific improvements—which were granted after we had submitted our requirement to the Treasury—as well as our own revenue, which supplements the available amount for this Administration for 1989-90 as follows. In the first place, the amount we are receiving from the central Treasury is R2,391 billion. Secondly, the carry-over cost of improved conditions of service amounts to R0,225 billion. Thirdly, improved pension benefits and allowances amount to R0,123 billion and, fourthly, funds allocated for further occupational specific improvements during the 1989-90 financial year amount to R0,003 billion, as well as fifthly, own revenue of R0,022 billion. The total, as in the printed budget for 1989-90, therefore amounts to R2,764 billion.

Hon members can see, therefore, that we do submit our full requirement to the central Treasury.

As in the case of our personal finance, however, there are limits that cannot be exceeded and we accept that the central Government has done everything in its power to meet our requirements as far as possible. I want to tell the hon the Minister of Finance what Solomon said in the book of Proverbs: A fulfilled desire brings joy. I hope that he will be able to fulfil our desires shortly.

†As I have said before, the own income of this Administration, which amounts to R22,0 million for 1989-90, is derived from interest and dividends, the recovery of loans and other departmental activities. I should like to point out that this source of income has increased by 11,4% compared with last year’s income. This income is, of course, added to the amount given to us by the central Government. To augment the amount available for appropriation by this House, I would like to appeal to my colleagues to ask their respective departments to have a close look at all services rendered to the public with a view to increasing tariffs. Let us bear in mind that such increases will only be used to improve the standard of living of that part of our community where it is needed most.

When we look at the estimate of expenditure for 1989-90, hon members will note that the largest amount is provided for education. On this subject, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will address the House in more detail.

Hon members will recall that when my colleague the Minister of Health Services and Welfare addressed this House on my behalf during the debate on the additional Budget for 1988-89, he mentioned the fact that the Treasury: House of Representatives would have to suspend an amount of R47 million on next year’s education budget. The result of this action will be that the Department of Education and Culture will have R47 million less to spend during the 1989-90 financial year. The necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the department operates within the lesser amount available. I may, once again, mention that we have invited the Department of National Education to have a discussion regarding the problem of inadequate funds generated by the subsidy formula for education.

The department, however, plans to provide the following services during the next financial year:

1. (a) Pre-primary education
   The introduction of 10 new classes as there is a great need for this type of education.
2. (b) Primary education
   The provision of 5 new schools, one new hostel and certain extensions at an existing school.
3. (c) Secondary education
   Provisioning of existing schools as well as 11 new schools, 6 new hostels, 8 school halls and extensions at 6 existing schools. The provisioning and alterations at Hewat Teachers’ Training College is also envisaged.
4. (d) Culture
   As I mentioned in my Budget Speech last year, the development and advancement of culture are receiving the constant attention of the Ministers’ Council and for this purpose an amount of R6,1 million has been earmarked for the next financial year. Compared with the amount appropriated for the current financial year, we find an increase of R1,3 million or 28,6%. Now, however sweet it may sound, I am sure that those hon members who went to see “What makes a Ballet Like Cinderella” will agree that even an increase of 100% would not be too much, because given the opportunity, our people will prove their worth at any time.

At this juncture I would like to congratulate the Department of Education and Culture in the Administration: House of Representatives, all those connected with the lecture/demonstration of “Cinderella” and a big “bravo” to those schools and organisations where ballet is taught. We have appreciation for the teachers and parents who use the available facilities.

*To those who want to boycott the use of facilities, I want to say as Solomon did: “Someone who will not learn will be poor and disgraced!”

An appropriation of R85,7 million is envisaged for the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services. The largest increase with regard to the previous year’s provision can be found in the “Management” component where the amount has more than doubled from R23,3 million to R50,5 million. The reason for this is a rectification of an under-supply in staff expenditure, the carry-over cost of occupational specific improvements with regard to certain professional groups and the remuneration of more security personnel. The Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services deals with all the personnel aspects of the Administration.

†Hon members are aware of the fact that the staff serving the Administration consists of all population groups. Although these members are all treated on an equal basis, the Ministers’ Council has committed itself to improving the position of our own people. My colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare has, in his speech during the debate on the Additional Budget for 1988-89, given this House a full report on our policy of affirmative action. I do not regard it necessary to repeat his speech, but I think hon members should take note of the fact that presently 92% of the posts in the Administration: House of Representatives are filled by members of the Coloured community.

*In order to equip the staff to carry out their task purposefully and efficiently, the Subdirectorate: Training and Development involved more than 1 500 officials in courses and seminars during the past year. The purchase of additional training equipment, such as a video camera and further training films, is envisaged in the coming financial year to ensure that the most advanced and effective training methods are used to promote the efficiency of the available manpower to the greatest degree possible. In addition officials are encouraged to equip themselves academically for the demands of their task.

The provision of funds for the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture shows a small decrease in the appropriation for the present financial year. The main reason for this is the request made by the hon the Minister of Finance that we should make every effort to restrict Government expenditure in the present economic climate. In view of the fact that this Administration has statutory funds at its disposal for the rendering of certain services, we were in the fortunate position of being able to comply with his request to a great extent without having to sacrifice efficiency. These statutory funds are used first in maintaining essential services, and only then is use made of appropriated funds. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing, will give full details of projects when his Vote is discussed.

I want to point out, however, that the regional services councils furnish a number of services on an agency basis on behalf of the Administration: House of Representatives, and an appropriation of R20 million as remuneration for the regional services councils is envisaged for this purpose.

With reference to rural development, there is great emphasis on township and regional development and the provision for this purpose is increasing by 57,4% from R7,8 million to R12,3 million. This will enable us to extend the upgrading and improvement of township planning and consequently enhance the standard of living of our people in the rural areas. The provision of funds for the development of the rural areas remains insufficient, but hon members will agree that a great deal of progress has been made in this sphere.

†For the Department of Health Services and Welfare an amount of R885 million has been included in the estimates for 1989-90. This is an increase of R128,5 million or 17,1% on last year’s figure. Provision was made for increased social pensions and allowances approved by the Government during 1988. Furthermore, as I have mentioned earlier in my speech, funds were allocated to this department for the running costs of day hospitals and clinics taken over from the provincial administrations.

Regarding the backlog in social pensions and allowances payable to our people, I want to state that the Ministers’ Council has made it one of its highest priorities to move to parity in this field as fast as possible. However, we will have to accept that this is an objective which we will not be able to attain overnight. Discussions at the highest level will be maintained and my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare will, as in the past, put the need of our senior citizens on the negotiation tables at every possible opportunity. We shall not neglect them and they can be assured of the strongest possible support from the Ministers’ Council.

*The Ministers’ Council does not see our pensioners as a group of the community that simply has to be satisfied in some way. We see them as the generation that has played its part in bringing the country where it is today. We acknowledge that their financial contribution cannot be the same as that of certain Whites, as a result of the country’s discriminatory legislation and practices, but I trust that the Whites will acknowledge in the same spirit that in many respects our elderly have made a much greater contribution with their hard work and their lives. I therefore appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance to channel the first possible savings he can effect to our administration so that we can diminish the existing disparity in social pensions.

Mr Chairman, I now introduce the Appropriation Bill (House of Representatives) for 1989 and lay upon the Table the Estimate of Revenue and Estimate of Expenditure for the Administration: House of Representatives for the financial year ending 31 March 1990 (RP9-1989), as well as the Explanatory Memorandum on the Main Appropriation for 1989-90 of the Administration: House of Representatives.

First Reading debate

“Carter-katjie!”

Order! Did the hon member for Northern Cape refer to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as “Katjie-katjie”?

I said “Carter-katjie”.

Order! Will the hon member for Northern Cape withdraw that statement?

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I am a bit concerned because this is the second occasion on which deliberate attempts have been made to reduce my time. To this I take strong exception. The governing party must realise that the Official Opposition has a specific function to perform in any House and we promise to perform that function thoroughly.

On behalf of my party I want to welcome back the hon the Minister of the Budget. We are thankful that he has recovered from his indisposition and that he is able to take up the reins of his office once again.

The DRP voices its acceptance of the Budget introduced by the hon the Minister and we will vote accordingly.

I want to address the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. When he was Acting Minister of the Budget he stated in his reply to the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill in 22 February that he was in a quandary about the Official Opposition’s vote of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council because he received “accolades” from them for a job well done. First of all, the hon the Minister flatters himself by using the term “accolades” when all that was done by the Official Opposition was to express acceptance of the Part Appropriation. Be that as it may, the contradiction the hon the Minister saw in us is a false perception. The contradiction, in fact lies in his own party’s continually changing stand on issues. One moment they threaten to pull out of the tricameral system and the next they decide to stay. [Interjections.] We were quite in order to accept the Part Appropriation. They should have rejected it in order to force an election for this House which their leaders one moment say they want but their members, with good reason, oppose the next. [Interjections.]

Let us examine the hon the Minister’s accusation “dat ons mense in die opposisiegeledere het wat uit twee monde praat” and see how it applies to the majority party. The Labour Party’s leader is on record as having said and I quote:

He said this at his party’s conference last year. What does his Minister of Health Services and Welfare say, however? [Interjections.] He says:

*That is what the Acting Minister of the Budget said on 22 February. [Interjections.]

Is that not true?

The hon the Minister should be careful not to get so excited.

Order! The hon member for Northern Cape must refrain from making those amusing comments. I am making a final appeal to him.

Mr Chairman, I know what the problem of that hon member is. He is not certain whether he really represents his constituency. He has problems there.[Interjections.]

*I want to ask what this means. If the hon the Acting Minister was not referring to this House, what did he mean? Is this House not an own affair? Is the purpose of the Part Appropriation not the promotion of the own affairs interests of the Coloured people? Hon members must notice how enthusiastically the hon the Minister talks about the people “in whose service we are”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare must come to order. He will have an opportunity to repudiate everything if he wishes.

In other words the hon the Minister is in direct opposition to his leader’s standpoint. Who is speaking with two voices now?

†What has become crystal clear about the leadership of the LP, is that they have lost sight of their strategic goals and are now falling around in a welter of contradictions of their own making. [Interjections.] This was not always the case. When people could still freely voice an opinion in that party without fear of being kicked out or scratched from the selection lists of candidates for the coming election, a clearly defined twopronged policy was debated—as was mentioned here by the hon the Minister of the Budget—and accepted, namely that the party would strive for long-term political goals and see to the short-term needs of the people they serve.

If one is to judge the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare by the intensity and loudness of his delivery when he addresses this House, and, no doubt, also by his whirlwind visits to hundreds of towns and villages throughout the country, and the thousands of hands he claims he has shaken in greeting …

Which you did not do.

… we must acknowledge that he is well on track as far as the short-term needs of the Coloured people are concerned. Of late, however, one notices a sense of utter frustration on the part of that hon Minister, which, despite his zeal, is caused by a serious shortage of funds. However, the reasons for that will become clear when we deal with the nature of negotiation.

This reminds me that the hon the Minister promised loudly and clearly that he would resign his ministership if he failed to achieve parity in pensions by the end of the five-year period which started in 1984.

Where were you last year? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare must come to order. If he wants to say something he must please do so in the right way. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed. [Interjections.]

You have not done a thing for your people. Nothing!

The hon the Minister has a few months left before the end of the five-year period. The same is true of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. He seems to be going all out to attend to the shortterm needs of the Coloured people in regard to housing.

The housing man of the year.

It seems that the hon the Minister will allow nothing to stop him—even if it contradicts his leader’s view that own affairs is wrecking the Parliamentary system. What is significant about that particular hon Minister, however, is that he does not seem to be short of funds for housing, as is the case with his colleague in regard to funds for welfare. I suspect that the reason for his good fortune …

He has another source.

… is that, unlike his colleague, the hon the Minister of Health, he does not trumpet from a public platform that he is becoming a radical because of his difficulty in obtaining funds. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister said so from a public platform. Or he tells the hon the Minister of Finance to his face that he should not stand in his way in his zeal to increase pensions.

I did not sell out.

Order!

My party firmly believes that much has been achieved by this instrument of own affairs to transform the lives of our community for the better; in other words, to see to the short-term needs of our people.

However, we are very far from exhausting its potential as a mechanism for socio-economic upliftment. A time will possibly come in the future where it can be discarded if and when it has outlived its usefulness. For the moment we must again quote the words of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare—“continue to negotiate for more funds in order to satisfy our growing needs”.

I am not the Minister of Health. I am the Minister of Health Services and Welfare.

Sir, I apologise. However, the hon the Minister has a problem. How long his leader will tolerate his and his hon colleagues’ pragmatic approach which contradicts his own rigid standpoint, remains to be seen.

The failure of the LP leadership to clearly understand what negotiation is all about lies at the root of their difficulty to keep on course in advancing the interests of the Coloured people and the country as a whole.

The nominated member, the hon Mr Lockey, has ventured a definition of negotiation. He says negotiation does not mean collaboration. He has yet to say what it does mean. I say neither does negotiation mean confrontation which, despite the hon the Minister of Health’s claims to the contrary—or Health Services and Welfare—is precisely the style of his leader whom he imitates.

The hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council really “put his foot in it” this time, (his favourite old joke, of course) when he declared to the world that he would refuse to negotiate with the hon the State President. I suppose he did not expect to see Mr P W Botha back in the saddle again.

Another apology forthcoming.

I imagine that another apology will soon be forthcoming. [Interjections.]

This style of so-called negotiation of uttering threats and breathing fire and brimstone and which produces no results only makes fools of leaders in the eyes of our people. Another example of trying to frighten the NP and its leaders is the threat of the hon the leader of the LP to go and talk to the ANC and the PAC. The world outside and we inside this Chamber are still waiting on the Rev Hendrickse to begin his talks with the ANC which he promised was priority number one for 1989.

The ANC have already reacted to the LP leader’s proud boast. On the very night when his intention to approach the ANC was broadcast on television, a limpet mine was discovered in Mamre ready primed to go off. Do hon members know where it was placed? It was situated right under the cornerstone of a community centre in Mamre. The commemorative stone has the name of the Rev Allan Hendrickse engraved on it. That was the reply of the ANC.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is misleading the House regarding where the limpet mine was found.

Sir, that is information that I can establish.

Order! Give the hon member for Mamre the correct information now.

I shall give the hon member for Mamre the correct information in writing. They are making empty threats by taking people to task, like the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare who is having trouble with his throat.

†All these things and painting oneself into a corner are unproductive and reveal a total lack of understanding of what negotiation is all about.

Let us take a look at what two authoritative experts have to say on the matter. Roger Fisher and William Ury have collaborated in writing a book called Getting to yes—negotiating agreement without giving in. Their book embodies the findings of a Harvard University negotiation project. They deal with various negotiating styles and point out that the soft negotiator wants an amicable solution, yet he often ends up exploited and feeling bitter. The hard negotiator—I want hon members to listen because this sounds familiar—sees any situation as a contest of wills in which the side that takes the more extreme position and holds out longer fares better. He wants to win, yet he often ends up producing an equally hard response on the other side, which exhausts him and his resources and harms his relationship with the other side.

The negotiation method offered by Roger Fisher and William Ury may be described as principled negotiation, which is hard on the merits of the case and soft on the people. “Decide the issues on their merits”, these experts advise, “rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won’t do”. We say we will talk to the ANC, but the next moment we do not. “Principled negotiation shows one how to obtain what one is entitled to and still be decent”.

If the majority party really wants to play a role in shaping the new South Africa it must stop this head-bumping style of negotiation and start to master the correct methods. [Interjections.]

*Sir, there is a chicken clucking at the back there. I am not sure who it is.

Order! There are no chickens in this House. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must withdraw that word.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

†There is an extremely important reason for this. We are called upon to provide the rest of our fellow citizens, who are not yet where we are in the decision-making process, with a model of what successful negotiation is all about. At the moment we are presenting them with a style which radicals can do far better, namely confrontation and threats, and even they have failed to produce results.

I now want to turn to the majority party’s constitutional policy or rather policies, because they advance at least three points of view on this question. Their own official constitutional view is one of a non-racial geographical federation. However, this view now seems to have taken a back seat.

Their latest viewpoint is advocating the findings of the Natal-Kwazulu Indaba, as was done by the hon member for Wentworth recently. One is forced to ask whether the LP is ashamed of its own constitutional baby. Out of the past the hon member for Western Free State in his contribution during the no-confidence debate dragged that failed concept of a national convention into present day constitutional thinking. I want to refer him to his own leader’s view on a national convention. In the past two decades or more several attempts were made by radical groups to organise so-called national conventions. They even organised a “convention movement” which lasted for a little while, then faded out. What was the hon the leader of the LP’s reason for refusing to participate in these hare-brained schemes? Because the Government of the day would not be present at such a convention. It would inevitably fail, and the hon the leader of the LP was right. They did fail, for that very reason.

What the LP should be doing now is to loudly propagate the speedy implementation of a law which they themselves have helped place on the Statute Book, namely the Promotion of Constitutional Development Act, 1988, Act 86 of 1988. This Act finally does make provision for a national indaba where the government of the day will be present and where a new constitution to embrace all South Africa’s peoples will be created. The hon the leader of the LP should be the first to proclaim that, with that provision—participation by the Government—the national council will be a success.

There is also the LP’s completely contradictory view on the question of the consolidation of the Black states. I believe a battle royal took place between two family members in LP circles on this issue recently. [Interjections.] Do they not realise that these states can so easily fit into their own idea of a federation quite easily? They can be some of the major building blocks of the federation—even a non-racial one—that the LP envisages. I say that because in not a single one of the constitutions of those states which have become independent do we find any racially discriminatory provisions. We here in South Africa still have to purge our own institutions of the last remaining vestiges of discrimination and yet we have the nerve to prescribe to Black states on whether “South African” land should or should not be added to their areas. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, what a spectacle! I know the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition very well and I know he can make a much better contribution to such a debate. [Interjections.] I think he made a spectacle of himself today. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition is correct in saying that the Official Opposition has a specific function to perform in this House. However, then we at least expect them to do it with some enthusiasm. I expect the Official Opposition to oppose the majority party and to give an alternative to the direction we are following. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was also correct when he said that the hon the Leader of the Ministers’ Council said that own affairs would wreck the parliamentary system, but I am sick and tired of selective quotations.

*The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows why the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said this. It was after the then Transvaal leader of the NP had obviously said in one of his “verkrampte” tirades that he was coming to consolidate own affairs here in Parliament. This is what elicited such a reaction from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He stated emphatically that we saw own affairs as an interim measure in order to uplift our people whereas the former Transvaal leader of the NP wished to consolidate it. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is also right in stating that we had said that we would talk to the ANC. He must not be disappointed when this becomes a fact. [Interjections.] I know that many hon members in this House have more empathy for the ANC than some hon members in Opposition benches possibly have for the NP. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Culture says the question of the limpet mine is untrue. There is no memorial tablet; a plaque was unveiled in the building. So that is not the truth either. There is a good Chinese proverb, however, which states: A bridge which is tumbling down makes a thousand times more noise than one that remains standing. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister of the Budget that I am one of those who are pleased that he is back. I want to wish him everything of the best after his serious illness but I want to congratulate him in particular on the Budget which he has introduced which reflects an increase of 17%—much higher than this year’s expected inflation rate. I want to congratulate him on the characteristic dignified style in which he did this again here today. [Interjections.] In spite of criticism from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, we also have to congratulate the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, who acted in his absence. I believe that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare performed his task outstandingly. We want to say to him: Well done!

I should like to congratulate the new hon Deputy Minister on his promotion. I think it is well deserved; it is a pity that it should happen only now. I believe that the hon the Deputy Minister should have been given the opportunity to show the quality of his steel over the past five years. [Interjections.]

I hope that my hon colleague will bear with me if I say that I should like to express my deepest sympathy today with the management of Sanlam on the death of their beloved president. [Interjections.] Dr Fred du Plessis and I corresponded on various occasions. I learnt to love him as somebody whom I was eager to contact when I was seeking advice and that is why his death came as a great shock to me. I want to wish his successor, Prof Tjaart van der Walt, every success. We come from the same part of the country and I want to tell him that the Western Transvaal remains very proud of these two men who developed Sanlam into an economic giant.

Yesterday we listened to the Budget Speech of the hon the Minister of Finance. I want to congratulate him on that. I think that he introduced a very good budget under very difficult circumstances. He cut back on Government expenditure—it was unpleasant to hear this. He increased GST, he increased the price of our smokes and drinks and pensioners received nothing. The old South African proverb when translated states that bitter pills may have a healing effect. I know that our economy can only benefit from this in the course of time.

The lesson which we are to learn from this, however, is that the economy and politics are indivisible. Economically speaking we are being strangled in South Africa for the very reason that we have made ourselves the pariah of the world. Until such time as we have found solutions to our internal constitutional problems, I do not believe that we shall ever be able to gain confidence abroad. This is where I appeal to the NP to pause and draw up an inventory. We do not have the time for an uncalled-for and unjustified attack such as that which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development directed at the ANC at Ulundi the other day. In spite of their strategy of violence, the ANC consists of South Africans by birth and citizens just like me who are entitled to equal rights in this country.

Hear, hear!

I am tired of hearing people say that the ANC and others must renounce violence while we apply a violent policy of apartheid in this country because apartheid can only be applied by means of violence. I have no sympathy for businessmen who cry about the application of petty apartheid. I want them to stand up and tell the Government: “Get rid of discriminatory legislation!” [Interjections.]

The NP will really have to make a start on their policy of reform. I regard reform as getting rid of whatever people object to. Here I am referring in particular to the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act. I believe that only when those Acts have been removed from the Statute Book and there is no more discrimination against those of colour—I am saying this to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in particular—can we negotiate. To me negotiation means that we sit down at the negotiation table as equals. [Interjections.] It must be negotiation with an open agenda, on one product: A constitution which will be acceptable to all. [Interjections.] There must be no prescriptiveness.

There will be no peaceable change in South Africa, however, because this can only be brought about if means can be applied to remove discrimination in the economy as well as in politics.

To our regret we have to say that the leadership crisis in the NP is not conducive to finding peaceable solutions for this country. What we have seen there is the best example of scavenging politics and political opportunism. They are quick off the mark when a national leader has to be chosen but then the elected leader-in-chief wants to arrogate himself the unconstitutional right of designating himself as state president. [Interjections.] I said in the joint sitting that I was overjoyed that the hon the State President had relinquished his leadership of the NP because I should not like to see my head of state as a member of a political party which discriminates against the vast majority of South Africans.

I have the greatest respect for the hon the State President as a result of this, but what did the national leader of the NP say on 23 March of last year in the House of Assembly? I am referring to Hansard, col 4671 and I quote:

Is that not the exact opposite of what the hon the State President would like to see? He sees himself as a unifying factor as regards all people in South Africa but the hon the chief leader of the NP is a product of apartheid and the tragedy of apartheid is reflected in his success. [Interjections.] This success is so great that domination has taken hold of him and he is already able to tell us now that he is the new State President of South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon member for Macassar must not sit muttering now. [Interjections.] That hon member will have the opportunity to put his case and then he must choose sides. Apartheid is a prime example of a system of socioeconomic domination—“baasskap” as we saw in the chief leader of the NP.

I shall now revert to the Budget and the fact that we see own affairs as an interim measure to uplift our people. I regard an own affairs budget as a bread-and-butter budget. It affects the lives of the people whom we represent here. Let us be honest; it is the poorer people in our communities who are looking forward with great expectancy to this budget. It is the people who live in housing schemes and pensioners who are looking forward to this budget. That is why I agree with the hon the Minister’s reference in his speech to the Eshowe decision and the LP’s long and shortterm strategies. I quote:

Although I fully understand the hon the Minister of Finance’s brave attempts at limiting Government spending to the minimum, it is regrettable that as much as R280 million less has been voted than the House of Representatives budgeted for. I am mentioning this because our community has historic backlogs which we have to make up. We felt the inconvenience of forced relocations in South Africa and that is why I believe that the Government should vote sufficient funds for the provision of suitable dwellings. For years no schools answering to the purpose were built in our communities and that is why it is unacceptable that as much as R165 million less is being voted for the Department of Education and Culture than the department budgeted for. I am afraid that existing backlogs will start developing anew and the pursuit of equal education will never be able to be realised.

We believe that the hon the Minister of Finance should have made provision in his Budget Speech for a further increase in social pensions. Less than 1% of the Brown component qualifies for the rebates for pensioners for which provision is made according to the Budget Speech. This is in consequence of circumstances beyond my people’s control. The hon the Minister spelt this out very clearly earlier when he referred as follows to our senior citizens, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, we are not overjoyed at this Budget because our desires have not been fulfilled. The Ministers’ Council can look back in pride, however, on a period of four successful years during which great milestones have been reached. During this period 57 new primary schools and 50 new secondary schools have been built while extensions have been added to 289 primary schools and 21 secondary schools. Since 1984 more than 10 000 erven have been provided with services and more than 32 000 houses have been built.

The old age pension allowance has risen from R103 to R200 a month. This is an increase of almost 100%! That took some doing! Parity has not yet been reached but we shall continue striving for it unabated. One accepts that this object will be difficult to attain within this economic period because it is not a non-recurring allocation.

I want to dwell for a while on funds voted for education and culture. There is much to be thankful for here but backlogs cannot be wiped out, however. Various efforts have been made to take over unutilised White schools and colleges but the Administration: House of Assembly have never seen their way clear to doing this. Very recently a White training college in the Boland was donated to security services although this Ministers’ Council had applied for it.

During the debate on the Part Appropriation, the hon member for Griqualand West informed the House about unutilised White schools and hostels in his constituency and appealed for efforts to be made to take over those institutions.

Brown schools are overflowing but the NP states it clearly in the words of its newly elected chief leader that those schools will remain White. I am referring to a speech which the hon the Minister of National Education made on 23 March last year in the House of Assembly. I quote him from col 4668:

In other words, if we request utilisation of schools, we are scare-mongering! The hon the Minister of National Education must realise that the investment in human material can only benefit our country. That is why it cries to high heaven that a designated head of state can make such a statement. It is a clear example of an ideology being placed above the interests of a country and its people.

The hon the Minister of National Education is aware that the Department of Education and Culture is facing a crisis after the scaling down of their budget.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives warned against this during the election campaign in the constituency of Alra Park at Geluksdal and said inter alia that 37 high schools or 87 primary schools would have to be closed or that 2 434 teaching posts would have to be terminated because of this scaling down of the budget. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council warned further that two hostels, 10 secondary schools, one technical high school and 12 primary schools which were to be constructed would not be able to be built, provisioned and staffed if this scaling down was proceeded with.

It is clear therefore that, when an ideology is placed above the national interest, the deprived citizens of a country usually suffer most because of this. It is essential that solutions to our country’s problems be found. The sooner this happens, the better. Only when every South African has taken his rightful place under God’s sun here in South Africa will external confidence and business confidence, but especially self-confidence, play an important role in activating our economy again.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to ask the hon member whether there is such a name plaque with regard to the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, because I have been there and I can say that there is indeed such a plaque. [Interjections.]

†With reference to the Appropriation Bill of last year I have noticed that the hon the Minister stated that the appropriation for education had increased by 132% and I wish to quote him:

On that particular occasion the hon the Minister dwelt very extensively on education. He pointed out activities such as ballet, sport and others. The question I wish to pose, however, concerns the fact that during 1988 there was a tremendous tussle between the LP and the CPTU.

*One week the ball was kicked to the CPTU and the next week it was kicked back again. The problems of the teachers subsequently became a political football game. They were then informed that some 2 500 teachers would probably have to be retrenched. Sunday after Sunday the ball was kicked to and fro in the papers.

†I have found out that when the hon the Minister works out his budget the first thing that he sees to is salaries. However, here we find statements that teachers were going to be retrenched. Is this true or was it just a political gimmick, a means of getting at the teachers? The statements which appeared in the Afrikaans papers were ugly as far as the teaching profession was concerned. As a matter of fact it caused trauma amongst the teachers and led to one public meeting after the other where the retrenchment of the teachers was discussed. I do not think there was much truth in the whole story.

I also notice in the Part Appropriation, on p 2, under programme 3: “Housing”, that money was transferred to education. A saving was also effected under programme 4 which also went to education and culture. So there was enough money. Why did they then send out the message that 2 000 teachers were facing retrenchment? Was it a gimmick to get the teachers back in line? I think it was totally uncalled for because from the Budget one can see that there was no truth in that story.

I would also like to know whether provision has been made in this budget for the rentals of tenants. Some of them just cannot pay them. It has been stated over and over again to the management committees that if there were people who could not pay their rentals they had to apply to the Department of Health Services and Welfare for a grant or assistance. That has not come about. Nowhere was any provision made for that kind of thing last year. People went to Bellville and Wynberg and elsewhere to apply for assistance but to no avail.

No provision was made for that in the Budget and the people were sent on a wild goose chase. It was said that if they could not pay … [Interjections.]

I am going to deviate slightly. I notice that a substantial amount is being provided by the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture to the regional services councils. I should like to know from the hon the Minister if provision cannot possibly be made in the Budget under health services and welfare so that distressed families can apply to that department for assistance. No provision has been made for those families who cannot afford to pay their rentals. Although the rentals are low, the service charges are very high. I am asking this from the hon the Minister in view of the fact that the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture has advised people over and over again.

I should like to go further.

And further, and further.

Mr Chairman, that hon member has a problem because he knows he is not coming back to this House, and that the hon member Mr Lockey is taking over his constituency. I know that hon member does not sleep anymore. I understand his problem, however. I wish to wave him goodbye because he is not coming back. [Interjections.] I will therefore allow him a few last remarks. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we also dealt with a matter with regard to transport schemes. The hon the Minister has mentioned in his speech that these schemes are now being taken over. In the debate on the Part Appropriation we were presented with a document setting out what is to be done in regard to contracts. I wonder if the hon the Minister is aware of all the loopholes in this whole scheme? I should like to bring it to the hon the Minister’s attention. [Interjections.]

*That hon member is now, after 21 years, a Minister and now he is feeling better. [Interjections.]

†When tenders are opened, those people who submitted them are not notified of the tender amounts of the ones that were accepted. When I dealt with tenders, tender prices were given to all the tenderers. They are entitled to know the tender amounts. In this particular instance, however, tenderers do not know the tender prices and they also do not know the amount of the successful tender. The tenderers are merely being told who got the tender. [Interjections.]

One will find that a person will submit a tender. He tenders for six routes. He submits regal numbers for six vehicles. He uses the same numbers for buses that are running on another route. He submits the same numbers for a new tender. What does one find? He has six vehicles. He gets another tender for six other routes and then finds himself in a position where he is unable to supply vehicles for those routes. Do the officials ensure that those vehicles that are being submitted on tender are not being utilised on another route? Do they ensure that those vehicles are bona fide … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is the duty of the Official Opposition, right at the outset, either to reject the Budget or to give alternatives for the road we have to follow. I am surprised, however, that members of the Official Opposition are not doing so. I want to appeal to them to stop carrying on like a long-playing record about the Mamre incident. They must come forward with the facts about what really happened there.

I get the impression that the hon member for Bishop Lavis is not keeping up with the growth rate of inflation. That is why he is suddenly preaching long sermons about education and the teachers’ salaries. The hon member is satisfied with his increases, but he begrudges the teacher, who has to teach his child, that increase. He expects the hon the Minister to withhold it from the teachers. This is not what one expects from the hon Whip of the Official Opposition.

I would rather continue with the debate than waste my time arguing with those hon members about the pros and cons of this budget. I wish to participate in this Vote of the hon the Minister of the Budget. In the same breath I wish to convey my congratulations to the hon the Deputy Minister, the hon member for Toekomsrus, on behalf of the Western Transvaal voters and especially the voters of Potchefstroom who represented the hon the Deputy Minister during the CPRC days. Those people are proud to see that the hon leader of the House is still continuing in that way. He was a true representative of our people.

We cannot argue away the fact that South Africa is trying to emerge from the cocoon, but I must also mention to the hon members that South Africa is caught up in the quagmire of poverty. South Africa must start freeing itself today from the fear of the future and of a situation in which high ideals are cherished by the underprivileged and the majority. The South African Government is stuck with a burning issue which they cannot ignore and hope that these problems will solve themselves. If they do not want to get rid of the true problems of White domination and supremacy, all I can tell them is that detention without trial, bird-shot and Casspirs in our communities will not alleviate the situation; they will only worsen it. Apartheid remains the primary policy of the SA Government.

The true solutions to the problems of our country are negotiation with a bit of understanding and empathy for one another’s standpoints—like last week with the meeting of the NG Kerk in Vereeniging at which the church repressed (afgedruk het) its standpoint against apartheid in which the church after 40 years regarded apartheid as a sin and acknowledged it to be a heresy. We must remember—for the information of the hon members—that these problems and this matter of bitterness are deeply rooted in our communities as a result of the church. Apartheid is on the Statute Book as a result of that specific NG Kerk policy. I mention this for the information of the hon member for Macassar.

We must realise that we must move ahead in all earnest for a completely changed South Africa, a South Africa in which we are one, a South Africa which must rid itself of the antagonism of the past, a South Africa in which White South Africans will never again be protected behind the sights of a gun. A shoot-on-sight mentality is always a sign of political bankruptcy. Nowhere in the world has justice been brought about through the barrel of a gun. Justice comes into existence by means of negotiation.

With the ANC!

Yes, we must negotiate with the ANC to save South Africa from the mess it is in.

It is a pity that the hon members of that party still crawl after those who give them information in dark corners or wherever, which is not successful in our communities any more. I do not know why they are still sitting here. [Interjections.]

Those members were saved yesterday when an election was not announced. If the hon the State President had called an election, it would have been the end of them. [Interjections.] Therefore they must not come and tell us that we must talk to the ANC.

In order to build a new South Africa, it is necessary to speak to the extra-Parliamentary groups because they are going to participate in this specific Parliament. Everybody is striving for a new South Africa. I am sorry, however, to have to say goodbye to those members, because they will never represent a new South Africa here. They are finished. [Interjections.] Those hon members must find out about the gratuity they are entitled to, as well as the exact amount of their pensions.

Negotiation is the answer to South Africa’s problems; a South Africa which is freed from this dominating legislation and oppression. It must be remembered that every shot which is fired and every corpse which is buried, creates new wounds—the Strydom case in Pretoria will not solve the problems of this country. We must remember that people are embittered today as a result of that incident.

We must strive for a new South Africa, a South Africa in which we are all united. A South Africa in which the people’s hands are full of the blood of oppression and the hearts full of bitterness, must go through the process of accelerated economic and political growth and stability.

I want to compliment the hon the Minister of the Budget and his department on the drastic change in the Western Transvaal. The communities of the Western Transvaal had the courage to invite the hon the Minister, because their consciences are clear.

Unfortunately those hon members did not have the courage to invite any Minister, Deputy Minister or whoever to their constituencies, because there has been no change. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Robertson for changing speaking times with me.

I want to react to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition immediately. Before I do that, I first want to talk to the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and say that it is very difficult to listen to him. [Interjections.] I will always remember him as the one person I came across in my life who has the ability to violate both the English and the Afrikaans languages to such an extent that nobody can listen to him. [Interjections.] I held a professional post prior to coming here; I did not walk around in a blue uniform, writing out tickets.

You do not even have a certificate!

I do, however, want to refer to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

You were not sure whether they would appoint you again.

The hon member’s leader worked for the LP for R600 per month. The hon member must keep quiet so that I can speak. [Interjections.] The hon member could not make a success of anything in his life! He must keep quiet and give me a chance to speak! I request the Chair to protect me against that bonehead (platkop). [Interjections.]

I want to refer to a few points made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I trust that the Chair will protect me against certain barbarians in the opposition benches. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, but I want to request that the Chair protect me as my time is limited.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that the chief leader of the LP had said that he wanted an election, while members of our party did not want an election. Who was it that asked for the postponement of the election until 1992? [Interjections.] Who sent a memorandum to every member of the LP in which he pleaded that we postpone this election until 1992 so that he could qualify for pension? None other than the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Who has greater cause for concern about a coming election—the LP or the Official Opposition?

Let us take the hon member for Upington. In 1984 he gained a majority of 5 000 votes. In the last management committee election he was only able to poll 72 votes. This is an indication of the degree in which the voters reject the so-called Official Opposition in this House. That party is a party of ex-management committee members. It is their claim to fame. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that the LP should reject the Budget. Who is he fooling? If we reject the Budget, we leave the NP in a position in which they can breathe freely, postpone the election and continue the discrimination of the past.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is rather embittered about the fact that the LP wants to withdraw from the system one moment and continue participating the next. It is, however, interesting that those members walked out because they thought that we would withdraw from the system. Shortly after they broke away the hon member for Esselen Park said from the opposition benches: “If you walk out, we will remain.” We will, however, remain in order to get rid of those sell-outs before we decide to walk.

Hear, hear!

The hon Leader … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bishop Lavis must allow the hon member Mr Lockey to make his speech.

Mr Chairman, you must expel that traffic cop before I lose my temper! [Interjections.] That is how it goes if a meter maid sits in Parliament. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that the leadership of the LP “has lost sight of the strategical”. However, I want to ask him which other strategic aims he is striving for, except toadying pathetically to the Government. Which other strategic aim does he have?

[Inaudible.]

He is talking about long-term goals and short-term needs. His short-term needs are a problem, however, because it is practised from a selfish and self-indulgent position, and he put his personal advantage above that of the public.

Just listen to his argument. He says that the deficit is attributable to a lack of funds in the Department of Health and Welfare because the Minister ostensibly announced to the public that he was radical. Then he says that the hon the Minister of Local Government does not have a problem with funds because he is more moderate. This is completely wrong. The reality is that we do not generate funds in the Department of Health and Welfare, but allocate an annual nonrecurring amount to people. In the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture we have a revolving loan fund, in other words we lend money but we get money back. However, for pensions we get nothing back. This reflects the integrity of the hon member. He implies that should we crawl before the Government, we should receive sufficient funds for our people. That is what he wants to do. He wants to crawl before the people for more funds.

He wants to bid PW farewell. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that my interpretation is that negotiation is not collaboration. That is exactly what it is. The reason I said that to him was that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—when he still held a senior position in the Labour Party—hides behind so-called negotiation every time this party wants to take a strong stand. He violated the word “negotiations” to such an extent that I had to tell him that he was engaged in collaboration and not with negotiation. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that we have driven ourselves into a corner. Who is most embittered about the position in which the LP finds itself? It is the Leader of the Official Opposition. He exhibits the greatest discomfort regarding the position in which we find ourselves.

Let us look at the facts. After our hon leader resigned from the Cabinet, after we took a strong stand regarding certain aspects of apartheid, after we got rid of those fossils who are now sitting with him, this party has become more relevant than any other party in this Parliament. [Interjections.] Today the LP is just as relevant as the NP. They cannot move without us. During the first debate of this year none other than a senior Minister in the NP, the hon the Minister of Transport Services, said that there were only two parties in this Parliament that were still relevant, namely the NP and the LP. So why does he have problems with our position? [Interjections.]

The hon leader says that we now have two constitutional options: A non-racial geographical federation and the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba. The fact of the matter, however, is that these two initiatives are not in opposition with one another. It is precisely by means of initiatives such as the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba that one finally reaches the building blocks of a non-racial geographical federation where people at grassroots level, in loco, can sit around a conference table and work out a model which will be acceptable to that specific region of the country and its people. Surely it is nonsense that we must support more than one constitutional model. The indaba is in fact one of the mediums we should advocate to make our model work.

The hon member said a great deal about the so-called idea of own affairs. All that I want to say, and I want to suffice with this, is that own affairs has a role to play in as far as it can bring those who have lagged behind in this country up to an equal level, so that we can discuss matters with one another as South Africans of equal standing.

The tragedy surrounding own affairs, however, is that in this new constitution, apartheid is elevated to a political philosophy. There can never be a solution if they continue on the level of own affairs. We cannot end up with a Parliament which consists of 14 own affairs administrations. It will simply not work.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition revealed in his speech that he is still a sickly loyalist of the hon the State President. It is also very clear that, now that the LP caucus has forced this hon member to resign as Minister of Education and Culture, this hon member has been told in his letter of resignation to the State President that he makes himself available for any work which the State President might have in mind for him in the future. [Interjections.] He can deny it, but I say it as a warning to the hon members who are sitting with him, that if he is offered work overseas, he will leave them in the lurch just like that. They must be careful of him. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I will to the best of my ability confine myself where I can to the actual address of the hon the Minister of the Budget. As the hon the Minister said, it is the fifth Budget to be considered by this House. [Interjections.]

Empty vessels make the most noise. That hon member should rather go and make a noise somewhere else.

Before I go any further, I would like to welcome back from his illness the hon the Minister of the Budget, whom we are very glad to see back at his post.

I would like to refer to the hon member Mr Douw, who said that not enough money had been raised in order to be able to increase the pensions. I agree with that hon member. This is one of those short-term goals, but we have to look at the long-term objective as well. The hon the Minister of Finance stated in his Budget Speech yesterday that a committee has been established to go into the feasibility of a retirement annuity fund which will be applicable to all. This is what I have been begging for all these years; a kind of contributor’s pension scheme. That is the long-term solution, because by giving social pensions to people one will put an enormous drain onto the State’s resources. Therefore, without taking those pensions away one finds a long-term solution for people who are now entering the job market. In 30 years’ time they may belong to a retirement annuity fund through which they will then get their pensions. This will relieve the State of a great drain on its funds.

I once again refer to the hon member Mr Douw. I am very glad that he could show the voluble Mr Louw how he could mess him around last year, when Mr Douw’s candidates came first, whereafter the Independents followed and the Labour Party came a very poor third. [Interjections.]

And you?

I lost by 100 votes. 1 600 Votes against 1 700 votes on the average. That is as simple as that. That hon member must face it and I can say it to his face. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am quite sure that we can bid the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal goodbye, because I am sure the hon member Mr Douw will deal with him. The hon member Mr Douw will sort him out, so we better leave them be. [Interjections.]

I return to the hon the Minister of the Budget in this House who has done his utmost to obtain the moneys necessary for the socio-economic upliftment of our people, the people we have to represent in this House. In this way he has striven, despite obvious obstacles and limitations, to make his contribution towards the process of reform. By using the short-term strategy that hon Minister and his colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing, are doing their utmost to relieve the short-term condition of the people and to bring that short-term relief whereby they may make their contribution towards the long-term goal of reform. [Interjections.] These hon Ministers must be congratulated therefore.

[Inaudible.]

Shut up! [Interjections.] Obviously what the hon the Minister has succeeded in doing, is not enough. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member will have to withdraw that word.

Mr Chairman, I will withdraw it, but will you please tell the hon member to put his toys away?

Order! The hon member’s withdrawal must be unconditional.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman. Then I may have to tell him to shut up again. [Interjections.] Obviously what the hon the Minister has succeeded in doing for us is not merely enough. However, he is not to blame.

He has done his best and done well under the circumstances with all their limitations. He has done especially well in covering the fields of housing and education. This proves to us that he is genuinely concerned with the welfare of the people irrespective of the fact that he is confined to move within the limitations of own affairs. That is the dilemma all our own affairs ministers face. They are confined by those limitations which are imposed on them by the incidence of own affairs. It is obvious that in most cases they will not get what they want. I am sure, however, and I accept that he has done his best to get what he wanted.

I want to address the hon the Minister on a little matter concerning secondary education. I did not hear the hon the Minister mention anything about the further extension of the establishment of technical high schools as opposed to the present, predominantly academic type of secondary schools. One finds that our children receive an academic education from standard 6 to matric. They complete matric. If they cannot or wish not to go further and prefer to enter the job market, they find they have absolutely no skills to do that.

In Elsies River we have a secondary technical school where the children can learn a trade before they leave school. If one has a trade, one has something to bargain with, something with which one can enter the labour market and something one can really sell. One can sell one’s skills. Perhaps this is what we should encourage more instead of churning out these matriculants from year to year and having them walk the streets all over the show.

Equipment at some high schools—I know about one in Elsies River in particular—are used by teachers only. The children hardly use the equipment. This is largely due to the high incidence of boycotting. The equipment is therefore being used by the teachers to further their own education, and during the evening other people are making use of it. That is why an increasing number of parents in our community are sending their children to other schools. They are sending their children to White schools, business schools and other types of schools.

I therefore ask the hon the Minister to further explore the possibilities of providing technical high schools for our children with the help with of his colleagues and the hon the Minister of Education as well as the hon the Deputy Minister of Education. Perhaps the hon the Minister can enlighten us about this matter in his reply.

In conclusion I wish to tell the hon the Minister of the Budget to carry on doing his best and striving to get the best he can. He has our support and that of everyone who honestly …

Sass-babalaas!

Mr Chairman, I appeal to you to you ask this rude person to keep quiet before I carry on.

Order!

The hon the Minister has our support and that of everyone who honestly has the interest of our people at heart. Therefore, on behalf of my party I approve of and support the Appropriation Bill of the hon the Minister of the Budget.

Sass-babalaas!

Rude pig!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member allowed to call another hon member a rude pig?

Order! Did the hon member for Klipspruit West use the words “rude pig”?

I said Sass-babalaas!

Order! Will the hon member for Klipspruit West withdraw the words?

I withdraw the words Sassbabalaas.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order; the hon member for Matroosfontein referred to another hon member as a rude pig. I object vehemently to that.

Did the hon member for Matroosfontein call the hon member for Klipspruit West a rude pig?

Yes, I did.

The hon member for Matroosfontein is always very sensitive about interjections and protests regularly. It is therefore not right that he uses such ugly words, and he should withdraw it.

I withdraw the words, Sir.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Matroosfontein will pardon me if I do not react to his speech because I wonder whether the hon member himself knows what he has just said.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not even spell out his party’s policy or financial point of view here. [Interjections.] He merely came up with a tirade against the hon leader of the LP and this is proof to me of the political bankruptcy of the Democratic Reform Party.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

I do not know where that hon sleeping beauty has come from now and why he has woken up. [Interjections.] I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister on his Budget Speech. He certainly made a good speech here today. It was so good that even members of the Official Opposition shouted: Good, good! I am also pleased to see that the hon the Minister has recovered so completely. I wish to express my thanks to the hon the Minister as well for his personal help and support in obtaining nonteaching bursaries for students and positions for voters in the Swartland constituency. I want to assure him of my appreciation. [Interjections.] They are not favours at all.

A question which is being asked increasingly today is whether our participation in the new dispensation has been worthwhile so far. To reply to this question, I should like to associate myself with the hon the Minister and take hon members back to the LP’s Eshowe decision of Tuesday 4 January 1983 in which the following points were very clearly spelt out. The LP of South Africa believes in the effective participation of all South Africans regardless of race, colour or creed in the government of the country at all levels. The party did not see the Government proposals as an answer to the constitutional requirements of our time because the greatest part of the population was excluded from them, they did not answer to the constitutional demands of the LP and that they were based on entrenched ethnicity. The LP believed at the time, however, and still believes that, by our participation in the tricameral system and the attendant standing committees, commissions and councils, a contribution could be made to the realisation of those objectives and constitutional ideals and therefore gave its leaders permission to continue on the road of negotiation with the Government of the day. It was also decided to use the tricameral system in the meantime to bring about development, growth and upliftment among underprivileged and less-developed people.

And has it?

It has not been drinking snake juice. [Interjections.]

Although the party decided on participation in the current dispensation, there was never any question of acceptance of the 1983 Constitution. This is important. At that stage the new dispensation was regarded as the starting point in the process of broadening democracy in South Africa until a system ultimately became operative which was acceptable to the majority of South Africans.

Our excellent leader, Rev Allan Hendrickse, expressed it very clearly at the time that participation in the new dispensation was to be seen as a point of departure and not a destination and that we were striving for a new South Africa without any form of discrimination. In spite of all its shortcomings, the new dispensation which is four and a half years old already was certainly a starting point in changing the constitutional history of South Africa. For the first time in the history of our country people of colour are taking part in both the legislative (Parliament) and executive (Ministers’ Council) authority of the country.

The Eshowe decision irrevocably committed the Government of South Africa inter alia to a process of political and social reform in the country. One need not hesitate to say that the Eshowe resolution bound the Government as it were to undergoing a change of policy and to moving in the direction of reform.

Hon members will probably want to know what this has to do with the Budget under discussion. It has everything to do with it because the policy of the Governing party, the LP, is linked directly with the Budget and the judicious expenditure of allocated funds. Every rand must be utilised optimally in striving for that ongoing objective, namely the development, growth and upliftment of underprivileged and less-developed people, while never losing sight of the fact that we continually have to fight discriminatory laws, regulations, practices and customs and, where possible, eradicate them within our system.

Every department in the Administration: House of Representatives strives for this twofold goal and, because the activities of the Department of Health Services and Welfare He close to my heart, I want to refer briefly to the enormous needs of that department to acquire more funds to enable it to furnish its services more effectively to needy people.

On 21 February 1989 the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare announced the new strategic policy of his department. The main object of the department remains that of upliftment of the quality of life of the community and to promote the extremely important task which includes physical, spiritual, social and environmental health. As a result of the present system, the responsibility for health and welfare is fragmented and consequently it is also possible that furnishing services can be fragmented, something which happens in certain institutions. The new strategic direction was taken to prevent this.

The Ministers’ Council therefore is of the opinion that, although it accepts responsibility for the service, the furnishing of service will not be fragmented. In future the provinces, local authorities and/or private organisations will be held responsible for carrying out this action on an agency basis. Consequently an effort will be made at all times to make a comprehensive service available at a few service points in contrast with the current situation in which different authorities offer services at various service points.

To avoid incurring high expenses, existing infrastructure will have to be utilised. The ideal is a central facility for all groups. Although the new strategic policy will be more cost-effective and advantageous to needy people and patients because they will for instance receive comprehensive service at one clinic in future, the Department of Health Services and Welfare has great need of additional funds to put the new policy into operation.

Additional funds will be particularly necessary in the initial stage to ensure that the furnishing of services will be of a high standard. What is equally important, is that no difference will be made between service furnished to population groups, especially not as regards the underprivileged people in our communities. The attitude of people furnishing these services will also have to be right. It is important that attitudes must change, otherwise nothing will change.

In conclusion, the Ministers’ Council is committed to ensuring that there is to be no fragmentation of services such as clinics and hospitals in South Africa in future. We are working on the ground work already and we require more funds for this now.

Mr Chairman, firstly I am please to see that the hon the Minister is well again and has recovered his strength. I, too, should like to welcome him back.

Before I go any further there is one correction I want to make. Unfortunately I was not here when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke, but I understand that he quoted the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare incorrectly. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition alleged that the hon the Minister had said he was going to resign if pensions were not equalised. [Interjections.] I thank the hon leader for his confirmation. I am quoting the passage he quoted in the 1988 Hansard: Representatives, col 6431:

It is probably difficult for the hon former Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition, to understand anything with the type of friends he has these days. The hon the Minister went on to say:

Now I say: But not the leader of the so-called Official Opposition either. [Interjections.]

He quoted what I said in my speech—you stupid creature (jou toe ding)! [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare say?

I said that after the hon member for Addo had quoted what I said in 1985—they were the exact words I spoke. The hon member then reacted. I then said it had been quoted in 1985 already, and I called him a stupid creature.

Order! No, the hon the Minister may not say he is a stupid creature.

I withdraw it, Sir.

It is unfortunate that I cannot say how stupid (toe) that hon member is. Hon members referred to my career last Friday.

†Reference was made about me being unemployable. The hon members for Matroosfontein and Bishop Lavis said it. Just for hon members’ information: I got an Associate Arts degree from Ohlone College. I have the document. [Interjections.]

Which you bought where?

Order! What does that imply?

[Inaudible.]

Order! It implies that the hon member—if he has a degree—has been bought.

I doubt whether the hon member has a degree. I doubt whether he even has a matriculation certificate. [Interjections.]

Order! No, I think that is a serious accusation. Is the hon member certain of his facts?

I doubt …

Order! No, is the hon member certain of his statement, because this House expects only the truth. Hon member may say anything, provided it is the truth.

Sir, I used the word “doubt”.

[Interjections.]

Order! I am warning the hon member for Matroosfontein that he must be certain, before he makes a statement, that what he is saying is the truth. The hon member for Addo may proceed.

That hon member has no academic background, therefore I do not expect him to understand what I am talking about.

†I also received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science as my major subject from the California State University, Hayward. He is free to go to the embassy to find out that this is an accredited university.

The hon member said I had no academic qualifications. Can he prove that? He can come to my office at home. My degree is hanging on the wall. I am a qualified accountant.

A commissioner of oaths is not an academic qualification. Before coming to Parliament, I was employed at Volkswagen as a training officer; unlike the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition who was unemployable. The former secretary of the Labour Party, Mr Fred Peters, took pity on him and gave him a job at our head office. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has not made a success of anything in his life. As a teacher he was not successful; as a barman cum manager at the Alabama Hotel he was not successful. He was a Minister and he was not successful. Even as an actor he was not successful. I tell hon members today: He will not be a success as the Leader of the Official Opposition either.

I was elected, and I got more votes than any one of his members sitting there. I had 15 polling stations, but I can tell the hon member for “Matrasfontein” that I will be coming back. That is the best part of it. I am coming back. However, I am sure we will be able to find some sort of employment for him. We do need a traffic officer at the exit of Laboria Park into the arterial road to Stellenbosch. [Interjections.]

We have our long-term political goals, namely a new South Africa. We also stated very clearly that there are the short-term bread and butter issues that must be dealt with, such as housing, education, welfare and the social and economic upliftment of our people. As responsible politicians we will be returning here next year and we will deal with these issues.

Who says you are coming back?

I am coming back, but that hon member is not coming back. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Addo must please come back to the Bill.

Sir, it is going to be such a pleasure to be here next year and not to have to look into the face of someone who has six bald spots on his head. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must stop making personal remarks. The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw my remark that the hon member has six bald spots.

†The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition talks about negotiation, but what mandate does he have? On whose behalf is he going to negotiate? Who sent him here to negotiate? He came here as a member of the LP. He might have been the appointee of the hon the State President as a Minister, but he came here as a member of the LP. [Interjections.] Right, but they are subject to party discipline. The LP appoints the Ministers.

Neither that whole opposition nor the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has a moral right to sit there. Not until they are prepared to fight an election and come back here on their own steam. Let the people decide. [Interjections.] I would expect the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to have a little bit more sense. He should try to understand what negotiation is about, and not be as his lieutenant over there.

*It is the LP that has the power; not the Official Opposition. It is the LP with whom negotiations have to take place. The hon member Mr Lockey quoted what the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said during the joint meeting. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council held many talks with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in his capacity as Acting State President. [Interjections.] The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has also held discussions with the new chief leader of the NP. We are the people with power in this House, not the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Order! Unfortunately the hon member’s time has now expired.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the words of congratulation and welcome addressed to the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Deputy Minister.

In particular I want to associate myself with the hon member Mr Douw’s words of sympathy to the family of Dr Du Plessis. He did so in his personal capacity, but allow me on behalf of the LP—I do not think my party will take it amiss of me—to express our sincere sympathy to the Du Plessis family, the board of directors and the staff of Sanlam on the tragic death of Dr Fred du Plessis. We members of the Joint Committee on Finance had the privilege to listen to Dr Du Plessis every year when he gave evidence during the main appropriation.

I believe he would also have given evidence this year, but unfortunately he was not fated to do so. When he was giving evidence we got to know Dr Du Plessis as a man who did not hesitate to criticise the Government’s economic policy. Nor did he keep quiet when credit had to be voiced. Dr Fred du Plessis played a big role in the determining of the country’s economic policy. He was one of South Africa’s great men, whose feet were always firmly on the ground. We want to tell his family and the staff of Sanlam that we pray God to grant them strength and courage in their hour of darkness.

I want to agree at once with the hon the Minister that there have been remarkable achievements since 1984. It is remarkable to learn that a mere R723,3 million was voted for education in 1985-86, whereas R1,792 billion has been voted in the 1989-90 financial year. The department submitted an estimate of requirements of only R1,3 billion to the central Treasury. The central Treasury therefore contributed R459 million more. If I heard correctly, it would seem as if the Department of National Education is going to help to build 10 pre-primary schools, five primary schools, 11 secondary schools, six hostels and eight school halls, and to enlarge six existing schools.

I hope that one of these school halls is going to be built at the Towerkop High School in Ladismith, because this school’s school hall was taken away last year owing to a shortage of funds. I want to repeat: It is true that negotiation remains the best recipe to achieve success.

Hear, hear!

It was good to hear that an amount of R260 million has been voted for the 1989-90 financial year for old-age pensions, compared with the 1985-86 financial year when we only got R39,6 million. It would seem to me as if there will be money available to narrow the gap. We are looking forward to a possible announcement in this regard in the Vote of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare.

I want to express sincere thanks on behalf of the veterans that R29 million has been voted this year, compared with only R3,3 million in 1984. It was good to hear that veterans now receive R266 per month, compared with R110 per month in 1984. This represents a percentage increase of 241,8%.

The hon the Minister of Health Services has not succeeded in achieving equality in all pensions during his five-year term of office, which was the goal he set himself. In the same breath I want to say that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare can console himself—I want to rub this in for the benefit of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—with the thought that he did bring about parity in respect of the veterans’ pension. He brought about parity in subsidies to old-age homes, children’s homes, welfare centres, workshops and the handicapped. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare increased the period of time of the allowance of children over the age of 18 years to 21 years or Std 10. The elderly are happy about this, the poor children are delighted and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition comes here and says that the hon the Minister must resign. [Interjections.]

I do not think the hon the Minister needs to resign. His post is secure. He has achieved enough successes. [Interjections.] It is, however, disappointing that the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture has only received R415,2 million, whereas they asked for R539,9 million. If there is one field in which we must not fall short of the mark it is the field of housing. The need is great, and it is becoming greater by the day. For that reason I must ask the hon the Minister to carry on negotiating so that we can acquire the necessary funds in order to meet the needs with regard to our shortage of housing.

It was also upsetting to hear—that is if I heard correctly—the hon the Minister say the following, and I am quoting:

Our people can no longer afford increased tariffs for services. [Interjections.] The transport services and the Post Office have already announced increased tariffs which are going to affect our communities adversely. Yesterday the hon the Minister of Finance increased GST to 13% and this 1% increase is going to promote malnutrition and poverty. Increases in this country are adjusted in such a way that the poor man is usually affected most. Increases are always adjusted in such a way that it is not the Whites who are affected the most by them. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister not to ask his colleagues to increase tariffs further. Our people cannot afford it. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to associate myself with the previous speaker in respect of the congratulations on the Budget Speech. We are all thankful that he has recovered so well that he can be present in the House today. I also want to convey my congratulations to our deputy leader, the hon member for Toekomsrus. We trust that as Deputy Minister, he will serve us in the same way he did as Chairman of the Labour Party.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to mention that last year I requested that Worcester’s branch office be changed to a regional office. I was told that the matter would be investigated. I hope and trust that I shall be given an answer today. I just want to say that I am very worried about the branch office at Worcester. On Monday we held a regional meeting of teachers. After we had queried the chief inspector of the region, one of his clerks told us that there was no stationery at that office. Now I want to request that the branch office at Worcester be changed to a regional office so that we do not experience the same problem.

Furthermore I want to know whether I am a Government official. I hope that the hon the Minister will spell it out for me because I have a problem with it. The hon members for Macassar and Bishop Lavis referred to tender procedures. The people of the Worcester region must now bring their tenders to the regional office in Bellville. Our problem is that where Whites tender, no tenders are allocated to Coloureds. Therefore I would like to know how many tenders in the department are allocated to Coloureds and how many the Whites received. As regards promotion, I ascertained that when a person wants to be promoted, he must be at least a senior administrative clerk with 10 to 15 years service. In Worcester however, a White woman was appointed as branch manager after two years’ service. The hon the Minister must please explain that.

I also want to thank the hon the Minister for the solutions he brought about regarding school accommodation and for the funds which he found for housing and school halls in my constituency. Will he ascertain whether there are enough funds to buy the Klipdale Primary School?

I also want to touch upon the matter of hostel bursaries and allowances. I have experience that when a person boards in a hostel and he fails, the department refuses to grant him a bursary the following year. The same goes for allowances to students who board in private houses. The latter are also not granted if a pupil fails. I have a problem with farm schools. The pupils of three or four classes sit in one classroom. If the pupil goes to high school, he will undoubtedly struggle in the first year. If the pupil resides in the hostel and he fails the first year, which can easily happen under such circumstances, he or she does not qualify for a hostel bursary. The child cannot, therefore, return to school because what farm parent has the funds required to send the child back to school. [Interjections.] Will the hon the Minister investigate the possibility of the pupil being given a second chance?

I also want to thank the hon the Minister for the increase in the Budget regarding housing aid, area development, the procuring of ground and control of state-owned land.

However, I have a problem concerning agriculture. The hon members know that Genadendal is an underdeveloped area. Insufficient development is taking place there.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is there a quorum in the House?

Order! A quorum is not necessary. The hon member for Genadendal may continue.

I hope and trust that the hon the Minister will see whether he can obtain more funds in next year’s budget, because I want to upgrade Genadendal.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity of taking part in this debate. It has always been a pleasure for me to take part in the hon the Minister’s debate but it is not always so easy, particularly because one does not know what the hon the Minister is going to come up with.

I also wish to associate myself with the congratulations extended to those hon members who have been appointed as Deputy Ministers. I also wish to congratulate the hon the Minister of the Budget on his appropriation. I regard this debate as one of the most important debates, because important issues are dealt with by hon members here and the voters outside this House tend to hope that Father Christmas has brought something for them, too.

I am pleased that the greater portion of this appropriation is to be spent on education. We have such a great need for this. I do not want to shout at or abuse our hon Minister today, because I understand the difficult position in which he finds himself. I also know that the country’s economy is not of the best at this stage. However, I nevertheless want to ask the hon the Minister a few things and I hope that he will have some answers for me.

We are experiencing problems with the question of tenders. We experience problems when people come to us and tell us that a White bus is transporting Coloured children. I am now referring to a company by the name of Klein Diamant. This company received two tenders in preference to a Coloured transport contractor. That transport contractor is well known to us. He renders service to the State and there is absolutely nothing wrong with his buses. There is a screw loose somewhere and we feel unhappy about this. I do want the hon the Minister to investigate what is happening in that regard.

I also want to ask what has become of our affirmative action. I want to take this further by giving an example. We went to inaugurate a beautiful school at McGregor on 6 April. However, at this stage we are still sitting with furniture which came from the old school. There is also not even enough money to appoint a caretaker. According to my information—which I cannot confirm absolutely—there is no money to pay the caretaker more than R200 per month. This hurt me deeply because our people are already being exploited. Now the department is coming along and exploiting our people even further. I cannot take it.

I also wish to refer to the building of schools. It is very difficult for our Coloured contractors to have a chance to obtain a contract because we do not have the money to put down as a deposit. What do we find, however? Contractors come from far and wide and build our schools, and they do not give work to our people who are living in that town. They bring their own people with them. I really would like to ask the hon the Minister that whenever tenders are signed for State buildings or schools one of the conditions should be that the local people be given priority insofar as job opportunities are concerned.

I also want to ask whether funds may not be made available for two very important projects. The first of these is a high school for De Doorns in my constituency. The second is—and it seems to me that I am not able to make any headway with this—that funds should be made available for the purchase of farms which our schools could make use of in order to train our children. We do have schools which perhaps offer agriculture up to Std 8, but then the school grounds are as big as a flower garden. Those children never receive an opportunity to become proficient in the pruning of vines or trees, or in the planting of barley or corn. The country child grows up with these things, but when he gets to Std 5 or 6, he simply drops out of society and when one sees him again he is one of those who are standing in line at the bottle store or on the farm to get his drink. If that child had had the privilege of obtaining the right training after Std 5, he could have obtained a diploma or certificate and competed in the open market or on the farm. He would then have been able to show his “papers”, as we say on the platteland, which would indicate that he could drive a tractor, prune a vineyard or do gardening. However, the grounds at our schools are not large enough to be able to give this sort of training. It therefore does no good to say that our children do, in fact, receive agricultural education up to Std 8, because our children never get into the fields.

The slow growth of the economy since 1970 has placed increasing pressure on the taxpayer. As hon members know, economic growth is very important for the entire community. For that reason more funds will have to be found for job creation programmes. Provision will have to be made for this in view of the fact that 300 000 people are entering the labour market every year and that sanctions could bring the country to its knees as a result of this.

Moreover, much more rapid progress will have to be made on the path of real reform. With a rapidly growing population and labour force, it is preferable that there should be more work for more people.

An investigation must be conducted into a totally co-ordinated plan of action or strategy aimed at stimulating job opportunities and faster economic development. There is too much political uncertainty today and this is also placing pressure on the economy and the financial affairs of this country. What we shall need to do in the new South Africa is to increasingly come to the realisation that we need one another, that South Africa’s development is attributable to all its people, and that the time has arrived for legislation such as the Group Areas Act to be abolished. I trust that the time will shortly arrive when our hon the Minister of the Budget will not need, in the new South Africa, to introduce a separate budget in this House, and it will be introduced in one House by one Minister for one South African community.

I do not have a problem with the playing of “Die Stem” when the television transmission closes down in the evenings. I do not have any problem with “’Nkosi Sikelel ’i-Africa” also being played after it. This would be more acceptable to the general South African population. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, permit me to welcome the hon the Minister back to this big struggle. We assure him that he was in our thoughts while he was lying in hospital. As he knows, he is a man who is very important to us. We are grateful that the good Lord brought him back to us in this great struggle to dismantle apartheid.

We can see in this Budget that the Ministers’ Councils are endeavouring to effect parity for our people. I want to thank the Ministers’ Councils sincerely for that. It appears from this Budget that a great deal is being done for our people, and we appreciate that. Keep up the good work. There are clergymen in the LP who have the interests of their people at heart …

Amen.

… who can see, people with open minds who are self-assured and know where they are heading. I am surprised sometimes to see how people fight, go for one another and snap at one another using harsh words that are not fitting in such a beautiful Chamber as this one. I want to appeal to members of the Opposition to have a change of heart …

They are not here.

We did not come to Parliament to play games. We came here to fight for our people and to eradicate the scourge of apartheid. I want to appeal to hon members to cooperate in combating this scourge. Apartheid has hurt people.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister. The Heide School in my constituency, Heidedal, is an asbestos building. There is also a mobile unit. I appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that these school buildings are extended properly. The heat and the cold are not good for our children in the Free State. As hon members can see, whenever there are boycotts, the Free State high schools always stand out as the schools that have not boycotted. They are children who respect their teachers. They are children who know where they stand with regard to discipline, and who know that they must be obedient to their teachers.

I want to tell the parents of these children to keep on teaching their children. The teachers prepare the children’s future. The hon the Minister must please ensure that we get those buildings. The hall in the hostel of the Dr Block High School still consists of wooden panels. I want to ask the hon the Minister to take a look at this high school, and to transform it into a better building. We appreciate the building, but I think we can improve that building. We can provide something better for our children, because as I have said, the pupils are children who really respect their schoolwork.

Another thing I want to ask in connection with the Joe Solomon School and the Heide Primary School is how far the Department of Education has progressed in buying out land for the sports facilities of those two schools. I should like to know. This has been my appeal for the past few years. Those schools do not have any sports facilities. We ask the hon the Minister please to give us those sports facilities.

The hon member Mr Douw said something today which gave me food for thought. White South Africa does not want to relinquish apartheid. No one will come here today and say they are involved in doing that. Cape Town amazed me, because I see that there are still Whites in Lansdowne and Rondebosch who say: “More Coloureds are moving in next door to me”. I want to warn hon members. Hon members must take note of what the Word of God says about the donkey. Hon members will enter Heaven one day and see the same man they did not want next to them there. The Word of the Lord warns: “Do not do unto others what you do not want done unto yourself’.

We worked for the Whites. We brought them where they are today. Hon members ask me how. When they sent their daughters and sons to their high schools and universities, we had to work for them. We sent those children of theirs to high school. We were the labourers on their farms.

I want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to another important matter. I want to request him please to give consideration to the salaries of the labourers, in other words the cleaners on the school-grounds. The Department of Manpower is very quick to say that if one hires a labourer to work for one, one has to pay him a certain amount. When the department has to pay the labourers, however, they do not pay them the correct amount. I am told how much I should pay the labourers who work for me. Why cannot the Department of Manpower prescribe to the Department of Education of its own accord how much they should earn per month? The workers in the schools, the cleaners of the classrooms and all the people who clean the grounds, are underpaid. That is why there are so many demonstrations, because these people talk to the scholars, and that is how the boycotts begin. The Department of Manpower should be aware of what it is doing. I want to tell the hon the Minister that if he says the labourers must be paid a certain amount, he must tell the department that they must do exactly the same. Everyone should be treated in the same way.

I request the hon the Minister not to forget the Free State. He knows that one can always look up to the Free State; the people here do not boycott schools or classes and they respect their teachers. The hon the Minister is capable of dealing with so much money, and that is why he can do that. I wish him everything of the best with this Budget.

Mr Chairman, I want to join hon members on this side of the House in wishing the hon the Minister well. We are glad that he could be here with us today and we pray that the future may have even better things in store for him.

There are no fewer than eight students in my town who are studying in the social and medical fields. Not one of them received any of the bursaries they applied for. Their parents came to me and asked what the chances were of their children receiving bursaries. I explained the situation to them as clearly as possible after I had been informed by the Ministry that certain students receive bursaries from their third year of study onwards.

I therefore request that a concession be made in the form of financial relief to students studying in fields which will serve the community. It would be appreciated if such students could be assisted.

We are grateful to the hon the Minister for what he has done for the House of Representatives in this financial year. We are pleased about the increase in social pensions and the funds which have been made available for education. We are also pleased about the funds allocated to housing. We trust that enough money will be made available in the new financial year to spend extensively on housing. Every couple feels proud of having their own roof over their heads.

We as the MPs of the Worcester region receive no allowance when we have to attend education meetings. We are told that we are civil servants. It must be remembered, however, that expenses are incurred when we attend these meetings. I am mentioning it so that the hon the Minister may be aware of this.

Security is an item which falls under the Appropriation. I know that when someone applies for a post as a security guard, he is trained. He has to fill in the necessary forms and have the necessary qualifications. We are very disappointed in our security guards. I am aware of the fact that some senior security guards are abusing their powers. Some security guards who do duty at our secondary schools have to check to see whether the other guards are sleeping or whatever climb over the gate in order to enter a property. It is not humane. It encourages people outside the school to climb over the gate as well. Some senior security guards have even gone as far as to attack some of their juniors. This is totally unacceptable. We cannot allow security guards in the service of the department to overstep the mark to the extent of perpetrating such deeds. It leads to assault. Security guards who have perpetrated such deeds, should appear in court. I want to bring it to the hon the Minister’s attention that some of our security guards at the various buildings where they do duty do not know how to act under such circumstances.

My request to the hon the Minister is to make funds available in the near future for a secondary school in Paarl. That town is expanding rapidly in a northerly direction. The building of a secondary school in the southern part of the town is being envisaged, while the town is expanding in a northerly direction. The result will be that the department will have to supply buses to transport those boys and girls from the north to the south, while money could be saved if the school were built in the north. We must develop in the direction in which the town is expanding. I request a secondary school, but in the direction in which the town is expanding and developing.

Funds are being obtained from everywhere, from constituencies all over the country, for the upliftment of the various communities. Unfortunately there were some towns which could not contribute to development. That is why I request that consideration be given to finding funds for the underdeveloped towns, because this is where our people lagged behind and have been neglected in the past. Enough funds should be allocated to those underdeveloped constituencies and the various towns in our country.

Mr Chairman, I felt a cold wind blowing from this side and when I looked I saw there were no hon members of the Opposition parties left in the House. One can understand why the hon members of the Opposition parties lost most of the management committee elections, because they are not interested in the welfare of the community. They have all disappeared. They have gone. They must be sitting in their offices or elsewhere having something to drink … [Interjections.] I mean something hot, Sir. They must be discussing what is happening here now, including the failure of their speeches of today. The Opposition will therefore not come here to tell the ruling party what to do or what not to do. The ruling party—the LP—will decide when to do what.

The Opposition has no meaning. They can only come to this House and make a bit of noise—and disappear! They are irrelevant at present. Not a single one of them has come up with an alternative to the Budget, nor told the hon the Minister what he should have done or not. They came up with personal attacks and then disappeared from here.

I also wish to tell them that although we do not agree with the tricameral system we are going to use it for the benefit of our community while we are here. Our community is going to be uplifted by our use of the money provided by this hon Minister. We are going to uplift our communities to such an extent that we shall be able to speak to the other parties on the financial as well as every other sphere. They are therefore not going to come here and tell us what to do and what not to do. We will call the tune and they will play the game according to our rules.

I wish to address the hon the Minister on certain aspects of the Budget. Firstly I wish to refer to the contractors involved in building our schools. We will definitely have to have a good look at these contractors. One of these contractors, for example, Murray and Roberts, is involved in the tolling of the roads in our country. Those people should not be allowed to build schools for our community. [Interjections.] We should not allow them to do that. On the one hand—if they have one hand—they take money from our community on both instances. On the other hand there is nothing coming back from them.

Firstly they do not build our schools. They get the contract but then they get subcontractors from the community to build the school. Murray and Roberts run away with most of the profit. Then they come back and build toll roads leading to our areas where we have to pay to use the roads. For this reason I believe we definitely have to look into these contractors who work in our community. Not only do they build our schools, but they also build other buildings where State funds are involved. Whether it be Basil Reid or any other company, they should not be allowed to build something or even have service stands in our community. If they wish to spend any money on our community they must start at the bottom and build up from there. They should not enjoy any benefit from the community.

I also wish to speak to the hon the Minister about the staff of the House of Representatives. Last year there was a big fuss. I wanted to let an official have it (opskrop). [Interjections.] Yes, go for him (opdons).

If the hon the Minister had gone through the frustration we have to go through with those officials, especially in the Johannesburg office, I am sure he would have done it long ago. He would not merely have threatened to do so. [Interjections.] We have staff there who think that the department belongs to them. They want to control it and do everything and nobody is allowed to go against them. The regional director says that he calls the shots and we should dance to his tune. He is wrong, because at this moment the ruling party will call the shots and he must dance. The Labour Party will determine what is to be done and what is not to be done.

As regards that department’s regional office in Johannesburg, I would like to recommend to the hon the Minister to remove everybody from that office. They should be posted out anywhere in the country because we have hard-headed officials there who do not function for the benefit of our community—especially the Regional Director of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. [Interjections.]

There is a local newspaper which is circulated in the area and which is being paid for by the House of Representatives. The House pays for it but I fail to understand how those officials can allow the opposition to misuse that paper. For instance, a beautiful article is prepared for the front page, but because somebody’s name does not appear in it, that edition has to be destroyed. A full month’s newspaper is destroyed, which has been paid for by the House of Representatives. [Interjections.] A full month’s work is destroyed but next month somebody from the opposition can come and write exactly what he wants for publication. The department should take that newspaper away from the regional office and control it from the department here; otherwise another committee should be appointed to run it. It should not be left in the hands of a reckless, hard-headed regional director who does not even know …

He is a CP.

He cannot be a CP because he cannot even speak English properly. [Interjections.] He cannot speak English properly and we cannot leave any decisions to be taken by him, because he is not capable of doing a single thing. That also includes the acting regional director, who suddenly arranges employment for his wife in the same department. The hon the Minister should have a look at that as well. Something is not right. [Interjections.] When this matter has been debated I hope we will find a place for them somewhere else—even if it is in a White department. They should get out of our lives so that we can continue serving our community the way it is supposed to be done. At this moment our community comes first. [Interjections.] Our community means everything to us. We have to uplift them, which is what the Budget is for. This has to be done in the correct way.

There appears to be a lot of discussion concerning self-help. For two years we have tried with that regional office to obtain the 90%-loans for people to build their own houses. The staff at that office just do not know what is going on. They do not know. In Ennerdale 250 new homes are to be built. A letter is sent to that office to have one of those houses registered on the wife’s name because the husband has passed away. For a full year there is no record in that department concerning those houses. There is no record whatsoever. In Extension Six a house was built of which there is also no record. People are now not paying rent. They are not paying rent with that regional director and his officials in charge. In that case I also would not mind getting a house from the House of Representatives. One does not have to pay a cent because the regional director is not capable of handling his post. He should go, and not the hon the Minister who is responsible. The regional director should be taken away from that area. [Interjections.]

Another problem in the Transvaal concerns the school buses which were taken away from certain schools. Children have to travel from Klipspruit to Eldorado Park to get to school because the high school in Klipspruit has no teachers and for the past two years no furniture. They are waiting for cleaners and the same applies in the case of the primary school. There is nobody in the primary school.

Everybody has gone!

Yes, everybody has gone away. [Interjections.]

†There are three schools in my constituency where we have waited a full year for furniture and books. A full year! Every time we write to find out what is happening, we are told the supplies are on their way. Those supplies were ordered before the school was erected. There is proof that they were ordered well in advance. They were ordered but they still have not arrived.

One also finds that two schools in a modern area like Extension 9 have no electricity. No electricity! These schools have all the modern equipment imaginable to teach their children but they cannot because there is no electricity available. I have been battling since 1984 and I have to listen to yet another excuse every time I make enquiries, and nothing happens.

At the school in Ennerdale, which was placed first on the priority list three years ago for rebuilding, nothing has been done. The pit toilet system was still used there until last year. [Interjections.] A sewage system was only installed last year. There are classrooms with no ceilings. Some of the children have to sit on floors to attend classes. They use storerooms for classes because there is no other place in that area. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I am very pleased about the report tabled in this House today. I am very grateful for the reports the hon the Minister has given us on certain aspects.

I want to congratulate him on the fact that he is successfully implementing this affirmative action policy. We were a little worried that the affirmative action policy was merely an idea floating around in the air. However, we are glad the hon the Minister has shown us today that affirmative action does work and that 92% of the department’s staff consists of members of our population group.

I am not saying that we are hostile towards other population groups. That is not the case at all. We can work together, and we have worked together all these years with other population groups. However, it is also fitting that our young men and women should have preference in the department because one must remember that the other population groups have more than one choice when it comes to deciding what department they want to work for. They have the choice of working for their department or for us, or for any other department. Unfortunately our young men and women are dependent only on this department for work. I therefore congratulate the hon the Minister on the fact that his affirmative action policy is succeeding.

A total of R6,152 million was allocated to Programme 4: Culture. We were afraid that the cultural programme would not get off the ground. There were attempts to undermine this cultural programme but the hon the Minister of Education and Culture succeeded in getting this cultural programme off the ground.

The Executive Director of the Department of Education invited us last Friday to attend a lecture on the ballet “Cinderella”. The participants came from various schools. It was a full-scale programme and pupils from various schools participated. Sir, we can be proud of our children if culture is being promoted in this way. We can be proud of our children if this aspect of upliftment is being encouraged through the medium of culture. Therefore we want to thank the Executive Director of Education for inviting us to view this cultural programme. We are also grateful to the hon the Minister for the amount he is going to spend. It is the largest amount that has ever been allocated to the “Culture” programme, and we believe it is worthwhile and will assist in the promotion of culture.

I now want to deal with the educational aspect. We see that education is getting R1 216 290 000. I do not want to repeat everything that has been said here this afternoon, but we have been hard pressed in the past. We have been through a difficult time as far as funds for education are concerned. However, these problems could be dealt with and the best possible solution found by means of planning and close co-operation in the Ministers’ Council. I personally know that pressure was exerted on them, and that posts were in jeopardy. But one can only congratulate them on the way in which they dealt with these problems and solved them.

However, there are problem areas. One of these is the duplication of facilities, which we in the LP are opposed to. We feel that where facilities exist, they should be made available to the entire South African population. We are unhappy about the fact that facilities exist over the length and breadth of South Africa which are not being utilised at present. Certain areas—and I am referring here to White residents—have become depopulated. Certain school buildings are no longer being used by White pupils. Certain colleges have become redundant. There are reasons for this. It is possibly attributable to the decline in the birth rate or could be the result of the droughts or of the allure of the city. We are not interested in the reasons, but the fact is that these facilities are now available and that our schools, which are situated a stone’s throw away, are full to overflowing.

A stone’s throw away our teachers are struggling to teach their pupils under trees and in other spots offering some shade, without desks or furniture. I do not think this is fair. Why should new buildings be erected if buildings already exist? I object to the fact that a college, which is a professional institution which lavishes so much attention on pupils, where such ample provision is made for them, and which incorporates so many educational facilities, should now go unutilised or be used as store-rooms by a department. The time has come for our hon Minister to deal with this problem. The fact that we should obtain such educational institutions for the use of our children should get more publicity. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to start by saying that we are glad that the hon the Minister of the Budget is again in our midst after his indisposition, and we wish him everything of the best in being able to continue with his task as in the past.

I want to thank the hon the Minister and the officials of his department for the capital works completed in my constituency, and for those that are still under construction. I particularly want to thank him for the assistance given in the work at Mount Pleasant, Hermanus, Stanford and Gansbaai. However I have a problem with this appropriation. I see an amount of R37,069 million is being voted for area development for the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. When I think of the capital works which need to be done in my constituency alone, I become nervous when I look at that amount.

Perhaps I should mention that there is land at Villiersdorp and in Kleinmond which has to be serviced. That work cannot start because there are no funds. I have my doubts about how far this amount which has been voted for the new financial year is going to get us. When land is developed in our towns, are only our own affairs departments responsible for the expenditure which has to be incurred for such development? After all our people have worked for the municipalities all the years. The municipalities are administered by the province. Must they not also contribute money for development? Why must our own department supply all the funds for the development of that land?

I now come to the Department of Health Services and Welfare. I have a problem. In the office of my constituency there are many people who make enquiries to by trained as social workers. We only have one college where this work is done. My people are experiencing problems because that college is also under the control of a church. If they do not belong to that church they cannot be enrolled as students. I should like to know whether we cannot build another college where social workers can be trained, and where there is no discrimination with regard to what church one belongs to. I should very much like to ask the hon the Minister to meet this need of ours.

The hon member for Genadendal referred earlier on to bursaries. I thank the hon the Minister and his officials for the bursaries given to many students in my constituency, but there is one matter I should very much like to raise in this regard. I came across this case in my constituency, and I wonder how many other similar cases exist. I had a student who was selected for teacher training last year. He attended the college for one term, and then came to me and told me he has was sorry to say that after having received that bursary he did not see teaching as the career for him. He did not know which way to turn and realised that teaching was not the career for him. What will now become of his bursary which he received?

I then told him that according to the rules he was compelled to pay it back. He then said that he wanted to study further, but in a technical direction. He then applied to study in a technical direction and was accepted as a student at the Peninsula Technicon for 1989. Sir, I want to ask whether it cannot be arranged or the hon the Minister cannot make provision for the bursary of a student who is studying in a certain direction and then sees that he does not want to waste that bursary by merely sitting there all year or dropping out, to be made transferable. This is a good student who wants to study in another direction.

I now come to a very sensitive matter. We have school hostels, particularly at our high schools. I have a school hostel in my constituency where the house master is a full-time teacher at the high school. At night that man also wants to rest. He needs his rest and we do not begrudge him that. He cannot police the hostel all night. The hostel does not have a night-watchman, because there are no funds available. Many students along with many pupils from the hostel climb over the fence at night and go to shebeens. They spend half the night there and they return at three or four o’clock the next morning. They should have been brought to book in the hostel under the watchful eye of that house master. The parents were called in but this continued to happen time and again. These pupils have now been expelled from the hostel. This may also be happening elsewhere, so I am asking that funds be made available for night-watchmen at our hostels.

Previous speakers this afternoon spoke about school transport, particularly the tenders which are given out. I would appreciate it very much if the hon the Minister would please see to it—when there are school transport tenders for certain regions—that the tenders are published. When certain transport tenders are published in my constituency, I tell people, particularly in the towns, where it is so that they can tender for it. I would like to see the people in my constituency getting those tenders because this creates employment opportunities for my people there. [Time expired.]

Debate interrupted.

Mr Chairman, it is my privilege to announce the promotion of Dr P S Maharaj to the post of Director of Health Services in my department.

Dr Maharaj joined the Public Service on 1 February 1981 and has progressed through the ranks very fast. It is my privilege to recommend Dr Maharaj on merit as the best-suited candidate to be the officer to take charge of the Directorate: Health Services.

This is not only a milestone in our administration, but an acknowledgement of services rendered to the community and of the potential and skills of an officer willing to serve. I am sure that hon members will join me in congratulating Dr Maharaj and wishing him a fruitful career in his new post.

Mr Chairman, as Minister of the Budget in an own affairs administration it is difficult for me to embark on any analysis of the South African macro-economic situation without repeating what the hon the Minister of Finance has already said in his Budget Speech at the Joint Meeting yesterday. I take it that hon members already have a clear picture of the economic circumstances in which this budget has been prepared. I propose, therefore, to confine my general remarks to issues closer to the Indian community.

According to the latest statistics available from the Department of Manpower, the total number of registered unemployed in the RSA—excluding the independent and self-governing Black states—is 117 000 of whom 9 500 or 8%, are Indian. The actual figure is almost certainly considerably higher if one includes unregistered unemployed. As far as our community is concerned I believe that we can assume that some 10 000 economically active people are out of work. Although full employment must obviously always be our goal, the hard economic realities of the late 1980s make this unattainable. The drying up of foreign sources of development capital, the need to keep domestic consumer demand within bounds to provide a surplus on the current account of the balance of payments and so enable us to repay foreign debt, not to mention shrinking overseas markets due to mindless boycotts, all militate against a satisfactory rate of real economic growth. I share the belief that unqualified political reform which eliminates all forms of statutorily based ethnic discrimination is the only real foundation for long term economic recovery and expansion in the Republic.

All of the well-meaning medium to long term economic plans or programmes—formulated by a host of learned professional economists and financiers over the past decade—have certainly been based on an awareness of the explosive forces generated by material deprivation—particularly when the dividing line between the “haves” and “have-nots” closely follows ethnic divisions. None of the programmes or plans, however, seem to have spelt out in so many words the impossibility of an economic growth rate commensurate with demographic forces and popular expectations within a South Africa isolated from the rest of the world because of universal condemnation of our way of life.

If our constitutional model fails rapidly to assume a form accommodative of moderate internal opinion, it will remain impossible for basically sympathetic foreign governments to adopt a more friendly stance. When international financiers largely take their cue from their governments, they, too, cannot be expected to restore the full flow of foreign capital until we get our act together. The ball is entirely in our court.

In the short term we must accept that the economic constraints are facts of life. The unemployment situation is one of those facts. The Government has, therefore, during the past four years made money available for special employment schemes from which this administration has benefited. This palliative action is, however, under a five-year plan which will come to an end at the closing of the 1989-90 financial year on 31 March 1990. We shall have to watch the situation closely and, if necessary, negotiate for the extension of the programme.

At the same time I must say that the purely nominal rate of daily payment to what are essentially unemployed people, gives the programme certain characteristics of the dole and my administration has, far from being thanked for putting some of the recipients to work and thereby restoring some dignity to them, been accused of exploitation. I would ask the House to show understanding for the fact that it is not I who determines the rate, but the Department of Manpower.

South Africa is a developing country with great potential. It is the responsibility of each individual to utilise every available chance to better his or her position. The Indian people are traditionally business-orientated. Therefore I want to make a special appeal to young and old in our community to look around and exploit all possible avenues to tap the markets all around them. People mean markets and people abound: It is the one commodity we are not short of!

I would like to call attention to one such way of getting into the market place—the Small Business Development Corporation. This corporation was specially established and is geared to assist all potential entrepreneurs. No business is too small to qualify for financial assistance, as long as it is independent and profit-orientated, is unlikely to obtain finance in the open market, needs extensive development assistance, has total assets not exceeding R1,5 million and is located within the rand monetary area. Assistance already rendered by the corporation ranges from a shoe shine project on a street corner to substantial industrial ventures geared to exports.

More than once hon members from this House have accused me as Minister of the Budget, as well as the Ministers’ Council, of allowing the Administration to be shortchanged by the Central Treasury. I want to assure hon members that the amount now before the House for approval is the absolute maximum which could be justified within the macro-economic limitations placed on the Exchequer itself and on our capacity effectively to spend money allocated.

I have already alluded to the macro-economic limitations within which the hon the Minister of Finance and the Treasury have to operate. They are very severe limitations and there is absolutely no room for committing scarce finance to votes of either general affairs departments or own affairs administrations which is known in advance to be unable to expend it properly.

I lay stress on the word “properly”. I dealt with this aspect in my Additional Appropriation speech, but it seems that I shall have to repeat the exercise. It is not unknown for departments who have, for whatever reason, been unable to expend all moneys allocated to them, artificially to accelerate spending over the last months of a particular fiscal year so as to avoid surrendering balances to the Treasury on 31 March. This is a cardinal sin and I am certainly not prepared to condone it, the more so when unspent balances on own affairs votes are surrendered not to the Central Treasury but to own affairs treasuries where Ministers of the Budget, myself included, may use them to help finance the following year’s budget.

It is of course true that when we annually approach the Minister of Finance for additional allocations in terms of section 84 of the Constitution, we are expected to disclose to him the estimated opening balance in our revenue account for that year. Although the Minister of Finance therefore does know that own affairs administrations have opening balances, he never takes this into account when determining what we are to get, in terms of section 84, towards the Main Appropriation.

The fact is that, as I will disclose shortly, our revenue account has between 1984 and 1988-89 built up a modest surplus of R12,5 million which illustrates that the Minister of Finance does not commandeer balances we disclose to him each year. We, of course, have tapped those balances from time to time for our own purposes. This is how the system works and, I say again, I shall not be a willing party to any withholding of facts from the Minister of Finance or deliberate underestimation of balances. This, Mr Chairman, is equally true of me, for the information of hon members of this House.

It has been suggested in this House that I might be justified in consciously overspending. Mr Chairman, this idea is so manifestly irresponsible that I shall not dignify it with a detailed reply. Suffice to say that, amidst all our other troubles, this administration has managed, by dint of the honest bookkeeping to which I have just referred, to retain the trust of the Minister of Finance and the Treasury. Believe me, we need that trust. Do not ask me to do anything which will damage it.

All this, Mr Chairman, is not to say that I am entirely happy with the manner in which section 84 of the Constitution is being applied. Each year the Minister of Finance writes to Ministers of the Budget and tells them in his letter what their global allocations from the State Revenue Fund are going to be. In an annexure to the letter he sets out the division of the global amount per vote and main division. The Minister of the Budget and the House in question is, of course, thereafter theoretically free to shift the allocated funds around as he sees fit and we have only to advise the Treasury.

In practice, however, an own affairs treasury and Ministers of the Budget may not juggle funds allocated by the Minister of Finance too radically. This is so because some of the allocations are based on norms and standards laid down in general laws such as section 84(a) of the Constitution, whilst others are intended for specific projects—they are conditional in terms of section 84(c). Only grants in terms of section 84(b) are entirely unfettered.

It was initially intended by the drafters of the Constitution that the transfer payments in terms of section 84(a) would be based on statutorily enshrined formulas agreed to by consensus. These formulas would accommodate the inflation-adjusted cost of continuation services and approved expansion as well as eliminate ethnic disparities within politically saleable and fiscally feasible time scales.

The Department of Education and Culture is, each year, a party to the application, by the Minister of National Education, of formulas laid down in a general law for the financing of education. Changes in social benefits also flow from annual consensual arrangements between the Minister of National Health and Population Development and his own affairs counterparts. As far as housing is concerned, a formula base has been suggested, but is not yet operational.

Whilst I have great understanding for the inevitable last stage application to formulaic results of fiscally dictated factors related to overriding macro-economic priorities and affordability, I must warn that this detracts from the credibility of section 84(a) in the eyes of the non-White population. This is so because scaling down inevitably postpones the achievement of parity with Whites in the several fields concerned. In effect the inadequacy of funding under section 84(a) imparts far greater importance to sections 84(b) and (c) than could ever have been the intention of the legislator in 1984. Put differently, the area of substantial certainty in the funding of own affairs, which was a selling point of the tricameral system, is smaller than the area of complete uncertainty marking the fiscal free-for-all of sections 84(a) and (c). I do not believe that this imbalance is intentional, but an urgent review of the situation by the Department of Finance seems called for.

Having regard to the difficulties being experienced by the Central Treasury, the Administration: House of Delegates has been thinking innovatively of solutions. I am pleased to report that with Treasury approval at every stage and the blessing of the State Tender Board, a contract was recently concluded between the administration and a leading construction company for the erection of a new head office complex for the Department of Education and Culture on the Victoria Embankment, Durban. In essence the building, due for occupation in 1991, will be leased at a completely market-related rental for a number of years after which, much in the manner of a private dwelling, it will become the property of the State without any further payment. The monthly rental will be paid from the amount due to the Department of Education and Culture in terms of section 84(a) of the Constitution for which purpose the Department of National Education has signified that the rental is a legitimate item for inclusion. I wish to congratulate all concerned on this new approach.

Still thinking innovatively, the administration, at a meeting which I chaired recently, met with the Development Bank of Southern Africa to explore the possibility of assistance from the bank which would include not only loan financing, but also the planning and supervision of infrastructural projects. It was agreed that the administration would identify some capital projects and, in consultation with the Central Treasury, submit them to the bank for consideration. If approved, servicing of the debt will be covered by grants under section 84(c) of the Constitution.

I now turn to the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for 1989-90. Hon members will see from the printed Estimates now before the House, that it is the intention of the administration to expend a total amount of R1 004 597 000. Although this level of expenditure falls short of the ideal situation, I once more wish to assure this House that after prolonged negotiations this is the maximum available. Without pre-empting detailed explanations of their policies and requirements which my colleagues will in due course furnish under their individual Votes, I feel it necessary to give a brief overview of all the Votes. More detail is to be found in the explanatory memorandum before hon members.

Vote No 1: Budgetary and Auxiliary Services

The amount to be voted is R17 646 000. This amount to be voted is 28,7% more than the previous year. The increase is largely attributable to the carry-over effect of the general salary increase of 15% with effect from 1 January 1989, computer equipment required for staff, procurement and financial administration systems, as well as considerably higher transport costs and freightage following the withdrawal of certain concessions by the SATS.

Vote No 2: Local Government, Housing and Agriculture

The amount to be voted is R178 050 000. This represents a decrease of 5,2% over the previous year’s amount.

Shame!

Before hon members all start shouting “Shame”, there is an explanation which will put this matter in its correct perspective. The department is responsible for the capital projects of the administration as a whole. There are two categories of capital, namely capital to be spent by the department itself—R54 779 000—and capital for transfer to the Housing Development Fund, which amounts to R36 407 000.

The capital amount of R54 779 000 is mainly for projects related to education, welfare and health services, as well as the acquisition of land for these services which is to be found in programme 4.

The amount of R36 407 000 to be transferred to the Housing Development Fund has been earmarked as follows:

Hon members are aware of the problems which this administration has to deal with in identifying and procuring suitable land for housing within the confines of existing legislation. Problems are also encountered with, for instance, certain local authorities, the proclamation of townships and the weather. All of these factors combine to make synchronisation of work on the ground and projected spending patterns exceedingly difficult.

We are, however, surmounting the obstacles and progress will not be halted. I would like to remind hon members that although R36 407 000 is to be voted as a transfer payment, the total amount available in the Housing Development Fund, which is a revolving fund, is much greater.

By way of explanation I can do no better here than to refer hon members to the explanatory memorandum, particularly the motivation furnished under programme 2. It is clear that the administration is in no way slacking off in its housing and development programme. On the contrary, evidence is provided that it is gaining momentum.

The percentual decline in the Vote in a year-on-year comparison is therefore nothing more than a fiscal quirk. Put differently, I am already laying myself open to criticism by putting on ice R36,407 million which the fund will not fully expend during 1989-90. Hon members cannot expect more of me in these difficult times.

The hon the Acting Minister of Housing will expand on the proposed expenditure from the fund during his policy speech on this Vote. He will also deal with significant amendments to the Housing Development Act designed to eliminate weaknesses highlighted during the proceedings of the Thaver Committee and the James Commission.

An amount of R6,393 million is included in the estimate for 1989-90 for financial assistance to Indian farmers, although a substantial balance is also available in the agricultural credit account as is evident from the financial statement in the explanatory memorandum. The 50% decrease in this programme is due to an amount of R9,9 million which was provided as relief of distress as a result of natural disasters for which only a nominal amount was included as carry-over for 1989-90. The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture will elaborate on that.

Apart from benefits already being passed on to Indian farmers by way of financial assistance, however, our agricultural programme will expand further as soon as the proposed Agricultural Credit Bill has been passed by this House. The newly created Agricultural Credit Board will then begin purchasing additional land, particularly for Indian farmers ruined by the Natal floods.

Vote No 3: Education and Culture

The amount to be voted is R589 284 000. This amount is 27,8% more than that of the previous year.

It is common knowledge that the funding of education is effected by way of a section 84(a) formula administered by the Department of National Education based on specified inputs from our Administration.

Although every possible variable is accommodated in the calculations the final answer is always subject to adjustment by a factor reflecting the financing capacity of the exchequer.

Since the exchequer is under enormous pressure it has been unable to meet all demands in full. The funds generated by the education formula were therefore once again subjected to pruning as per factor. The cutback was of the order of R83 million which reinforces my earlier remarks on section 84(a) of the Constitution. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture will furnish details when he deals with his Vote. However, hon members can rest assured that with careful management the department will make ends meet within rearranged priorities.

Vote No 4: Health Services and Welfare

The amount to be voted is: R218 469 000. This represents an increase of 24% when compared with the amount voted for in the 1988-89 financial year.

The promotion of welfare, which includes the payment of pensions and grants, makes up the bulk of the amount to be voted. This total amount which is required for this purpose is R197 531 000. The rest of the funds—ie R20 938 000—are required to cover expenditure in respect of general health services and welfare administration, provision of comprehensive psychiatric services, provision of district surgeon services, dental services, primary health care, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy and audiology. The total increase of R42 414 000 is due to price and tariff increases. Hon members must please refer to the explanatory memorandum.

Hon members must also bear in mind that over and above the total amount of R218 469 000 an amount of over R3 million is to be provided on the Vote of the Transvaal Provincial Administration for the running of Lenasia Hospital on an agency basis.

The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare will have something to say about the proposed dental faculty at the University of Durban-Westville and the proposed Phoenix Hospital.

Vote No 5: Improvement of Conditions of Service

As hon members will remember from the Additional Estimates for 1988-89 recently dealt with in this House, and as can be seen from the explanatory memorandum on this Vote from 1989-90, this Vote serves solely as a mechanism to accommodate transfers from the Vote of the Commission for Administration to finance improvements of conditions of service. Year-on-year comparisons are therefore meaningless.

To finance the projected expenditure of R1 004 million I propose the following package which has been agreed to by the hon the Minister of Finance:

I would also like to refer to the turmoil in this House which has been felt not only in the Ministers’ Council but by officials from the most senior to the most junior. Our attention has been distracted at every turn and serious irregularities have been revealed after searching inquiry. Certain remedial measures have already been taken and, as the Minister responsible for public service disciplinary matters, I can tell the House that other measures are in the pipeline. Great care has, however, to be exercised to ensure the legal probity of everything we do.

In a nutshell I shall see to it that the funds that hon members are now being asked to vote will be spent in strict accordance with the Exchequer and Audit Act.

I now would like to air a few thoughts which are important to a future South Africa. The time cannot be more opportune for South Africa seriously to address the need for constitutional reform. In the final analysis, the true solution to South Africa’s current crisis lies with its people and its Government. We must initiate reform and not respond to crisis or react to pressures such as sanctions, township violence and boycotts. The many changes and the abolition of several pieces of discriminatory legislation in the reform process cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

The 1983 Constitution was certainly not intended to be the last word in constitutional reform. It was merely the beginning of the process of change. It is not my intention, nor should it be that of the Government, to suggest a model or blueprint of a constitution. A constitution must be born out of negotiation among all interested parties that subscribe to the peaceful resolution of a democratic system of government. However, I would like to share a few thoughts on this subject.

The present structure of Parliament, with over 300 members, is perhaps numerically too high and loaded. The affairs of government can be managed effectively and efficiently with fewer people. This would mean a restructuring and re-examining of the functions of government. This leads to the very important question of what justifies democracy as a form of government.

The concept of democracy tries to preserve the idea of direct participation in government. The concept is that people know what is best for themselves. A system of elected representatives to participate in the decision-making process is also a popular concept. People should be free to vote for whom they wish. Citizens feel alienated in a large government with which they feel they have little contact and which becomes depersonalised. In this regard a decentralised government has much appeal.

The second tier of government should perhaps be a “regional” government where so-called “own” affairs, not defined on racial lines, could devolve to the region. The regions could be functional regions where the government of each region takes care of the affairs related to that specific region. The focus of needs shifts to the area rather than to a specific race group.

At the national level, government can be responsible for affairs of State in general, such as defence, foreign affairs and economic affairs, including taxation and broad policy guidelines. A smaller number in government can easily manage such functions. Reference to race is entirely eliminated.

Recent events augur well for meaningful changes. I refer firstly to the draft bill of rights contained in a report by the South African Law Commission. The bill of rights is a signpost to our future. If we are to achieve internal stability, create confidence in the process of reform, instil hope in the people and be accepted by the international community, then the bill of rights provides such an opportunity. If such a bill of rights is accepted by the people, perhaps through a referendum, it follows that all laws on the statute books that infringe on basic human rights must be abolished. It will be possible to swing the pendulum away from State authoritarianism towards a restoration of the dignity of the individual without any reference to race, colour or creed. We owe it to the future generation to create the conditions for peace and harmony amongst its citizens. A bill of rights is the gateway to the future.

Secondly, there is also hope for the process of negotiation. Attempts to initiate the so-called “Great Indaba” seem very hopeful and promising, arising out of the meeting between the Government and Dr Buthelezi, the Chief Minister of KwaZulu.

Thirdly, the extra-parliamentary groups are also becoming aware and conscious of the need for negotiation. There definitely seems to be a trend away from protest politics toward negotiation politics.

Fourthly, international pressures on this country will gradually diminish once the Government declares its intention either implicitly or explicitly.

Let us now take the opportunity to accelerate the pace of change in this country. Stereotype attitudes and prejudices must be abandoned. Let us move forward with the vast majority of the people and show them hope and prosperity, and a worthwhile future. Let us not be the victims of history and be trapped by the events that divide the people of this country. Let us not relive history, but make history. This is precisely my reason for participating in government, as it is the reason of other hon members—namely to make my contribution to a peaceful future.

It would be unrealistic to pretend that our economy is still in good shape. Our politics have caused our economy to take a severe battering.

Prosperity and freedom are characteristic of individualism. The private enterprise system should be conducted on a basis which is open and fair to all. The masses of people have not participated and benefited as they should from a free economy. Extraneous circumstances prevent people as a whole from sharing in these benefits. This is because all South Africans are not equal before the law in all respects. Not all South Africans have an equal opportunity to secure the benefits of a sound education. Capital resources, including ownership of shares in public companies, are not widely spread to enable workers to invest in industries in which they are employed; and restrictions are still placed in the way of small businesses and further positive steps are still to be taken to encourage and facilitate the growth of the informal business sector. There is a need to identify and establish an economic reconstruction programme to develop our economy.

I want to dwell briefly on the report by the President’s Council Committee for Economic Affairs, which addressed the question of productivity. The committee found that South Africa’s productivity performance was “most unsatisfactory” in terms of growth and in comparison with its trading partners and even many developing countries. The committee found that productivity was steadily declining, whilst South Africa’s trading partners showed steady improvements. From the period between 1981 and 1987 the overall productivity performance declined at a rate of 1,7% per year. This meant that the average standard of living also declined at the same time. It is absolutely vital and a high priority that productivity must improve and this should be made an important long-term goal.

Why has productivity declined and how could it be improved? How can we expect productivity when there is a lack of motivation on the part of the worker—a sense of despair and hopelessness? How can we expect productivity from a worker who is homeless, has a poor diet lacking in sustenance and nourishment, poor health, a poor education and a sense of insecurity? What are the prospects of promotion in his job? What are the working conditions? What are the wages and benefits? How long does he have to travel to work and back home? Studies have shown that Black workers commute up to two hours on a single journey and leave home as early as three to four o’clock in the morning, only arriving home at seven or eight o’clock in the evening.

Basically our socio-economic conditions have kept down the worker, compelling him to perform many semiskilled or unskilled jobs. South Africa has vast human resources which it has not utilised efficiently. Our economic growth has been largely conditioned or governed by the availability of White skilled labour, sometimes to the extent of importing white-collar workers at the expense of the local South African population. There is also the need to overcome the valid perception among a large section of the population that there has not been a fair distribution of the wealth created.

Whilst there is a need to improve wages to an acceptable level, and remove racial discrimination, future wage increases must be related to productivity. It is important to reward better productivity rather than to merely increase wages through demands. Workers also need to be educated in this respect. They must also believe that the system is “fair” to them. This could be done through social upliftment by providing housing easily accessible to their workplace, sound education, political reform and an economy in which they have a stake. The creation and equitable sharing of wealth should also become an important goal.

The future economic growth depends heavily on exports. This means that the manufacturing sector must be cost-effective to be competitive. This could be achieved through productivity, better management, labour relations and improved working conditions.

Investment depends on South Africa’s ability to attract foreign capital and on whether we could cut down on consumer spending and channel more cash into investments. The Government must set the example by also cutting down on State spending. The Government’s ability to control State budgets is a prerequisite for the confidence needed to secure higher levels of savings and investment. Our tax system must also encourage rather than discourage savings.

South Africa has run out of capital to finance the boom. Sanctions have curtailed the flow of funds for investment and are also excluding us from important European markets. Time is therefore running out for the Government to make positive political moves which would satisfy overseas business prerequisites for retaining trade links. Once a company moves out of South Africa, it is unlikely to return. They are gone for good because they do not wish to take the risk of coming back. Foreigners will be prepared to invest here if we can demonstrate new thinking in the political arena.

We need a healthy economy for a healthy human relationship. If we do not revitalise the economy, we can trap ourselves in a vicious circle of poverty. Our politics and economy need to change.

Mr Chairman, I now avail myself of the opportunity to inform hon members in this House that I am merely Minister of the Budget. Their confidence in me as Minister to look after the financial side is very much appreciated. I, however, need to assure this House that the Minister of the Budget depends very largely on his men behind the scenes. I would be failing my duty if I did not record my personal appreciation, from the bottom of my heart, to the Director-General, the Chief Director, directors of the various ministerial departments and the Chief Executive Director of Education and Culture.

Give them a salary increase!

Behind the scenes these are the men who look after our interests. We are at times here to level allegations and accusations at hon Ministers or hon members in the House. In the process I have at times felt deeply saddened that, instead of levelling those remarks or whatever criticism at the hon the Minister or the hon member, they were subtly and indirectly directed at the gentlemen—the Director-General and others—who do the work for us. On this occasion I therefore want to express our thanks—and I am sure hon members share my sentiments—to the Director-General, the Chief Director and the senior officials in the Administration of the House of Delegates for a year’s hard work.

I now lay upon the Table:

1. 1. Estimate of Revenue and Estimate of Expenditure for the financial year ending 31 March 1990 (R P 12—1989).
2. 2. Explanatory Memoranda on the Estimate of Expenditure for the financial year ending 31 March 1990, Votes 1 to 5 of the Administration: House of Delegates.

Business suspended at 15h05 and resumed at 15h40.

First Reading debate

Mr Chairman, I want to start on a sombre note. This being a financial debate, I want to pay tribute to the late Dr Fred du Plessis, who died tragically two days ago in a car accident. South Africa has lost a great economist and a man of outstanding stature.

First of all I should like to comment on some aspects of the hon the Minister’s budget speech. Glancing through it, I must say that I am personally very impressed with the positive proposals in the latter part of the speech.

These proposals are somewhat radical, but very encouraging. However, the test is whether a Minister implements his proposals. I am sure that the hon the Minister will work in this direction in attempting to implement his proposals. I should like hon members to study these proposals in detail. They are very commendable. A lot of research has gone into this, and they are absolutely positive.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister to tell us whether the entire amount that was appropriated in the last financial year has been spent. If not, what is the amount that has been returned to the Treasury? If there is such an amount, why has the department not been able to spend the money properly?

There are many programmes that have been left in abeyance by the department. For instance, the waiting list for housing has been increasing every year. Why can this not be attended to?

On TV.

Fine, Mr Chairman. Previously, under the chairmanship of the former hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who also held the portfolio of housing, there was lots of movement as far as the building of houses was concerned. Let us give him credit for having built the basis. He has built a foundation for houses.

How many?

Let us hope that the new hon Minister will continue along these lines. [Interjections.] How many foundations? The hon the Deputy Minister must tell us—he is also the Deputy Minister of Housing—what progress has been made in this direction.

Your boss delegated and then took away!

Mr Chairman, I do not know why the hon the Deputy Minister is so upset. This is fair criticism, and if he cannot accept that then I do not know what he will accept. [Interjections.]

There is also the question of hundreds of teachers who are unemployed. Now, I should like to know what is being done to address this problem. There is also the problem of those teachers who do not enjoy permanent status as teachers. They are regarded as temporary teachers, and obviously with this status they lose many benefits and a lot of perks. Nevertheless these teachers are professionally qualified. I should like to know from the hon the Minister what he has done to address this problem.

In respect of health services and welfare, there is a crying need for health services at the primary and secondary levels. I should like to know why money has not been made available for this. How seriously have the problems of the pensioners been addressed?

In his report the hon the Minister makes a special appeal. I quote:

I endorse the hon the Minister’s call for this, but in the same breath I would like to ask him what he is doing to address the problem of unemployment in our country. Surely it is time that the hon the Minister looked at innovations to tackle this problem and considered the creation of growth areas to create job opportunities for thousands of people who are unemployed. Perhaps I could be more specific and recommend to the hon the Minister that he creates a belt between Verulam and Tongaat—an area with which he is familiar—and creates a growth point there, of course in collaboration with other State departments.

The Department of Development Aid.

Yes, the Department of Development Aid and other departments too. Perhaps the hon the Minister could identify other areas, but I chose this area because it is close to rail facilities, it has some very good roads, it has abundant water and of course it is reasonably close to harbour facilities.

Plenty of labour.

And plenty of labour. We have townships like Phoenix, Tongaat, Verulam and many others. The hon the Minister of the Budget knows of the various townships there and the areas which will supply the labour for this market we are talking about. The hon the Minister also realises that as a result of the large-scale decentralisation of business into rural areas a vacuum has been created and he can play a major role in helping to fill this vacuum by creating growth points in these areas. I am not asking for the entrenchment of apartheid. What I am asking for is to give us that of which we have been robbed. We have been robbed of jobs. Many factories have moved away to Black homeland areas. We are now asking the hon the Minister to look at the possibility of creating business areas near residential areas.

Last week, during the course of my response to the good wishes extended to me by the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, I stated that my party would endeavour to promote stability in the House. I had hardly spoken when, to my dismay, I found that some hon members on that side of the House were doing exactly the opposite. They were indulging in acts which can only destabilise the situation. I will come back to this later.

I want to address the hon member for Glenview in his capacity as leader of the majority party in the House, and his party members, who were elected on his party’s ticket in 1984. A principle of democracy is that one governs with the consent of the governed. In 1984 my party, the NPP, won 18 seats at the polls, whilst the hon member for Allandale sought election as an independent, supported by the NPP, against a Solidarity candidate. That gave us 19 seats. The hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council joined us, giving us 20 seats. Hereafter, when we came to Cape Town, the hon member for Actonville, who won his seat on a Labour ticket, also joined us, which effectively gave us 21 seats. At a much later stage the hon member for Lenasia Central joined us and that further increased our number of seats. On this basis we had a clear mandate at the polls, entitling us to form the Administration. Solidarity in turn obtained the support of the late Cherry Mohangi, who won his seat as an independent, thus giving them 18 seats.

What has happened since then? There have been four vacancies in the four and a half years of our existence. Two, the NPP-held seats of Brickfield and Lenasia Central, were retained by us in the by-elections, and the seats of Tongaat and Eastern Transvaal were captured by us from the Opposition.

How?

Somebody looks surprised—obviously because he does not know what is going on.

Effectively, our mandate was endorsed, whilst the voters conveyed to the hon member for Glenview and his party that they had no confidence in them.

Judging by this type of performance, I am questioning the morality of the hon member’s party as to its claim to govern the governed without their approval and consent. Last year certain members of the NPP called for a commission of enquiry and subsequently left the party. Some of them were Ministers approved by the NPP, who have now joined Solidarity. What right do they have to support Solidarity’s claim to govern? Surely what is expected is to respect a decision of the electorate. This is no longer the free 1981 Indian Council, where the chairman of the executive was appointed by the Government. This was a post held by the hon member for Glenview, and conveyed a mentality which he and his party wish to reimpose on us in a system modelled along the lines of the Westminister system.

Rubbish!

Rubbish!

No, Mr Chairman. This party indulges in inducements by luring people to their side in a distasteful manner. I challenge Solidarity to guarantee unequivocally their party’s nomination for a coming election to all those NPP members who have joined them. Let the leader of Solidarity say that, failing his nomination of the NPP MPs as their candidate, this underscores our suspicions that these members will be discarded in an election.

I now wish to refer to a motion submitted by the hon member for Springfield the other day. I also want to quote a relevant paragraph from this motion:

This underscores my assertion that all is not well in the House. There is no smoke without fire. There is no stability in this House yet. Solidarity must not perpetrate any action that will be construed as instability. We will withdraw our pledge to promote stability if they indulge in any action that would in fact lead to instability.

I want to come to the hon member for Stanger. Last week there was an article in the Sunday Tribune explaining the reason for his resignation as Chief Whip. I want to ask him if this is the actual reason for his resignation. What I read in the article is contrary to the reasons given here in the corridor. I am not going to speculate here. I respect the hon member’s integrity, and I will leave it to him to tell us if this is the actual reason for his resignation.

I now turn to the second access road to Chatsworth. There have been numerous calls by hon members of the House, from all the parties concerned, for the development of the second access road. This argument was taken up very forcefully by the hon member for Glenview as well as the hon member for Arena Park. We supported them, but …

Why do you want to omit the hon member for Bayview?

I am talking about leaders. Everybody here has supported that call for the creation of the second access road.

However, this call for a second access road seems to have come unstuck. Our whole proposal seems to have been derailed and there has been an unreasonable delay in this matter. I would like to know from the hon member for Glenview what he has done in his capacity as leader of the majority party in this House to address this problem and to pursue it further.

While I am talking about the leader of the majority party, I also want to remind him that it was the national chairman of Solidarity who last year suggested in the President’s Council that we suspend proceedings in the House of Delegates and that we boycott Parliament in protest over the Group Areas Act.

He suggested that, yes.

Yes, he suggested that. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the hon the Minister of the Budget on an address which was full of erudition. Obviously the hon the Minister and those assisting him had done a lot of thinking about this. I must also confess that, although I do not normally look up words in the dictionary, there were one or two expressions in this report which required me to check the dictionary before I could understand fully what they had said. However, I did get the drift and the drift was very encouraging.

I would like to say that the concluding remarks which take a holistic, socio-economic and sociopolitical view of this country and its future, are very well phrased. They represent to a large extent the political philosophy, the political policy and the political principles towards which the PFP has been striving for many years. Certainly it is heartening that an hon Minister is advocating the policy of the PFP in this House.

I would also like to make reference to a statement made by the hon the Minister, namely that the 300 hon members of the tricameral Parliament are far too many. He is perfectly right. I have made a rough calculation and it would seem that in this tricameral Parliament each hon member represents 33 000 people, and that is taking men, women and children into account. In the House of Commons each hon member represents 86 000 people. Of course, when one goes to a country like India, one constituency would have as many as 200 000 voters—not persons per capita, but 200 000 voters in one constituency. We know that there is not enough work for these 300 MPs. I think it is a shame that all this money has to be spent.

In the same context, a speech was made just the other day in the President’s Council by a very august personality who happens to be the national chairman of Solidarity. In his speech this honourable gentleman made some very interesting comments regarding the House of Delegates. In reference to the task of running Indian affairs, he said, and I quote:

He then asked, and I quote:

Of course, coming from the national chairman of Solidarity, one must take this seriously. This unkind cut at the Ministers’ Council and hon Deputy Ministers was made by the titular head of the party which I think would like to regard itself as the governing party in this House. Presumably he had an opportunity to observe the productivity of those hon members of his party who are hon Ministers, and presumably he based his remarks upon such observations. Certainly Mr Omar’s comments are pertinent, even if pungent.

Since each hon Minister has a house, an expensive car with a chauffeur, security personnel, a considerable staff, free unlimited air travel and further allowances, it makes one think. We have it on the authority of the chairman of Solidarity that that is undesirable because it is a waste of public money.

It has been estimated conservatively that each hon Minister, together with his whole supporting staff, costs the taxpayer R1 million per annum. We do not need all these hon Ministers who, according to the national chairman of Solidarity, are doing the work which one man previously used to do. [Interjections.] We can therefore save at least R4 million.

The present hon Minister of Education and Culture has been doubling up perfectly comfortably as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. There is no need to have another person appointed to that task since he can do it quite comfortably. We just need a Minister of Housing, because I admit that for housing to be done properly one requires the kind of dedication and diligence that the hon member for Red Hill put into it when he was the Minister of Housing. If that work is done properly the expenditure could be justified.

However, the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council does not have much work to do except to preside at meetings and co-ordinate the activities of other Ministers. It is because the person that was Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had very little real work to do that he found the time to interfere in the administration of so many departments and caused this turmoil to which the hon the Minister has referred.

I think this House should take notice. We are definitely indebted to Mr Ismail Omar for having brought this to the attention of the public. He has also used a very interesting word. He said that the House of Delegates suffered from a chronic disease called “hopportunism”. [Interjections.] Presumably he meant “opportunistic hopping”. He said the following:

He added:

Obviously he is referring to the political bedhopping in this House. The most recent example of this was when two former hon members of the NPP hopped over to Solidarity. There are reports that one of them was promised that if he hopped over he would be made Chairman of the House.

I was not present there and can therefore not say whether that report was true or not. However, I certainly know of the disgraceful conduct of an hon member of this House who is a senior member of Solidarity although he does not hold any official position in that party. He had the audacity to go to the present Chairman of the House and ask him to resign. [Interjections.] That, coupled with an admission made by the hon the Minister of the Budget in this House when he claimed that the majority party had the right to appoint a Chairman, certainly leads one to the irresistible conclusion that the carrots were evidently dangled.

I think it is disgraceful that greengrocers should continue to flourish in this House. I would say that that kind of market gardening should be abolished completely and that vegetable selling should not be permitted in this House, with or without a greengrocer’s licence. We cannot have stability and dignity or command the respect of the community if that kind of behaviour continues.

I make no bones about the fact that I took the opportunity of writing to Mr Speaker and reporting to him that these developments were in the offing. I asked him to take steps. Whether he has done so, I do not know.

Mr Omar appears to have forgotten one thing, namely that opportunism was really given a tremendous fillip when he led his party into a coalition—a coalition which only fell apart when we took the initiative and pointed out to Mr Speaker that one could not have a Leader of the Official Opposition functioning simultaneously as a Minister of State. Mr Speaker put the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party on terms to make an election—they were forced to make an election.

I wish to deal briefly with the excellently worded report. I say “excellently worded”—I do not necessarily say that the content is all that excellent.

The hon the Minister said in his address that the Indian people were traditionally business-orientated. With respect, that is not correct. The majority of the Indian people in South Africa are descended from peasants. My father was a peasant—he came here as a sugar cane cutter. More than 90% of the Indian community in South Africa belong to the working class. Only about 10% are business-orientated. There the hon the Minister has made a mistake which I trust he will correct as soon as an opportunity presents itself—which it should do when he submits his reply.

I cannot understand why the hon the Minister boasted about having built up a modest surplus of R12,5 million. Why have a surplus when there is a desperate clamour in the community for additional welfare services? We were told that it would cost R5 million to introduce parity in pensions, disability grants etc. Here we have a surplus of R12 million. Why should one shed crocodile tears and say that one feels very sorry for the poor but that one does not have the money, when in fact the money has been there all along?

Why does the hon the Minister protest a little bit too much—somewhat like Gertrude does in Hamlet—by saying that it is alleged that he may be justified in consciously overspending? I have never heard of any such suggestion. Nobody tried to seduce the hon the Minister in that respect.

He says in his address that the hon the Minister of Finance writes to the hon the Ministers of the Budget and tells them in his letter what their global allocations from the State Revenue Fund will be. This is a fundamental criticism of the system of own affairs. One takes in the people, puts them in charge of their own community, gives them a limited amount of money and tells them to stew in their own juice. If they do not have enough money, they should take in each other’s washing or, alternatively, raise additional revenue by taxing the very people who are the victims of own affairs.

The hon member for Stanger has pointed out this very truth on several occasions and I am surprised that the hon the Minister has not seen fit to point it out again. I know he is not in favour of own affairs but he must not try to gloss over this evil concept of own affairs. He must not try to make it more palatable as, unfortunately, he has tried to do.

I am not impressed by his adjuring us not to make comparisons on an annual basis. That is our function—we have to make comparisons on an annual basis. I am not saying that the imbalance is intentional but he is the one who was there and who has direct access to the hon the Minister of Finance. It is his duty to go to the hon the Minister of Finance and demand the extra money.

My colleague the hon member for Springfield will point out when he speaks how we have been cheated.

Will he speak?

Yes, he will speak and he will point out how terribly we have been cheated. It is due either to the lethargy and the lack of diligence, or to the inability and incompetence of the hon the Minister of the Budget.

The Indian segment in South Africa is being robbed of several hundred million rand if one takes a certain formula which ought to be properly applied. It is the duty of this hon Minister not only to prevent that but to protest loudly and strongly against that kind of victimisation of a whole community.

There was a report that the property next to Malgate had been purchased by a certain gentleman and the whole plan was that the Administration: House of Delegates would later buy that property from that gentleman at an enormous profit to the person concerned. One thing I am glad about is that the present administration is clearly not going to put up with any nonsense of that kind, so public money will not be permitted to go into one private pocket. With reference to the new accommodation in Victoria Embankment, it is somewhat removed from the bus rank where most members of the Indian community get off their buses. I am sorry that that venue has been chosen. I would have wished that something in Grey Street, Leopold Street or Carlisle Street had been chosen. It would have facilitated conditions for the people who would regularly have to visit the department’s offices.

I cannot understand why the hon the Minister says that after prolonged negotiations the maximum available is the sum budgeted for. He uses a rather strange phrase. He says this level of expenditure falls short of the “ideal situation”. With respect, that is not correct. It falls short of the real, present and immediate situation. The hon the Minister knows he needs more money to render the necessary services to the people whom the administration serves. It is therefore not the “ideal” but the present situation. Why does the hon the Minister not say so? Why does he try to gloss over this and let the hon the Minister of Finance off the hook?

I want to deal with certain matters which must be dealt with by the administration, namely these petrol service station sites. With respect, we went into the matter thoroughly during the discussions by the house committee and we were satisfied that every displaced person who applied, had been accommodated. Jervan Seebran was certainly not a displaced person and Hoover was not a displaced person. My colleague and I believe that every service station site should be sold by public auction. It will generate a substantial profit to the administration and that profit could be used for housing which would assist the public. Public auction is the only way in which to sell those service station sites.

With respect, it seems that even traders have mostly found accommodation, except this one witness, a man called Moodley who was wearing a hearing aid, who came to us during the sitting of the house committee and who seemed to have been badly done by. We in the house committee recommended that he consult his own attorneys and make representations to the administration. Whether he has done so I do not know. However, with the possible exception of that one case, all other traders seem to have been properly accommodated. Therefore, any other trading sites which become available should also be sold by public auction, or, if letting is done, should be let on a tender basis so the maximum possible revenue accrues to the department.

I cannot understand why there is a 5,2% decrease in the allocation for housing. I cannot harass the hon the Acting Minister of Housing on this point, but why less money at a time when, as the hon member for Moorcross pointed out, there is a desperate backlog of housing? Particularly when one takes into account the accelerating cost of providing housing, surely there should have been more money. It does not even keep up with the rate of inflation, therefore our people are being done down by the administration headed by the hon the Minister. That is completely wrong!

Why is there no reference in this report—unless the hon the Minister’s colleague will come out with it—to serviced sites being made available to people at cost so that they can put up their own dwellings thereon using whatever material is permitted in terms of the local building and health regulations? That way the State would not have to expend hundreds of millions of rands in providing housing.

People can provide housing under self-help. Most of us grew up in self-help houses. I grew up in what people would today call a shack, but in those days we called it our house—our home. That was a self-help, informal kind of house—and there was nothing wrong with it.

We were quite happy there.

Yes, we were happier there than we are now.

What has the Ministers’ Council done about asking for additional free settlement areas? They have made no statement, in spite of the fact that the chairman of the Free Settlement Areas Board has appealed to the various Ministers’ Councils. Moreover, if the hon the Minister and his colleagues have not done anything yet, is it because they are so busy planting carrots that they have not had time to attend to the real needs of the community? If they have made representations, then they must tell us what they have done. Until they do, we know nothing about it.

I agree that the Housing Development Act needs revision. I have looked very briefly at the draft Bill. Certainly there are aspects of that Bill which I think are commendable. Other aspects are not so commendable. Undoubtedly in due course this House will—and I believe the hon member for Glenview …[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to the hon member for Reservoir Hills and his reference to excerpts from an address delivered in the President’s Council. I do not think this is anything to write home about. The hon member for Springfield has said it and I have said it, namely that a Minister, Mr Marais Steyn, ran the Department of Indian Affairs, including all matters being dealt with here, plus the Ministry of Community Development, all by himself. It is a reality. However, give credit to the honesty of the representative of Solidarity in the President’s Council for using the example of this House out of integrity and honesty and not political kiteflying, to demonstrate the falsity of arguments to continue with the existence of a tricameral system. What he was saying was: Is the tricameral system necessary? He argued this point. All he did was to argue this in a place which may be able to draw up a competent report for the authorities to examine. Therefore to quote this out of context is to avoid giving credit to somebody who has the honesty to criticise himself in order to demonstrate the fallacy of the experiment into which we have been brought. I think that requires a level of character and integrity, and I am pleased to be under that gentleman as chairman of my party. So are my colleagues. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Reservoir Hills must be given a medal at the end of this year for saying that his colleague, the hon member for Springfield, has the arguments that will introduce millions to our budget. My goodness, if he had it, why has he been sleeping for so long? If he is here in the interests of the community, and that money can contribute towards providing additional services—schools, homes, health services—why did he not come forward and make them available? If he did not, and he has that information, his only purpose in being here is to get hold of such secrets and keep them for the debate in order to embarrass people. He can embarrass us; we can take it. However, why embarrass the community that has elected him—a community which comprises rich and poor? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I want to recommend to the hon member for Reservoir Hills that he ask for a medal for this kind of effort, whereby he has in his possession valuable information which would help this House to get more money, but he keeps it, not to assist but to use it as a debating point.

The PFP will give him one shortly!

[Inaudible.]

I have merely referred to what was said. As far as the appointment of a Chairman is concerned, I do not want to get into this debate, but what I do want to say to the hon member for Reservoir Hills is this: If you tell the same story to different people at different times, it always finishes up with a different meaning. He, as the hon member for Reservoir Hills, said to me that he had spoken to the hon member for Lenasia Central and the hon member in whose area Germiston falls and others to come and join my party in order that we may have a majority to dispense with the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his party. Now, when they do that, he blames them, and brings into the open matters which honourable gentlemen would not bring into the open and more so in debate.

Bring in another crook!

Coming to the question of a Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, or the Chairman of this House, I wish to say the following. I do not want to reflect on anybody. It is not my duty, but there is a fundamental requirement which is required of any incumbent who holds the Chairmanship of this House. He alone knows whether he confines himself to the drill applicable to that position or whether he has exceeded those norms. I do not know. It is then up to the House to decide.

Why do you not tell us? What are those norms?

I also want to say to the people who talk about stability in this House that the mischief-makers in this House are limited to a handful. They have got more time to walk from office to office to cause instability in the House. When someone has the audacity to say to an hon colleague of mine on this side “Why are you joining Solidarity?”, that man is a coward who has no place in this House because he knows we are increasing our members to bring stability.

The real destabilisers of this House are not illiterate people. They are educated people, but they have such qualities that they can meander like a stream among hon members and their offices sowing distrust and sowing the seeds for further decay in this House.

I will respect the Opposition. I will work with them as I did when I was a member of the Opposition. Let us, however, not introduce educated intrigue which stinks into this House. We do not want any more of it.

Hear, hear!

Intrigue, whether it comes from an illiterate or an educated man, stinks! It stinks more when it comes from an eloquent, educated man. The time has come when these people must be nailed. We are settling down, so let us help ourselves to settle down. The day when they have a majority they can have a Red Indian wig so that they can become conspicuous, but that day has not yet come.

It is coming.

That day has not come, but please let us not denigrate this House just for the sake of denigrating it. Let us not become what they call “newspaper correspondents”, passing on disinformation to people for publication in weekend newspapers. [Interjections.]

Each of us was taught values, and those who still have values must ask themselves the following question: “Am I honest? Am I clean? Am I true?”. If they can answer “Yes” to those questions, then they have the right to open their mouths and avoid putting their foot into it.

Mr Chairman, I come back to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I want to wish him well with that task. What I want to say to him is that he can be very constructive and useful in an area such as this, but please, he must not sing the praises of his former chairman or his party at this stage. What has happened has brought disgrace and shame to everybody who unfortunately was a member of the NPP.

I am saying this with humility because they allowed a situation to develop to the extent that even when the hon the State President relieved the gentleman in question of his duties, they continued to espouse his cause and to adopt resolutions at different places supporting the man. They might have done it out of sheer genuineness or loyalty, but all I am saying is that in the light of that experience, they must not start levelling accusations and innuendos at everybody. We are trying our level best to bring order into this House so that they and I can go out to the community and say that we are trying to do something to re-establish order and to serve our community.

That is the plea I make to all hon members. They must please understand that there is present in this House a mechanism and a machine which is hell-bent on destroying us all, on destroying me and on destroying everybody else. In the face of that we must be united and tell these people not to try that game here.

That is our answer.

Do not try that game here. There is no place for it. If they want to play that game, they must learn a little more. The men here are far wiser men today. [Interjections.] We must not let something happen where we completely lose respect for one another as individuals. Let us differ politically. Let us debate with one another.

However, intrigue brings shame, and anybody who practises intrigue—and intrigue has been practised—should hang their heads in shame and go outside and say that from today the game is over. We are going to be Parliamentary representatives serving our community. That is what is required of us.

I want to say that the hon the Minister of the Budget has indicated that two of the headings in this budget are based on a formula in terms of our Constitution, and that housing has not yet come under it. The formula allows the ministries to requisition all the money they want. On the basis of the availability of financial resources, the hon the Minister of Finance for general affairs obviously tells these gentlemen what is available. Once one has a system like that—I have explained it here before—one has to work under it. As the hon the Minister says, that formula was not our creation.

That formula, in terms of the Constitution, was not our creation. We must now, in the light of experience, as the hon the Minister said, go back to the authorities, state our case and make our input so that the additional sums of money that are required for the various ministries become available. However, they will not become available if some hon members, who claim they are so brilliant that they are better than computers, sit on information instead of making use of it for the good of the community.

I also want to refer to Verulam, Tongaat and Stanger. They were growth points. Stanger has been deleted from that category, but Verulam and Tongaat are still growth points. However, the point the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is making—I would like to assume—is that we must be able to give the kind of incentives that are given to the Black development areas, so that we too can induce people to go there, because they are real incentives, not the kind of incentives which mean nothing at all and in fact cause people to want to go to other areas. I think the Ministers’ Council must play a role in doing just that, because there is unemployment within our community. More and more young people are leaving our schools, technikons, etc, and it is our duty to make a contribution.

Hon members of this House, whether they are from the opposition parties or independents, should put their heads together. We should pool our resources and find some answers to the problem. We will get no medals, but we will get the satisfaction of knowing that some child, some boy or girl, irrespective of whose children they are, may be helped in finding employment. Ultimately, we will be judged not by the eloquent speeches that we make here or some of the stories that we fabricate, but rather by what we are able to do to demonstrate that we are concerned about our young people, by helping them to find jobs, wherever that may be, by helping to create jobs by inducing industries to set up factories and provide employment. That is what is required.

Regarding the Development Bank, I am happy to know that they have been spoken to, and that they are prepared to consider the development of infrastructure and giving financial assistance. What is required is that the brains that are available in this House should be pooled. We should have house committees which can tackle different problems, transcending the consideration of party affiliations. We must come together, pool our resources and bring out the best in us, so that we can address these problems and address the people who will help us to resolve these problems. That is the challenge before this House, and not to find fault with things which do not really exist.

I want to say that as a party we have made a commitment that we will address all the issues that have been raised here and resolve these things to the best of our ability and to the satisfaction of the public at large, because we are honour bound to do just that.

I agree with the hon member for Reservoir Hills when he says that a garage site should be sold and the best price obtained for it, because the business potential of a garage site in 1989 is very different from the worth of a garage site in 1939. In 1939 it might have served 39 cars, but in 1989 a “unit 2” in Chatsworth will probably serve 5 000 cars. That is the exact difference between the potential then and the potential now. It is a potential which could be realised and the money so derived could be used to supplement pension schemes, help people or do whatever one wants to do for the benefit of the community. I believe that to benefit hundreds of our families is far greater a contribution than enriching one or two individuals.

I am glad that the hon the Minister made reference to political reform in this country. I believe that the year 1989 affords us and South Africans in general, irrespective of their colour or political persuasion, a wonderful opportunity. The Russians have said clearly that the solution to the problems of this area will be born out of negotiations. We are in negotiation politics, so the choice we made to come and fight for more reform in this tricameral Parliament was a wise choice, proven by history, the developments in Angola and Namibia, the utterances of Shevarnardze, the foreign minister of the Soviet Union, and even those of other people, like young Gromyko and others.

However, we must stop talking here about things that do not count. We must stop scheming here to hurt people. We must stop planning here to denigrate our community. We must get started with the work which will make a contribution to the forward mobility of the Indian community and greater mobility of the entire South African nation.

Mr Chairman, I want first of all to commend my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, on the excellent presentation that he has made to this House. It is perhaps the “tail-ender” of our first five years’ session in Parliament. I must also add my quota of appreciation for the fact that in this situation, the engine room is the administration. Naturally some credit must be accorded the administration for the efficient manner in which they have been able to handle issues.

I want to react to the speech of the hon member for Glenview and other hon members in this House. I think we have had enough of commissions. We have had enough of enquiries. It was stated here by the hon member for Glenview that we have moved a motion of confidence as far as a political party is concerned. That was a prerogative in a general meeting. However, whatever the circumstances are, let us accept the factual situation in South Africa that the Indian community in South Africa were not given the opportunity to politicise themselves. The Indian community have been thrown in the deep end of the pool. Together we are finding our way; together we are politicising the community; together we are trying to negotiate; together we will try and honestly deliver the goods that the expectant community have been waiting for. In the process we find ourselves entangled in this situation. Let us not go far. What has happened to the NP in the last few weeks? There was a demonstration of constructive caucus and of parliamentary machinery which was put into action the moment they found themselves in a certain situation—so much so that solutions were found to the problems with which they were confronted.

Does the Indian community have that machinery, with a 45-member House with six political parties? Therefore, I make the point that with all the emotions and all the vituperation against the political parties, and notwithstanding the implication of the NPP, for the last eight years we have survived. We have survived the storms; we have survived the turbulence, hence we are still here. I have been negotiating certain aspects, which I do not want to make mention of in this House, on the basis of absolute honesty for the purpose of stability. I am hoping and praying that, this being the tail end of the five-year term, wisdom will prevail among our 45 members. There are those hon members within the 45 member group who represent the broad masses of the peasants in South Africa. As the hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned, 90% of the population comprise the working community. They are expecting something of this House. Therefore wisdom must prevail and good judgement must prevail. We must come to terms with each other and ask ourselves whether we can afford this party-political luxury in which we are involved.

In a different vein, taking my cue from the hon member for Reservoir Hills, who spoke about the carrot and the greengrocery issue, I had a frantic call today from the pickle industry of Natal, asking me to please attend to their problem as I am involved in agriculture and as there is not one carrot left in Natal. All of it is heading towards Cape Town. I thought the carrot age was over. A new era is emerging in this particular field.

Coming back to the Budget, I want to comment on the speech of the hon the Minister in which he mentions reform. The hon member for Glenview also commented on this, namely that if there is anything South Africa is looking forward to, it is reform, reform in its true sense. I agree. Let us look at reform.

Where do we start first? We start at home! The former hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was removed during December. To this day we do not have stability. If he were totally and wholly responsible for the total instability in this House, why is it that we still do not have stability today? Let us find those answers. [Interjections.] My hon colleague made it very clear.

Take him out!

I am quite prepared to go. I will go! [Interjections.] I have heard that over and over. That is their intention. The hon member for Bayview said that I should go, but I will make it very clear to the hon member for Bayview and all those gentlemen whom he speaks for, that I have been hurt since that statement was made. When my son died, a motion was being prepared against me in this House by hon members who sat on this side of this House at that time. God knows for what purpose it was intended. If these are the values of hon members in this House, they will have to carry those sins on their shoulders. I hope that the leader of Solidarity will know who were responsible for these things. These are the kind of pangs and pains we have to go through. However, let us look at the merits of what is involved.

I was hammered over and over. It seems that the survival of this Parliament and the Ministers’ Council hinges on my position. If that is what hon members’ values are like, my position is there for the taking today.

What is he talking about?

I know what I am talking about. Hon members must search their consciences!

I am indeed pleased that the hon the Minister referred to the Development Bank in his report. I would like to know from my hon colleague with regard to the Development Bank, if money is available, at what interest rate will it be available? Can these monies be expended in areas that are not proclaimed Indian areas? There are many areas in this country like Mkuze, an outpost of Zululand, or the Groutville area, which are not Indian areas. Can monies from the Development Bank be utilised for those areas?

The hon the Minister made some very valuable points with regard to productivity. I fully agree with him. How can there be productivity if the quality of life is not developed and improved? In accordance with this statement, every possible effort must be made to look at the productivity of these people.

My hon colleague has made another very important statement. Besides the financial aspect of the Budget Vote, he has touched on some philosophical guidelines which I admire him for, being a seasoned man in this particular field. A bill of rights is absolutely imperative. In my view a bill of rights for South Africa should not be a historical curiosity. One should examine the possibility of incorporating a bill of rights into our Constitution. Without this we shall be faced with a power struggle. We must therefore view our survival in a negotiating environment.

I hope that the question of reform will incorporate a bill of rights, this being the tail end of the five year period. Whatever the future holds, I hope that this House will be more productive in bringing about further productivity to the broad masses of South Africa. With these words I want to compliment the hon the Minister of the Budget on his excellent report. I do hope that all this will augur well for the future. Here I have to include the comments made by the leader of Solidarity, that there should be unity and understanding for the sole purpose of what we have come here for.

Mr Chairman, I do not blame the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture for making an emotional speech, because he tried his best to be Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Unfortunately he has not been successful. It is a question of sour grapes.

I wish to refer to the hon members for Springfield and Reservoir Hills. Springfield and Reservoir Hills used to be market gardening areas before they became residential areas. People have now taken up residence there and they are no longer market gardening areas. Therefore, instead of being market gardeners, they are now seed merchants. [Interjections.]

These two hon members are seed merchants sowing the seeds of hatred in this House. The quicker they realise the damage they are doing to this House, the better it will be. I want them to understand that we on this side of the House are respectable, intelligent people under a very intelligent leader. Unfortunately those two hon members cannot be leaders. What they are trying to do, is to destabilise this entire House.

I want to refer particularly to their activities in the joint committees. The hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned opportunism which was referred to by Mr Ismail Omar, the national chairman of Solidarity. Mr Omar meant that hon members of Parliament are in full-time employment and receive full-time salaries. The hon member for Springfield is hardly here for 15 days a month. He earns a full salary and a full allowance.

We shall also find the hon member for Reservoir Hills to be absent tomorrow. He will be earning the full-time salary and the allowance. Therefore, if anybody talks about opportunism, it applies fully to those two hon members.

Each time an own affairs Minister comes in here, I think he scares them. The other day, when the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Training piloted the Education and Training Amendment Bill through this House, the hon members for Springfield and Reservoir Hills played a great tune. What happened was that the Deputy Minister of Education rapped them over the knuckles very nicely.

What the hon member for Springfield said was not what he himself thought, but what the hon member for Cape Town Gardens said. When they attend a joint committee meeting they hardly make any form of contribution. When the hon member for Springfield comes to the Joint Committee on Security Services he is like a coal behind the coal engine. He follows this woman from Houghton and he sits there. The other day when the Police Amendment Bill …

Order! The hon member must not refer to an hon member of another House in derogatory terms. The hon member must refer to her as the hon member for Houghton.

When the hon member for Houghton attended the meeting of the Joint Committee on Security Services the hon member for Springfield also came along. The only thing he did was to sit there, and immediately when the meeting was terminated, he walked out.

He comes and tells this meeting that there is a need for an amendment in respect of a particular provision.

Order! I want to direct the hon member’s attention to the fact that this is an own affairs debate. The hon member must try to remain within those confines and not bring in joint committees on general affairs. There will be ample time to take those matters up during those debates.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Was it in order when hon members were allowed to introduce debates in the President’s Council and elsewhere here? I am referring to the performance of an hon member in this House.

Order! I want to make it quite clear to the hon member for Camperdown that if I understood it correctly, the speech of a member of the President’s Council to which the hon member for Reservoir Hills referred, bore relevance to the House of Delegates.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With respect to your ruling, I want to point out that we are discussing the Appropriation Bill (House of Delegates) which is also part of the general Appropriation which appropriates funds for hon members of Parliament, and those hon members serve in joint committees. I would therefore like your ruling, Sir, as to whether the hon nominated member Mr Thaver is not entitled to discuss this in line with the Appropriation Bill (House of Delegates).

Order! I understand the arguments raised by the two hon members but I want to direct their attention to the fact that, although this particular matter now under discussion falls within the context of the broader financial debate, it is specifically aimed at the appropriation for the administration of this particular House. Hon members will have ample opportunity when the other appropriation debates come up, to raise issues such as the actions of joint committees during the discussions of the various votes.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: With due respect to your ruling, the hon members who serve on the joint committees are also hon members who report to this House on the basis that they are also members of the house committees. For clarity …

Order! I think a ruling has been given and it is quite clear. The hon member Mr Thaver may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would appreciate it if you would take into account all the time that I have lost here. [Interjections.]

I want to commend the hon the Minister of the Budget for his very nice address when he delivered his budget speech. What was absent in this speech, however, was a reference to the effect of certain hon members of this House who had taken the opportunity of destabilising the House, sowing the seeds of hatred and causing disunity. I think the hon members for Reservoir Hills and Springfield would do very well if they would mind their own business and not bandy about the affairs of this party. I think it is because they have nothing else to do. They do not work in their constituencies …

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Springfield, who is the biggest mischief-maker in this House, should do more work in his constituency rather than doing constituency work in this House. [Interjections.] The same applies to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. They think they are specialised lawyers but in the mean time they are among the worst legal people one can find in this country. Various hon Ministers have said so in this House. I think they must take this into account. They think they are specialised lawyers and highly intellectual men but in the mean time they are nothing of this sort.

I think the hon the Minister presented a very good Budget. All that was lacking was that he did not tell certain hon members that they should do adequate work within their constituencies, with particular reference to the hon members for Springfield and Reservoir Hills. [Interjections.] With the next election they may have to say goodbye to this House.

Mr Chairman, before this Budget was presented I was in a conflict situation as to what kind of budget the hon the Minister would present. However, on hearing it, I must say that I am very pleased with his remarks. I want to compliment him on his forthright comments on the political and economic situation in the country. Politics in South Africa dictate the economic progress.

I also wish to commend the hon the Minister for looking past the confines and the restraints of the own affairs budget. Regardless of how much we talk about housing, education and such matters, we have a greater problem in this country and that is the system of government.

I am surprised at this juncture at some of the enlightened hon members who profess to fight for and represent those unfortunate Black people in this country. Will they take up their problems also and make representations as the opportunity affords in this budget so that we could play a greater role in Parliament? If I remember correctly, our manifestos stated that we were coming to Parliament to dismantle apartheid. However, I think we are losing that spirit with which we committed ourselves.

When we examine the unemployment figures—8% or 9 500 Indian people—they are shocking. At a time of deregulation and privatisation, as well as the potential time for economic growth, we find that South Africa has run out of capital. I say this is due to disinvestment, sanctions, boycotts and a withdrawal of capital inflow from foreign countries or, largely, to the apartheid system in this country with so many discriminatory laws existent in the statutes and above all, the slow pace at which reform is taking place. Let us not be naïve—we have had problems in this country. We have had very severe problems and we still have problems. Progress has been made, but the world is waiting to see meaningful reform in this country. They want to see evidence of it. They do not want words, they want action.

Perhaps some of us, and most of the people in this country, do not realise the implication of disinvestment and sanctions. It will have a ripple effect on the total population of this country. It will not only affect the poor man, the man in the street, but also the man with a little bit of capital, because his resources will dry up. What is dangerous is that, with so much unemployment and with no capital to pay for this economic growth, all the reform processes in the education of the masses of children that come out of schools and universities will come to nothing if this mob turns to violence and demolition. That is not impossible. It cannot be discounted, because a hungry stomach has no other means but to scrounge for food.

I want to agree with the hon the Minister when he says:

How true that is! I commend the hon the Minister for having the foresight to look at this. I am not saying he will get engrossed in his own affairs budget and try to solve this problem, because one cannot solve this problem. No amount of money will satisfy the aspirations and needs of the Indian community. It is not money that will satisfy them. There are other things that will satisfy them and these other things are political solutions to the problems in this country so that every man will be afforded his democratic right to live as a citizen of this country. That is important. Are the Indian people here not living—I am sorry to mention the word—in segregation? They do not believe in isolation. They are confined to living in isolation but it is none of their own doing. We would like to see everybody live together. If any community in South Africa is amenable to accepting any other racial group in this country, it is the Indian community. I dare anyone to tell me that is not true. It is a fact. We are the most tolerant people to accept anybody who comes through our doors, whether it is for a night’s sleep, a slice of bread or a cup of water.

With regard to the budget, I would ask the hon the Minister to make the best of it. As I said, all the money in the world would not satisfy all the aspirations of our people. Let us make a contribution for a better South Africa under this system. Let us make the move towards reform so that the countries will reinvest, the money will pour in and there will be no more unemployment.

Mr Chairman, I want to echo the closing remarks of the hon the Minister of the Budget, in that he thanked the officials of the department, the Director-General and all the directors of the various departments. I want to say that it is because of them that we are discussing this excellent figure that has been given to us this afternoon. My compliments also go to the hon the Minister for the way he presented this afternoon’s budget.

We know that we are living in difficult times, as the hon the Minister of Finance mentioned in the Main Appropriation. The hon the Minister of Finance has mentioned this, and I believe that within the framework of what has been given to the hon the Minister, he has done a wonderful job.

I will respond to a few points made by previous speakers, as well as by the hon the Minister himself. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about “a very positive appropriation”, and I agree with him—this was a very positive Appropriation Bill that has been presented to us. He also asked—I note he is not present at the moment—whether the money that has not been expended would revert to the Treasury or whether it would be left. I think that by now we should know that all the money that is not expended by the department goes back to the own affairs treasury … [Interjections.] No, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is not in the House; I do not see him here.

This money then goes back to the own affairs treasury. It is accumulated, and can be spent in other votes with the approval of the Treasury. We know that this has been done in the past.

He has spoken about the permanency of teachers, and I, too, want to echo this. We have a hue and cry from the teachers, whether they be locum teachers or temporary teachers. We know their services are needed; they are qualified teachers. I would like to ask whether the hon the Minister has made adequate funds available for these teachers so that they may have permanency. We feel that the uncertainty in the department as regards the future employment of these teachers needs to be addressed, and that there should be an undertaking on the part of the hon the Minister that these teachers will be employed permanently.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also addressed the problem of the identification of land for future housing needs of the community. This is the cry of all of us. I think it is time we took up this matter with the other relevant authorities and appealed to them to identify enough land for our people, be it under free settlement areas or within group areas, because we are still working within the constraints of the Group Areas Act, although we all want the Group Areas Act to go. We know that we are forced to identify land for use by members of the Indian group.

I am not going to address the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I think the hon member for Glenview has replied to him. He spoke about the productivity question. This was raised by other hon members as well, and he replied to that. He also said it was an excellently presented report. I agree with him that it is an excellently presented report; indeed, it is an excellent report in itself.

Coming back to the other speeches that have been made, something that was also mentioned were the norms and the formula used in the appropriation of money for this particular House. We have noticed that there are some discrepancies. We are discussing, and are going to approve, an own affairs budget which has been appropriated by a general affairs Minister, and yet that particular appropriation of the general affairs budget has still not been accepted by this House. We are, in fact, appropriating and accepting something which has not been finalised. It is no fault of our hon Minister. It is the fault of the system and it is the fault of own affairs.

What I would like to know—and I think the hon the Minister will be able to give us an explanation—is whether the formula which has now been used in the preparation of these accounts, is on the basis of 4:2:1 or whether there is a set formula. We know that the hon the Minister has told us that there are special norms for education and for health services. However, I would like to know whether, when we agreed to the particular formula being used for the general appropriation of these figures, we accepted that there was an historical backlog as far as our community was concerned. Was this historical backlog in facilities such as the building of schools and other facilities addressed when the formula was accepted?

We know that we have to share from the General Budget and that when the hon the Minister of Finance presents his budget, a global sum is given and that sum is subdivided into funds for education, health services and so on. It is not to say that we, because of our numbers, get less because the others have greater numbers. We get an equal amount of money per capita for education to that which the other groups get. Here too, we want to say that there is an increase in the amount allocated to education this year because there is a general increase in the general fund for education.

Coming to the appropriation of the Department of Education and Culture, I spoke about the temporary teachers and the permanent teachers. I would now like to come to certain matters in my constituency. I refer to the underutilisation of facilities. We have this huge college of education in the Transvaal which has been completely underutilised and I ask the hon the Minister of the Budget whether he cannot appropriate more funds so that this particular modern facility can be utilised for other educational purposes. I do not think that this college of education in the Transvaal—the only tertiary facility that we have—is even 25% utilised. Seventy-five percent of it is underutilised.

Another problem which has existed at this particular college for many years, is the rector. The rector of the Transvaal College of Education has been in an acting position for the past five years. This particular gentleman has devoted his life to serving Indian education and we do not see why this rector cannot be appointed on a permanent basis. Is it because of a shortage of funds? Is it because he is not capable? If he is not capable, then he would definitely not have been in the position which he holds today.

We come to the allocation of posts for auxiliary services. The placement of teachers is a urgent problem in our community, especially in the rural areas of the Transvaal. We find that teachers are being appointed in places like Laudium, Actonville, Lenasia and Azaadville, the four major centres in the Transvaal. Yet, teachers who live in Laudium have to travel to Azaadville, and teachers who live in Azaadville have to travel to Laudium. Some teachers travel 100km daily from Laudium to Lenasia.

I know the hon the Minister is going to say that it is because of specialised subjects. However, when one makes a comparison at times, these teachers teach and are qualified in the same subjects as the other teachers who travel from one place to another. I think these are problems which must be highlighted very, very strongly by the hon the Minister.

I do not see in the budget today that the hon the Minister has given the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare enough money to bring parity in civil and old-age pensions. I know the blame is going to go from one Minister to the other, but provision has been made in the budget for the increases in pensions which took effect from 1 January 1989. This effect, however, still brings about disparity as far as the pensions of people of colour are concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to bring the following to the attention of the hon the Minister. On 5 February 1989 the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare visited Lenasia at the request of the Lenasia Management Committee for a local inspection of the area of Townsview, to look into matters relating to health, child abuse, drugs and housing. The LMC asked me to accompany the hon the Minister. When we arrived in Townsview for the inspection, the discussion was more on housing than on health.

In future hon Ministers should request an agenda and then take the hon Minister in charge of that portfolio. Why take me and embarrass me with questions on housing? This left a very bad impression on the MPs of the area. I do not blame the people for being rowdy, because they have genuine grievances regarding housing. My request to hon Ministers is that if they cannot deliver the goods, they should please not make promises to the people and then pass the buck to the MPs and the LMCs. Housing problems were discussed with various hon Ministers. I refer to Hansard of 18 March 1985.

I would like to know what low-cost housing is being provided for the R150 to R500 per month income group. Low-cost housing was last built in Lenasia ten years ago. Persons such as the old-age pensioners and other needy persons who cannot provide for themselves are living in backyards, garages, caravans and even in scrap cars, waiting for low-cost housing to be built. Therefore I appeal to the hon the Acting Minister of Housing to give top priority to the poor who cannot afford high rentals, but only want a roof over their heads. Houses were built in Lenasia for the upper and middle classes. The poor man cannot afford these homes.

When the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council took over housing my plea to him was to provide housing for the poor man. His reply was: “I am coming to Lenasia to see.” After local inspection in the area in May 1987, to my surprise he made an announcement at a meeting in Lenasia on 9 August and also in Parliament that he would undertake to build 1 000 homes for the unfortunate people. We express our gratitude to him. I hoped he would solve the poor man’s problem.

I want to quote from a press statement by the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Delegates:

The present proposed layout makes provision for the following: 1 653 erven to be allocated as special resident sites, three as resident sites, four as business sites, five as religious sites, one for education, five as garage sites, seven for institutes, seven for parks and two for special and substations. Of the 1 653 special residents’ erven approximately 1 000 erven, ranging from 350 square metres, have been planned for housing units. The remaining 653 erven will be for the middle and higher income groups. No mention is made of the lower income group, and this is my appeal. What provision is being made for the low-cost housing for the income group in the R200 to R600 per month bracket? What I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister is whether he consulted the MPs and the management committee of the area before making a press statement on housing. We should help the hon the Minister by informing him what kind of houses we need for our people in Lenasia. My appeal to the hon the Minister of Housing is to allocate land to the city council to build and provide adequate housing for the lower income group, those who earn from R200 to R600 per month. The city council is willing to build houses in Lenasia, providing the House of Delegates provides land for such purpose. My appeal for low-cost housing goes as far back as 1975. I posted a memorandum, for the Minister’s attention, concerning the situation we have in Lenasia with regard to low-cost housing.

Mr Chairman, I would like to set the record straight first. There has been an appeal in this House for stability and this is the reason for my joining Solidarity. I must make it clear that I have not joined them for any carrots because I have a lot of carrots in my garden. I also do not want to react to what the hon member for Reservoir Hills said. I leave it at that.

I now come back to the Budget. I would like to compliment the hon the Minister and his officials for giving us a broad outline of the workings of his department. I wish to compliment him on their performance. I will now refer to a few matters with regard to my constituency. We know that the economy of our country is bad, with sanctions and the declining price of gold. However, we must not be punished for the faults of the Government and because of the policy of separate development. We need funds in our areas for development. We need more funds to provide affordable housing for the lower income groups. In my constituency, in the Palmridge area, there is a waiting list of approximately 2 800 people who are waiting for homes. This includes the natural growth in the area, for which we have not made provision in the first program of our resettlement.

Although it is Government policy to encourage the private sector to build, it is sad to say that they are not providing homes suitable for the low income group. Therefore my appeal to the hon the Minister is that the House of Delegates should undertake to build these homes for the low income groups. I know that in terms of the housing policy, the responsibility for the provision of housing rests squarely upon the shoulders of local authorities. However, the local authorities will undertake to build these homes only if funds are made available to them. I also make another urgent appeal to the hon the Minister to make funds available for a cemetery, which has been outstanding for the last two years. I have been appealing in this House for funds to be made available, monies were promised, but it is not forthcoming. This is an emotional and sensitive issue.

Although land has been made available for this purpose for the cemetery, there are no facilities for burial. This is causing hardship to the bereaved families. They have no choice but to pay R600 for a non-residential burial. I pray that the hon the Minister treats this matter as urgent. I must place on record my sincere thanks to the Muslim jinnah of Germiston for helping many of these bereaved families.

Mr Chairman, first of all I would like to compliment the hon the Minister of the Budget this afternoon. At the same time I want to thank him for the tea that was offered to us this afternoon. I say this on behalf of all hon members.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, there has been an increase in the amount of money allocated to own affairs, but when compared to the inflation rate, I do not think there has been much of an increase in real terms. I think we have to take that into serious consideration.

In his preamble the hon the Minister of the Budget mentioned various factors that impede the real economic growth of our country. It is against the background of these adverse economic conditions that our own affairs administration receives its money from the revenue account. This does not really fulfil our needs and aspirations.

Our country is blessed with natural and human resources. Unfortunately these resources have not been exploited to their fullest. I think everybody knows what the reason for this is. It is, of course, the Group Areas Act. I would like to quote from the report that was presented by the hon the Minister of Finance yesterday. I want you to deduce what he really meant when he said, and I quote:

Much has been said about the report. I just want to touch on one or two points. I will go into more detail when other hon Ministers present their reports. The first aspect that I want to deal with is unemployment. I endorse what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has said with regard to the creation of growth centres. I am also glad that the hon member for Glenview mentioned growth points in Verulam and Tongaat. I would like hon members to know that the Tongaat local authority is asking that it become a free settlement area. I have given my support to this. I trust that the Ministers’ Council will also support this motivation.

Decentralisation has to a certain degree caused unemployment among the Indian community. I say this with conviction. I know that there are people in Tongaat who work in factories. I will give hon members an example of what happened at one factory. This factory employed 350 people, 95% of whom were Indians. The factory was offered incentives, and it was then moved to Isithebe. As a result of this, these 350 were unemployed and this created job opportunities for Blacks. While I know that job opportunities need to be created for Blacks, I do not think that the other communities should be deprived of them.

The other question deals with housing, but I will deal with this in detail when the hon the Minister of Housing presents his budget. Hon members often talk about productivity, but I had the opportunity of meeting with the hon the Acting Minister of Housing and the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture as well as the Tongaat town clerk last Friday. I was shocked and astonished when the town clerk mentioned to us that land had been identified for housing in Tongaat. In fact, it had even been advertised, but not a single member of our department attended the hearing of the Group Areas Board which took place some time in March last year. This has put us back one year, and yet we talk about productivity.

What I am trying to say is this: From the time when land is identifiable—even before it is identified and proclaimed—to the time that actual bricks go onto that land, is about two and a half years. We are looking at the cost factors of these houses. Assuming one has to look at a housing project this year, the cost factor and the amount of money allocated for that project will increase three or fourfold by the time it actually gets off the ground.

I think the hon the Minister must look at the possibility of trying to shorten this process. When land is identified, it has to be gazetted within a period of three months. I believe it was done in the White areas some time or the other. We must try and shorten the space of time in which we could possibly get our housing programmes off the ground and fulfil the needs of the community.

I just want to touch on one aspect of education. Much has been said about unemployed teachers. We have a surplus of R12,5 million. I do not know why part of the money was not used to pay those teachers.

Teachers at schools are complaining that they have been asked to encourage sports activities, but that the equipment in the schools has never been given to them. Some of those schools have been established for five years. Yet we say that we have a surplus of R12,5 million. Why are we keeping this money? Why are we not providing those schools with the bare necessities for the promotion of sports activities?

There is, of course, a lot to be said about welfare, but I only want to touch on one point. In recent times hon members have been receiving several complaints in their constituencies concerning cases where disability grants have been cut off without any notification and without consultation with a doctor. I have had a couple of these complaints and the hon the Minister is fully aware of these happenings. I am sure other hon members will agree with me in this regard.

It would be unrealistic to pretend that the economy is in good shape. Politics have definitely caused the economy to take a severe battering. I agree with the hon the Minister that a bill of rights is perhaps the passport to a better future.

Mr Chairman, I wish to make reference to the remarks made by the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. He made certain submissions that during the time when his son passed away and he was grieving the opposition party was preparing a motion against him.

I want him to understand that we are honourable people and that we do not take that type of action when people are mourning. We do it in the right spirit at the right time. If any message was passed on to him by an irresponsible hon member, I cannot understand why he took such exception. I can only imagine that two hon members who are not here could possibly have resorted to such type of action.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made some remarks in regard to the second access road. I think he should have asked himself whether his previous leader had, in fact, done what had been expected of him after he had held such high office. He should also have thought about how very forceful he was when he was the Chairman of the South African Indian Council for many years and also the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House. I cannot reconcile his attitude in this regard with the fact that in his outburst he took the leader of the majority party in this House to task.

I want to refer to the current debates that are taking place in NP circles about whether or not the leader of the majority party should have the political muscle. It is very evident that the caucus and the Federal Council of the NP have taken the decision that the leader of that party should be holding the high office of State President. Therefore I fail to understand the attitude of the hon the State President in not recognising the leader of the majority party in this House as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I appeal to him to seriously consider placing the leader of the majority party in this House in the seat where he ought to be.

I think we cannot deny the fact that with the increase of 27,8% for the year the hon the Minister of the Budget, being a great economist with a vast knowledge in this field, has left no stone unturned to get the maximum for the Indian community. Being fully cognizant of the important role that he has played in the past in the upliftment of our community and the Black community in general, whatever he was able to achieve in regard to the appropriation for the respective departments must under the circumstances be respected as a true reflection of his efforts. We are also aware of the fact that he had great limitations and that his hands could only be stretched out that far. I am sure that with his abilities and his forcefulness he must have done everything within his power to stretch out his hands as far as possible.

It is very sad and disappointing for us to note that funds that had been appropriated for the Administration: House of Delegates were not put to use. This resulted in those funds becoming surplus funds for the past financial year. If one looks at the House of Representatives one sees that they have overspent their appropriated funds. We had always been looking for money but now that we have eventually received money over the past four years we end up with a surplus. I would like to know whether this can be ascribed to negligence on the part of the administration who failed to timeously inform the respective ministries of the availability of the funds, or whether it can be ascribed to the inability of the ministries themselves who overbudgeted for the requirements of the departments.

I think we have to take cognisance of this. There are other ministries where greater funds are required. Therefore I feel that greater emphasis must be placed on the ministries themselves if in the past they have failed to project their budgets for the year.

I would also like to comment on the remarks made by the hon the Minister. He qualified the negligence as “a cardinal sin”. I think his use of such strong terms shows that he is certainly disappointed that the money appropriated for the respective year was not utilised. He was not prepared to condone this.

We are not here to shirk our obligations. If it is the fault of the administration they must take cognisance of it. If it is the fault of the ministry I want to ask them not to allow a surplus of R12,5 million which is unwarranted.

Reference was made to the high costs of transport. This is because the SATS have curtailed their subsidisation responsibilities. We need to place greater emphasis on saving on our transport costs so that the money from this source can be used for social and welfare services.

I now come to the question of housing. It has been said repeatedly in this Chamber that there is a shortage of land. Yes, we do admit that there is a shortage of land and that is because of the Government’s restrictive policies. However, there is also a large area of available land at present which for some reason—I do not know whether it is red tape within the department or the local government—is not put to use. I believe these sites should be serviced and attended to as a matter of urgency to provide the greatly-needed housing facilities for our people.

By the same token I would also like to appeal to business people. There are a number of wealthy business people who have vast tracts of land. They are retaining this land to receive better dividends when the good days arrive. I think these people ought to be told that the need of the community should be placed before their personal desires. The tracts of land in and around the Durban area should be utilised for low-cost, high-density housing.

There are thousands and thousands of persons on waiting lists who need a roof over their heads. If the Government fails to supply us with land then our own Indian community must be able to step forward to identify land … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have listened to this particular debate with mixed feelings. The one moment I feel positive that something meaningful will emerge after having listened to some of the statements made here this afternoon, and the next I feel despondent because of the actions of some individuals who are more interested in fiction than fact. Because they are so obsessed with fiction and intrigue, they are in the habit of disseminating untruths to the media.

The other hon members on this side of the House and I are noting this habit of going to the media with untruths. I want to appeal to the media that when they deal with issues relating to hon members of this House they should contact the hon members directly to establish the facts.

Over the weekend there was a speculation over my resignation as Chief Whip. On account of this misinformation I took the liberty to address a letter to my leader. In my letter to my leader I set the record straight and I also want to place it on record here in Parliament. I quote from my letter:

I trust there will be no need for me to refer to that type of situation in the future.

I want to comment on the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. In so doing I want to say that, whilst I must be a little kind to him because it was the fourth time he has participated in this particular debate in that position, if we want to make positive contributions in debates, we must cease talking about non-issues.

He spent the bulk of his time attacking the party that I represent here in Parliament. He spent the bulk of his time talking about the number of seats they won in the election and so forth. However, what he forgot to tell the hon members in this House, is that if one takes the total number of people who voted in the previous election, more people voted for Solidarity than for the NPP. I am not scoring points about this because it will get us nowhere. I would rather we came here and advanced constructive criticism, but at the same time made a constructive contribution. We have problems in relation to housing and education in all our constituencies. We should be finding solutions to these problems.

I think my hon leader dealt adequately with the hon member for Springfield in this particular regard. I want to say that we must stop talking along these lines as is the habit we have gained from the past from the constant barrage we had with the former hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

I also want to set the record straight on another point. I have here with me a particular speech delivered by Mr Ismail Omar, the chairman of my party. How this was treated, is what I call misinformation. I do not know who is playing Bismarck here and who wants to send the EMS telegram all over again and create a war. Mr Omar has been quoted completely out of context, again to bring about controversy and conflict in this particular Chamber.

I want to state quite categorically that we in Solidarity have not come here to strengthen the tricameral system. I would like to ask hon members in this House whether they have come here to strengthen the tricameral system. They have come here to use this as a mechanism to achieve the ultimate goal. [Interjections.] This is what Mr Ismail Omar said in his speech:

I repeat that—

Very conveniently that part of his speech was left out. Hon members must come to their own conclusions in that respect.

I should also like to refer to what the hon member for Reservoir Hills had to say in respect of free settlement areas. I should like to say that the members of Solidarity in Tongaat contacted me. In fact, I was delighted with the discussion I had with them. They told me they were meeting the MP for the area. I advised them to use the free settlement areas option. A meeting did ensue, and subsequent meetings took place. I was pleased to hear from the hon member for Tongaat that things were progressing positively in that direction. I think that is a positive contribution; this is what we should be doing.

It is very nice to urge the Ministers’ Council—I, too, would like to appeal to them in this regard—to work towards the dismantling of apartheid by using the Free Settlement Areas Act. I know that it will be difficult to undo all the past at one go, but the free settlement areas may be used as a mechanism to bring people together at a primary level, to give people the opportunity to come together and to interact, regardless of colour, caste, creed or race. I would say that the Ministers’ Council should do everything in its power to do so.

I would like to impress upon the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, who is not present, that Tongaat should not be the only place. There are many other towns. For example, I would suggest Pietermaritzburg, Durban, Stanger, Dannhauser and Cape Town.

What I would like to say to the hon member for Reservoir Hills is that he belongs to a party—the PFP. I agree when he says that they espouse the same principles that we espoused here; I have no quarrel with that. However, I should just like to mention that just making that acknowledgement is not on, and castigating other people is not a defence for their own shortcomings. I believe that the PFP, where it has the opportunity to demonstrate effectively, where it has control of local government, should impress upon those local authorities to ensure that they ask overnight for the declaration of those local authorities as free settlement areas. That would be a positive step and meaningful reform.

I would like the hon members of the PFP to tell us why, where their party has political muscle, we people of colour do not have that political muscle. It is the Whites that have that political muscle. Indeed, they do; and I am pleased that there are some local authorities under the control of the PFP. Therefore they should in fact move in that direction if we are to give meaning and content to all our philosophies here. I am getting sick and tired of people using this particular Chamber to come and speak for the sake of speaking.

I would now like to turn to the Ministers’ Council, and appeal to them in regard to the question of Prof Reddy. There was much fanfare in this regard and a lot of publicity was given to the fact that there was a dental faculty in Durban, and that Prof Reddy had been appointed to head this particular faculty. The head has been appointed, but there is no faculty! Where is the productivity? What is this learned, educated man doing there?

Wasting his time.

I would suggest that it must be as frustrating for him as it is for those who desire a faculty there. I should like to suggest that whilst there is still time before the faculty is established, Prof Reddy’s services be used with greater productivity and more effectively. Maybe he should be given a horizontal transfer to one of the other dental teaching institutions. Is it just because of his colour that he is not being given this horizontal transfer? Are there no other departments that could use his services? Will the country not benefit from his services? I should like to suggest that the hon Ministers’ Council consider this particular aspect if we are to achieve greater productivity.

Coming back to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, I want to say that I was pleased at some of his positive comments. I was pleased that he also desires stability in this House. I invite him to work hand-in-hand towards that stability. I say this here publicly. We will work together …

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry, I do not have time to answer questions. I regard that as positive. However, when we say we want stability, stability must also be manifested in our actions.

I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture that whilst moneys are being included to assist farmers, I want the assistance not to be by way of loans, especially in respect of those farmers who will have difficulty in repaying those loans.

I have made this appeal on many occasions before and I would like to make it again. There are people who are affected by droughts and the rescheduling of these loans merely defers the evil day for them. It leaves them with a constant sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. I would like to suggest that especially in the Nonoti area the hon the Minister must consider it seriously.

Take that sword out of here.

It seems that the hon the Minister has a sorry problem here.

I would also like to say that it is very nice for hon members on the other side to refer to the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in his capacity as Acting Minister of Housing and to try to attribute all the faults related to housing to him. I think it is unfair.

He has just assumed that position. It will take years to undo the harm that has been done by one man in this House over the last four years. I do not say it maliciously. To overcome that, we have got to stand together united. If we unite and we work together, the process by which we will cleanse the past and dry-clean all the mess around us, will be quicker and easier.

Mr Chairman, speaking immediately after the hon member for Stanger gives me a lot of courage. He was more or less emotional in fighting for stability in this House, but I can assure hon members that there is very concrete stability in Solidarity.

Hear, hear!

We have got full confidence in our leader and if the Opposition think that there is no stability, I think that they must put their house in order.

I have come to do a day’s work here and I have to deliver a message. My message is very, very straightforward. One can understand and indeed appreciate the constraint placed upon the hon the Minister of the Budget as he had to find funds within the limited framework of the terms of reference of the hon the Minister of Finance. Nevertheless the amounts to be approved are cause for grave concern and do not augur well for the future. The community looks to us for the future and yet I cannot see what future we can offer them.

Let me just consider this from different viewpoints. There is a substantial lack of health and social services when one views the ratio of trained professional people to the total population. We need more clinics, hospitals, professional and auxiliary staff such as para-medics and nurse-aides to cater for all the needs of the community.

One cannot discount this service with any justification at all. It is indeed strange how a certain hospital—for example the one in Pretoria—can be upgraded and yet Phoenix still does not have a hospital. Disease and illness do not show any respect for the colour of one’s skin but we encourage the growth of this illness and disease by the lack of adequate services. There are daily reports of child abuse, rape and incest. What has been done by way of service for these victims?

In so far as local government is concerned, I emphatically say that the direct intervention of local authorities should be the norm. There is no need for management committees and local affairs committees. These only represent a duplication of services and act as an ineffective negotiating arm.

If local affairs and management committees are so effective, why is there then no upgrading of facilities and the establishment of recreational areas for Indians. Looking at Isipingo, must one then wait for more shark attacks and deaths before shark nets will be installed.

Another matter causing concern is the damage caused by the recent floods. Here again a great deal is being left undone. In an article in the Sunday Tribune of 19 February 1989, the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture says that the municipality of Ladysmith is dragging its feet, while the town clerk claims that the local affairs committee has caused the delay. This further emphasises the need for direct representation in local authorities with regard to housing. I cannot overstress this great need, especially among the lower and middle income groups and the flood victims.

There is a waiting list and a backlog of several years. What has been done since the inception of our own affairs to overcome this backlog? How many more years must the people wait for adequate housing? One only has to look at the pathetic conditions in which homeless people find themselves to appreciate the need for quick and urgent action. The housing which is provided, besides being insufficient, also shows a lack of quality and an examination of material used reveals poor quality and workmanship.

Moreover, the limited space around those houses means that the people live practically on top of each other. There is little privacy or room to breathe. How can a family develop into a sound and healthy social unit if they are placed in an environment which is conducive to creating a slum mentality and psychologically disturbed people? This is a very disturbing and distressing state of affairs.

One only has to look at the high incidence of crime and the increasing crime rate that is prevalent in the Indian community to realise that overcrowded housing conditions promote and foster crime. Rape and child abuse were once unheard of in the Indian community, but nowadays it is so common that it is in danger of being taken for granted. We cannot afford to become inured to this and allow degradation and deprivation among our community. A lack of housing and social services schemes is eroding the family unit and is responsible for breeding a generation that lacks pride in its environment and in itself.

The problems of housing and social services are compounded by the devaluing of own affairs education and culture and also the prominence of separate group areas, as I have indicated in this House. We Indians have been accused of not allowing Blacks into our schools. Despite the fact that there is room for them, Black children are allowed into pre-primary schools, but are refused entry into primary schools. This again merely serves to polarise the various population groups and fuels radicals and extremists. It clearly indicates a lack of foresight on the part of the education authorities not to anticipate the wider socio-political problems which petty actions cause. There is indeed a great need for own affairs education and culture to be steered along a proper course. Perhaps the captain, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, has too many irons in the fire to pilot the ship through the stormy seas.

At the moment there are more than 300 qualified Indian teachers still waiting for jobs. Our young girls, after graduation, are shunted to far-off places, away from their homes. I know of a young girl who travelled 40km daily from Brits to Pretoria. Clearly there is a lack of co-ordination and organisation here.

Many officials of the Administration: House of Delegates are in Cape Town. Why is this so? In addition to the Director-General and Chief Director there are the chief directors of various departments. Is it really necessary for these officials to be in Cape Town? I understand that they have come to be of assistance to their respective Ministers, but surely this can be effected from Durban. Would they not be better placed at the headquarters so as to render their services more adequately there? I think it is a waste of taxpayers’ money to have them here in Cape Town. Telephone calls and telexing is far less expensive than the cost incurred by having them here in Cape Town. [Time expired.]

Debate interrupted.