Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, it is tragic that the NP, which could justifiably boast in the past of being responsible for the economic upliftment of the Whites in South Africa, is now responsible for the impoverishment and economic decline of the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.]

It is inexcusable for the Whites to have to pay the price for this NP Government’s political and economic policy. According to the 19 May 1989 edition of Finansies en Tegniek the White taxpayers pay 92,9% of all taxation. The real, personal spendable income per capita has decreased by 12% during the past decade, which has led to impoverishment even though higher salaries are being earned.

What is the main reason for this? The same article says the main reason for the problem is the growth in Government expenditure from 16% of the gross national product in 1950 to 22% in 1980, and to an estimated 31% this year. This has pushed up taxation as part of the net national income from 17% in 1950 to 27% in 1980, and to an estimated 38% this year. South Africa’s top marginal rate of 45%, at which individuals pay tax, is now higher than the rate in Britain and America. The marginal rate on R100 000 earned in South Africa is 45%, in Britain it is 40%, in West Germany it is 27%, in the USA it is 28% and in Japan it is 20%.

The article goes on to say that a great source of concern is the fact that Whites are going to pay even more as Government expenditure increases. The problems experienced in collecting rent and electricity payments and GST from Blacks indicates that many Blacks are not paying their fair share.

In the midst of this the NP, through the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, demonstrated their insensitivity and ignorance about what is going on in the average household. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister demonstrated that the NP has lost touch with the voters and does not care what becomes of them.

Even one of the NP’s mouthpieces, Die Transvaler, indicated its intense dismay in the 22 May edition at the insensitivity displayed by the NP in making this completely unfounded statement. Die Transvaler says that at most it attests to insensitivity and at least to shameful ignorance about what is going on in the average household. [Interjections.] The article says the NP must be extremely careful that it does not get the image of a party that is so ideologically involved that it could not care less about what the voters eat or do not eat.

They have that image already!

To fight an election with that kind of albatross around one’s neck might be just too much. The article goes on to say that they must please not try to explain or rationalise any further in an attempt to prove that this objectionable statement was correct. It was not, and that is that! They should rather, according to Die Transvaler, try to break down the existing perception of insensitivity and to convince the average voter that he has a Government that cares for him and has sympathy with his fate.

Yes, the insensitivity and shameful ignorance of the NP was seen even by the NP mouthpiece, and they were the ones to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister not to attempt to explain that he was correct, because he was not and that was that! Die Transvaler also appealed to the Government to break down the perception of insensitivity and to try to convince the voters that the Government cares for them and has sympathy with their fate. None of this will help, however, because the White voters have taken thorough cognisance of the fact that the NP Government cannot be trusted. [Interjections.] The White voters realise that the NP has become so caught up in its ideology that it does not care what the voters eat or do not eat. The White voters’ reaction to the hon the Deputy Minister’s statement is quite simple. They say he is proclaiming a glaring untruth, because the voters are experiencing the impoverishment that he alleges is not taking place.

Go for him, Fanie!

That is why on 6 September the White voters will deal with this unfaithful, unsympathetic and unapproachable NP with the contempt they deserve.

Let us test this implausible statement made by the NP Government even further. Let us see what Prof Jan Sadie said in the article “Verval van die Suid-Afrikaanse Gemeenskap” in the 12 May edition of Finansies en Tegniek. He spelt out clearly that the per capita income was decreasing and that the population was becoming impoverished. He said that up to the mid seventies the GDP had increased rapidly enough not only to accommodate the increasing population, but also to enhance their average standard of living. Since then, however, economic growth has not been able to keep up even with the increase in the population. He said the income per capita was decreasing and the population was becoming impoverished. He said the six decades since 1930 spanned a long ascendant cycle after a period of misery—including the years of depression—and a boom followed by a decline. What does the hon the Deputy Minister have to say about this? He should rather not try to explain. Even Die Transvaler has said he should rather not try to explain, because his statement is not correct and that is that.

The NP has lost touch with the voters at large. They no longer care two hoots what becomes of the White voters. They are closing their eyes to the conditions of Whites who are becoming impoverished as a result of the NP’s policy, and to the fact that three or four White families sometimes live in one house in a state of poverty in which they have barely enough food to eat. They are closing their eyes to Whites, many of them elderly people, who have to get along with candles and paraffin-stoves because they cannot afford electricity. They are closing their eyes to cases such as the one of the elderly woman reported in the Argus of 23 May. She was forced to eat dog food because it was the cheapest food available. They are also closing their eyes to the 600 White elderly people who got together this week to complain about the high cost of living, high taxation and excessive Government spending. They are closing their eyes to this, and the hon the Deputy Minister’s statement is clear proof of that.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Ventersdorp blatantly tried here today to exploit the wretched economic conditions of the poor people in the country in particular. I want to tell him that there is not much point in that. The NP does not take a back seat to anyone for what it has tried to do in the economic sphere in the interests of all our people. [Interjections.]

It is interesting that the hon member for Ventersdorp did not refer to his hon leader’s appearance on television.

It was excellent!

I must tell hon members that it is a long time since I saw a leader of a political party shying away from the logical consequences of his party’s policy to that extent. [Interjections.] Apparently the hon member for Ventersdorp did not refer to that, because he is just as ashamed about it as the other hon members probably are.

In contrast with the performance of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, there was the performance of the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP. [Interjections.] All the people one could talk to in South Africa tell one that if there is one thing the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP did not do, it was to flinch. [Interjections.] He answered every question put to him frankly, honestly and candidly. [Interjections.]

Order! There are hon members who were not given turns to speak by their Whips today and there are Whips who did not give themselves turns to speak, but the hon members who do have turns to speak will be well able to deal with the hon member for Turffontein. The hon member must be given an opportunity to carry on with his speech. The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have wanted to deal with the subject I want to deal with this afternoon on two occasions. Mr Chairman, with all due respect, you called me to order the first time and I complied with your ruling. The second time my time had expired. Today, therefore, I want to deal with a perception that is encouraged by the CP, viz that every politician, every member of Parliament and every Cabinet Minister is a potential crook. [Interjections.] We as politicians object most strongly to politicians being dragged in in such a blatantly irresponsible manner.

Whose politicians are you referring to?

The hon member for Lichtenburg must wait just a moment, because I shall come to him. Last time they stopped me, and I could not come to him. This afternoon I can talk about the matter, and I am going to talk about it. [Interjections.]

The whole issue of corruption was the order of the day throughout this session. I should like in particular to test the CP on the basis of their own norms with regard to corruption and maladministration. Strong language was used during the session and words of condemnation were flung across the floor. Blatant insinuations and all kinds of innuendos were part of the constant CP attacks that we had to endure with regard to the Government and Cabinet Ministers.

The Government’s express standpoint was that corruption in South Africa cannot and will not be tolerated. That was why the post of Advocate-General was established, to investigate such possible problems. [Interjections.]

The point of departure should not be whether or not corruption takes place, because as long as there are sinners in this world, there will be corruption. The question is what is done if there are signs of corruption and maladministration. We on this side of the House want to state unequivocally that irrespective of who was involved, there was never a moment’s hesitation in taking immediate and drastic action and in allowing the laws of the country to take their course in such cases.

Let us test the CP this afternoon in terms of the sanctimonious norms this party presents for themselves and for South Africa. The following extremely arrogant poster appeared on the poles along the roads of South Africa: “Du Plessis, De Pontes, De Beer, De Next?” [Interjections.]

Apparently the hon members have a very short memory, because one finds great hypocrisy when one starts scratching a bit in the history of that political party. I should like to add two “de’s”, because this “de, de, de” seems to be part of the hon member for Overvaal. It seems that he suffers from “de, de, de.” I see Die Afrikaner says he suffers from incurable political foolishness! I do not know whether that is what holds the hon member back.

Order! I do not think we shall get very far if we start saying that kind of thing to one another. Even if Die Afrikaner says that, I think the hon member should withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

The two “de’s” that I want to refer to are “De Past” and “De Pietersburg”. Let us begin with “De Pietersburg”. All political parties, including the CP and the NP, depend on funds and financial contributions from the public and the voters of South Africa to maintain our political parties. We therefore operate our political parties using public funds and public money. Surely we are responsible to the public with regard to the utilisation of those funds in the process of operating our politics. One must note that just as this budget is accountable, political parties are also responsible to the supporters of the respective political parties.

I want to put a question to the hon member for Pietersburg this afternoon. He is not here, but I am sure the hon the leader of the CP can react to my question. I want to ask whether R31 000 disappeared from the CP funds in the Pietersburg constituency as a result of fraud. If so—that is our information—were charges laid with the South African Police? In the second place, was action taken against the accounting officer of the CP in that case? Was an investigation undertaken?

After all, we have heard accusations from time to time that the hon Ministers do not take timeous action and that investigations are not undertaken. R31 000 disappeared from a political party’s treasury in a constituency. I want to know what steps that political party took. [Interjections.] What is of greater importance is whether the political accounting officer was called to order in respect of that R31 000.

After all, we were told that the hon Ministers were responsible for maladministration and corruption in their departments. What about the hon member for Pietersburg? Was he called to order, especially in view of the fact that this hon member made accusations against hon Ministers and demanded the resignations of various hon Ministers from their portfolios times without number? My question this afternoon is what the situation is with regard to Pietersburg.

I want to allege that R31 000 definitely disappeared from that party’s coffers. I want to allege that that party tried to cover up that incident. I want to allege that no charge was laid with the police. I want to allege that no action was taken against the accounting officer of that political party in Pietersburg. I want to allege that the political accounting officer is sitting pretty here in Parliament and accusing other people of the same kind of maladministration that took place there.

I want to ask the hon the leader of the CP this afternoon whether the CP is prepared to appoint an independent auditing firm to investigate that incident and report on it in public. I think the CP owes us an explanation.

Let us come to “De Past”. What a short memory those hon members have! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said in the no-confidence debate as reported in Die Transvaler on 7 February 1989—hon members must listen carefully—“As Parlementslede onskuldig is, waarom bedank hulle?” How noble and how exemplary! That is the kind of turncoat politics that we have become used to.

I want to address the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon members for Lichtenburg, Soutpansberg, Barberton, Brakpan and Overvaal this afternoon. On 5 March 1980 a motion that was moved by the then leader of the NP of the Transvaal, the present hon Leader of the Official Opposition, was unanimously adopted in the NP caucus. I want to read it out today, but let me say this first.

Is this a caucus…

I am just trying to test them against their own norms, and perhaps the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central can learn a lesson from that. [Interjections.]

Haven’t you ever heard about caucus leaks?

When I raised this matter on a prior occasion, we got this reaction from the hon member for Lichtenburg (Hansard, 26 April 1989, col 6801):

That was the reaction of the hon member for Lichtenburg. I should like to read that motion just to remind…

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must not ask me for a copy of it. [Interjections.] Here I have two newspaper reports. [Interjections.] Just let me conclude my argument, and then the hon members can reply. I quote from The Argus of 5 March 1980:

I shall come to that in a moment. The other newspaper is the Rand Daily Mail of 6 March 1980:

I find it interesting that the hon members asked for a copy. This was a formal statement which was issued after a caucus meeting of the NP. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Let us look at the phrasing of that motion. It appeared in the newspaper, a motion that was accepted in a statement that was issued by the Chief Whip of the NP. The wording reads:

This motion was proposed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the caucus of the NP.

That is not true.

A statement was issued. The newspapers published it, and the hon members have never tried to get out of it before. [Interjections.] Now they deny it. That is incredible. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say an hon member is telling a lie?

Order! Did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say that?

I did, Sir. It is a lie, but if you want me to withdraw that, I shall withdraw it.

It is incredible that one can turn back on one’s own standpoints to that extent. [Interjections.] In this case there was a motion before the caucus of a party. The Chief Whip of that party subsequently issued a statement to the Press, I have quoted to hon members newspaper report after newspaper report that dealt with that statement, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says it is a lie. He says it is not true. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition withdrew it. Consequently the hon member for Turffontein must not refer to that again.

Mr Chairman, hon members are creating the impression that what I am saying is not true.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is disputing your ruling.

Order! I do not think the hon member is disputing it. I think we understand one another. The hon member may proceed.

The point I want to make this afternoon is that Dr C P Mulder resigned from the Cabinet, as leader of the NP and from Parliament, and there is this damning motion of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition; nevertheless the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made the comment I quoted from Die Transvaler: “As huile dan nou onskuldig is, hoekom bedank hulle?” Despite these facts that party re-elected Dr Connie Mulder and he came back to this Parliament as a member of that party. [Interjections.] If those are the norms in terms of which these hon members want to condemn the NP, I say that people who live in glass houses should rather stop throwing stones.

I want to conclude with a comment made in the newspaper concerning corruption. I should like to read it to hon members. It appeared in Finance Week of 20 to 26 April 1989:

The report goes on:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You asked the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he had said it was a lie. He then replied that it was a lie, but if you wanted him to withdraw that, he would do so. With all due respect, I want to suggest that that was not an unconditional withdrawal.

Order! I asked the hon the Leader whether he had withdrawn it, and I received an indication that he had done so. To make doubly sure, I ask the hon the leader whether he did so.

Mr Chairman, I repeat that I think it is a lie. I also said that if you asked me to withdraw that, I would do so.

Order! I asked the hon the leader to withdraw it, and I think he did.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: If I may withdraw unconditionally in that way every time, I can say anything to hon members and then say that I am withdrawing it because you have asked me to do so. In all modesty I contend that that is not an unconditional withdrawal.

Order! I regard it as an unconditional withdrawal.

Mr Chairman, the indications as to what this election campaign is going to be about have already been given in the first few minutes of this debate. I must say that if this is what the election is going to be about, then I actually feel sorry for the voters of South Africa because, quite frankly, I hope that they are going to have something else to decide about than whether the CP has had R31 000 stolen from it in Pietersburg. I doubt whether that is going to decide the future.

I think we should be realistic. It looks clear, as the, shall we say, battle lines have now been drawn, that the economy and corruption are going to be in the battlefield. Also not to be forgotten in this whole issue is really the future of South Africa, whether there are constitutional solutions for South Africa, and whether South Africa can live in peace and harmony, because that to me is perhaps the most fundamental one.

Economic policy is vital and economic policy we will debate. I must, without any hesitation, however, say that whereas we will criticise and condemn what has been economic mismanagement in South Africa, the South African people must know that under the CP it would be even worse. There can be no question about that. While I am on that subject, I yesterday found myself in a very strange situation because the hon member for Barberton started to compare Boksburg with Johannesburg. He quoted some figures and talked about GST. The hon member had the following to say:

I could not understand this because I know what is happening in Johannesburg. I know what the thriving city of Johannesburg is all about. I tried to find out where these statistics come from. I believe those statistics came from a politicus diabolis in the CP. I think the hon member for Barberton, whom I hold in fairly high esteem, fed him that information. Where that politicus diabolis got it from is another story.

If we look at the true picture, we see that what actually was in the possession of the CP, was a document which showed the picture from November to March. They then carefully selected one single month which they used to create a completely and utterly misleading position. [Interjections.] Let me tell the House what the truth is. In the very next month after the month quoted, the position was as follows. In Boksburg the percentage change went up by 0,96%. [Interjections.] In Johannesburg in the very next month it went up 77,59%.

Now why did they not quote both figures? Why do they deliberately select one figure to create a false impression which undoubtedly will be put in every one of their pamphlets in order to show that Boksburg thrives under CP rule. [Interjections.] I think it is utterly, grossly atrocious to engage in political tactics of that nature. If they want to have a private fight with Boksburg and the NP, that is their affair but they must just leave Johannesburg out of it. [Interjections.]

This is, as we all know, the last real debate of a political nature that there is going to be in this House. I think the dissolution of this Parliament is significant for a number of reasons. It is of course the end of an era in a number of respects. The tricameral Parliament has had its first 5-year period—my hon colleague will comment on that. There is a beginning now of a new leadership in the NP and the end of an old one. Parliament has in fact brought about some important changes in the past 5 years but what I would specifically like to mention, is that it has also seen the end of the PFP. I make no apology for the existence for the PFP. I make no apology for my membership of it. I am and remain proud of that party. [Interjections.]

I want to say that I am sorry that colleagues like my benchmate, the hon member for Berea, the hon member for Houghton, the hon member for… the shy member for some other area who does not want to be mentioned and a few others are not coming back. [Interjections.] Those members have chosen not to come back. There may be many people here—and I do not exclude myself—who may not be coming back from choice. That is what life is all about, that is what politics is all about. [Interjections.]

However, when the history of South Africa is written, what will in fact be written is that at a time when South Africa needed the PFP, the PFP was in Parliament; the PFP spoke up for human rights; the PFP spoke up for personal freedoms; and at a time when many people were silenced, there were courageous people in the PFP who were prepared to speak. I must say that I go away at the end of this Parliament saying to myself that one of the proudest eras that I have participated in, has been the era of the PFP. I think that many people will share with me that pride and joy at having been able to belong to that party.

The thing which concerns me—I want to put it very clearly—and which is a major issue to be decided upon and which is relevant to what the PFP has tried to do in this House in the past is the fight against apartheid. We have fought apartheid consistently for decades. I have fought it ever since I have been in politics.

Apartheid, however, is going to go, never mind what the CP says. There is no doubt that apartheid will go. It is merely a question of when it will go and how it will go. What is more important, however, is what is going to come after apartheid in South Africa. [Interjections.] If we do not have a Western style democratic constitutional and economic system in South Africa, then those of us who have fought for it will have been here in vain, and South Africa will suffer as a result of it.

What needs to be done in this election is to look the people of South Africa in the eye and ask how they want to see South Africa in the future. [Interjections.] I think the politicians must be honest and tell the public how they want to see it. Do they want the disaster of confrontation which the CP offers? [Interjections.] Do they want the confused situation where there are no answers forthcoming from the side of the NP, or do they want a democratic federal government in which the rights of the individual will be protected and in which there will be a future for all of us here? [Interjections.] That is the question.

The hon member for Turffontein falls into the trap and talks about majority rule. Let us understand each other very clearly. We do not stand for majority rule, whether it be Black or White rule. [Interjections.] We do not stand for it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member, if one has on common voters’ rolls at all levels one man, one vote with no protection apart from language and cultural rights, how does one avoid a majority government at all levels?

One avoids it very simply. If one reads the federal basis of the constitution which we had in the PFP…

That is not your policy! [Interjections.]

That is part of the DP policy. The hon the Minister must not try and avoid the issue.

The reality is that under a federal government with proportional representation with a rigid constitution and a form of consociational democracy which the hon the Minister himself has spoken about and with the bill of rights which he has sought to initiate one will not have a majority government at all levels. [Interjections.]

What will happen, and this I want to say with great respect, is that the hon the leader of the NP will come to this House one day—I do not know whether I will be here, because he is much younger than I—and he will present a federal policy to this House. I concede immediately that the fault which we have electorally is that some of us are a few years ahead. Eventually, as has happened on so many other occasions, the hon the Minister will catch up. I only hope that he will catch up in time. That is the issue, because we are short of time in South Africa.

That is a verkrampte version of your policy.

I am not a verkrampte. [Interjections.]

I want to say to the hon the leader of the NP that if he does the right things he knows he can rely on support. If he does the wrong things he must expect criticism. The reality is that federalism is not a verkrampte concept, but in fact a hope for South Africa. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning believes in it as well. I actually think that in his heart the hon the leader of the NP also believes in federalism, and he should say so during this debate. [Interjections.] I think he does.

I want to deal now with the question of the economy, because this matter has been raised specifically. I find it a little outrageous that when elderly people are concerned about their own future, someone in the benches just behind me has the audacity to say that old people are not entitled to stand up and speak up for their rights.

Since when is one by reason of one’s age not entitled to stand up for one’s rights?

The elderly people in South Africa are the ones who are suffering the most under inflation at this moment in time. While I am talking about this let me say to hon members that when we say the economy is going to be an issue in this election, inflation is going to be the major issue; not inflation caused by matters which are beyond anyone’s control, but inflation caused by the mismanagement of the economy and by the incorrect application of principles which should have been applied. We have got admission after admission that there has been insufficient coordination between fiscal and monetary policy. There has been delay in respect of action and we all know that we are paying a price for that situation today.

To my mind, if anything is going to be done to help the aged of South Africa we should say to them that they are going to get increased pensions not because there is an election but because they are entitled to them. I think one must provide an investment medium such the index bond to protect them against inflation. I think one has to do something about protecting the elderly of South Africa against the ravages of crime. In this regard I must tell hon members that it is becoming a major problem to deal with crime in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, my sincere thanks for this opportunity just to say farewell. I have an idea that what I am going to say will perhaps cool down the debate somewhat, but the next speaker will have no problem hotting things up again. Mr Speaker, my sincere thanks for the opportunity to say these few words under your chairmanship.

It was a very great privilege for me to be Chairman of this House during the past five years after my colleagues twice elected me to that post. The Chairman of the House is the servant of hon members of the House, and it is a pleasure for me to thank hon members for their friendship, for the confidence they have placed in me and for their sympathetic attitude. I want to tell hon members that I am leaving many good friends behind. On the one hand there are colleagues with whom I have come a very long way on many levels, and on the other there are those I have known since my days in the provincial council, and other very good friends too. I am departing in the knowledge that I leave many good friends behind, and South Africa can also be proud of the people in this House. I am, of course, leaving with a touch of sadness, but there is a time to come and a time to go, and my time for going has come.

I should like to extend my sincere thanks to the hon the Leader of the House who is sitting here. Occupying that Chair may, at times, seem to be an easy task, but sometimes one encounters difficulties. The hon the Leader of the House has always helped me, and he has done so with great kindness and competence. I also want to thank him for the many occasions on which he was very patient with me. I thank him for his friendliness. The hon the Leader of the House has always, under all circumstances, set great store by the traditions of the House. I am asking—in fact, I pray—that his successor will do the same.

I also want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and I have always interacted on a very personal level, and as a person he has always been very cordial. I also want to say at once that the respect the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has always accorded the Chair is really an example for everyone to emulate. My very special thanks to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Let me also say that in this House I have not, of course, known the hon the leader of the DP in Parliament for very long.

†I wish him well. I wish to say to the hon members of the DP that I enjoyed listening to their points of order. Although when taken they were often not successful, they were well thought out and they were put vociferously, if not always logically by the hon members of that party. Sometimes I even enjoyed agreeing with the points of order taken.

*I want to extend my sincere thanks to the Whips of all parties with whom I have been privileged to work. I have had nothing but co-operation from them. They are a team, even though they are members of different parties, who really oil the wheels of this House, and I think that is why this House is making such concerted progress.

I must also extend my thanks to my colleagues in the Chair. My colleague, Helgard, who is now probably active elsewhere, is a man with a powerful voice who has never been reluctant to grant assistance.

A special word of thanks to my colleague, Karel. It seems to me as if this fellow, Karel, is fond of the Chair. He often offered to assist when things were very hectic. My sincere thanks to Karel; I appreciate it tremendously.

Let me put it this way. It seems so easy to occupy that Chair, but when one is there and one makes a little “mistakie”, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition puts it, hon members are so quick to exploit it and to make things so difficult for one that one eventually does not know which way to turn.

Making a small mistake, however, keeps one humble. It is in full public view, clear for everyone to see, and one has to know one’s “steps”—if I may put it in those terms—to put things right.

Mr Speaker, my sincere thanks to you. Throughout the years you have been very cordial to me. I want to thank you very sincerely, because when I approached you for advice, your advice always gave me direction and was very cordial. I thank you very sincerely and wish you everything of the best.

I now want to come to the staff of Parliament. We do not all realise the tremendous “expertise” of the Secretary and his staff. They are people with an in-depth knowledge of the legal institutions throughout the world. They are people who are really here to advise and to fortify democracy in parliamentary bodies. They are really the people on whom the Chair relies very heavily for support and who very often help us to take the correct decisions. I thank them very sincerely.

Almost on the point of concluding, let me very sincerely thank my constituency. They ensured my presence here for approximately 141/2 years. I shall be leaving behind friends there. I thank my constituency very sincerely. I thank the NP in that constituency which supported me over the years.

I want to extend a last word of thanks. I thank hon members for tolerating me. Thank you, too, to our Father, our Redeemer, our Comforter.

†In the prayer that we pray each day at commencement of proceedings—and perhaps we should pay more attention to its content—I have found words of wisdom and of hope and of the true reality. There is one thing I would respectfully advise hon members of this House to do and that is to take more cognisance of the content of the parliamentary prayer and endeavour to live up to the supplications we make therein.

*I wish my country, the Afrikaner people, my Afrikaner nation, everything of the best. I should like to quote from Micah 6:8. Hon members must think about this and apply it to this House. There it is written:

I am quoting from the Old Testament, because I think everyone in this House endorses what is written in the Old Testament. My prayer for all hon members is that this wisdom will be a guiding light for them, and in this provisional greeting to hon members let me extend my sincere thanks and wish them everything of the best, and may hon members still be of service to South Africa for many years to come.

Order! I am sure I speak on behalf of everyone when I express my appreciation towards the hon member, who has just resumed his seat, for the exceptionally competent way in which he has occupied this Chair. We all have the utmost respect for him… [Interjections]… not only as an incumbent of the Chair, but also as a member of Parliament and as a member of our parliamentary community.

In lighter vein let me say that the hon member is also a land-surveyor and an advocate by profession. As an incumbent of this Chair, this has come in very handy, because on various occasions he has been able to survey the lie of the land, reach a verdict and give a ruling. The hon member has done this with great distinction.

I am speaking on behalf of all members of the House when I wish the hon member, his wife and his family everything of the best for the future and many good years of sound health.

Mr Speaker, it has never been my custom to say that I am pleased to follow on another hon member in this Chamber. This afternoon, however, I believe it is an exceptionally special privilege to follow on the hon member for Pretoria West, the hon the Chairman of the House in the House of Assembly, who is on the verge of retirement. I can say with conviction on the part of the CP that we have always regarded him as a good referee. He and I are both Blue Bulls, and I have always had appreciation for the way he has acted in the Chair. We will always be grateful to him for that. I want to say that the Bible text he quoted is also equally applicable to him. I believe he has lived accordingly.

Having now expressed these words of appreciation, I also want to address a few words to the hon member for Pretoria Central. This hon member made a speech here a few weeks ago in which he launched a scathing attack on people outside this Chamber, people who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves.

This is all about two people in the Pietersburg constituency. Now, when a political ship starts sinking and a party’s newspapers start drifting away from it, it so happens that people belonging to that party read these newspapers drifting away from them in any case and rely on them from morning till night. The hon member for Turffontein has also just quoted from newspapers. He could not come up with any facts, however. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pretoria Central relied on Rapport again, of course. He quoted from that newspaper and said that two people, one Mr Marks de Klerk and one Mr Van Vuuren, favoured a certain person in Pietersburg in a land deal. [Interjections.] The fact is that that land deal, which—according to the hon member for Pretoria Central—was referred to in Rapport, already had the rights in 1984, when the town council of Pietersburg decided that this land could be used to provide office accommodation. People only needed to apply for it.

Why then are you explaining in this manner? If that is the case it is surely not necessary to explain so much!

Do not react to him, Pikkie! Just go ahead with your speech!

The hon member for Pretoria Central quoted from a report which appeared recently—this year. It appeared in Rapport, of course. As usual! [Interjections.] The seller in the transaction about which the hon member is so concerned, stated in the deed of purchase that the buyer had to apply for those rights.

While Parliament is considering the privileges of parliamentarians and certain other matters, I believe that matters of this nature ought to be looked at as well. This should be done so that hon members cannot make flagrant accusations here against people who cannot defend themselves. I do not think that is proper. It is not fitting in the House of Assembly. I personally dislike it.

This hon member also launched an exceptionally strong attack on the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I want to tell the NP it will not take the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition two or three years to take action when some of our people have transgressed. He will not wait two years. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will not wait on Rapport to publicise Pietie du Plessis’s affairs before an investigation is made. He will act immediately. That is how we know him. Hon members heard him on television last night, and they will hear him more often in the future. [Interjections.]

Last but not least, I want briefly to cross swords with the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance. I want to say once again that when an hon Minister or an hon Deputy Minister speaks, I personally always have respect for him. I believe they speak from a position where all the relevant information is available to them. However, the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance said in this Chamber that Boksburg granted a Chinese person a trading licence for a restaurant, but that another Chinese person may not have a cup of tea in that restaurant. What sort of obscure remark is that? [Interjections.] I believe this hon Deputy Minister ought to be ashamed of himself for saying such things. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Turffontein is so terribly worried about the CP’s money in that party’s office in Pietersburg. Why was he not so worried about East London City when his former colleague… [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, while I was listening to the hon member for Middelburg, who has just finished speaking, and also to the hon member for Ventersdorp, who spoke earlier this afternoon, and who both spoke about finance, an aspect emerged which I found interesting.

When I listened to the figures mentioned to support their arguments, I wondered whether they were correct. I quickly tried to look up whether what the hon member for Ventersdorp, for example, had said when he asked who paid the taxes in this country, was really correct. He also quoted from an article in which it was alleged that the Whites in this country paid 92% of the taxes.

Personal tax!

He said they paid 92% of the tax. [Interjections.]

Not of all the tax; of personal tax.

Very well, if it was personal tax he was referring to I accept it. He nevertheless tried to create the impression that the Whites paid everything. [Interjections.] Very well, I shall examine his Hansard.

What does that mean in effect? These are figures that were mentioned in an effort to illustrate a problem and then the CP tried, in the way it normally presents arguments, to capitalise on this.

Do you deny the statement in regard to personal tax?

No, it is true! But surely that is not the only tax that is paid in South Africa? Surely there are a whole lot of other kinds of taxes which are also paid. Let us consider them.

If one takes personal tax as a percentage of total tax, it only comprises 36% of the total tax.

How much was it in the past?

The point is what the percentage of this money is at the moment. In the past it was precisely the same. [Interjections.]

GST constitutes 32% of total tax, and surely it is not only the Whites who pay it! Surely there is a completely different contribution on a general tax basis…

What is the breakdown?

Consequently if we ultimately consider the percentage of total tax paid by the Whites, and GST is also included, it works out to 48% of the total tax. [Interjections.] Surely that is a completely different picture to the one the CP was trying to paint here. But that is typical of CP propaganda. They base it on half-truths. Today I want to make the statement that the CP battens on the problems of South Africa and on the problems people have in the times in which we are living. They project these as being entirely the fault of the NP or that it is the NP that is withholding the solutions.

Mr Speaker, may I show the hon the Deputy Minister something?

No, I do not have time for that now. [Interjections.]

If we look at the problems of South Africa that must be solved, and we look at inflation, as well as the diversity of political problems, for example the problem we have in respect of South West Africa, the education problem, the group areas problem and other facets, we find that the CP merely singles out the dilemma every time, and offers no solution for it. All they do is criticise the NP, without suggesting a constructive solution to the problem.

This criticism, which they pour out so profusely on the Government and on South Africa, is discounted within the economy in some way or another. For example what would have happened if we had done what the CP suggested to us in South West Africa? What would the position in respect of sanctions have been then? Would we have had more or fewer sanctions? Would more or fewer investments have come to South Africa? Would the interest rate have been higher or lower?

I want to make the statement that since the CP was established in 1982 and began to make statements of this kind, it has made a major contribution to increasing inflation in South Africa because what it says is discounted abroad. [Interjections.] I shall try to illustrate how it works. In the early eighties, for example, this glass was made in South Africa for R1. We exported it for a dollar and if we reconverted it at the exchange rate we received R1 back for it. Surely many things have happened since that time. For some reason or other investors lost confidence.

That is true!

Yes, that is true!

It is your policy!

Now it is our policy, while they do the criticising! There you have the proof that they offer no solutions! [Interjections.]

The second point is that certain investments, made with certain overseas banks, were assessed to decide whether they were going to be renewed, in view of the capital outflow from the country. There was a tremendous outflow of capital from the country. Because of our involvement in South West Africa, people began to organise sanctions against us. The CP did not try to oppose these actions; on the contrary, they tried to create the image that we would take further drastic steps and that we were completely insensitive in regard to race relations in this country. This was discounted in the economy in one way or another, inter alia in the exchange rate.

Today we are still selling this glass for a dollar abroad, but if we reconvert this dollar, we receive R2,70 or R2,80 for the same dollar for which we previously received R1. Immediately the price of the glass in South Africa becomes R2,80. This is the reason for inflation. The political participation and the political statements of the CP are to a large extent furthering this inflation. We cannot get away from that.

These problems are further illustrated by the statements of the hon member for Lichtenburg during the debate on the Agriculture Vote. He said the farmers of South Africa were in trouble and the Government had finally turned its back on them. The Government had allegedly turned its back on the farmers of South Africa because it was giving them so little assistance. Again, however, that is a half-truth which battens on the dilemma, the circumstances of farmers, and the so-called problems that cannot easily be solved. The CP offers no solution for them, but says the Government is insensitive in respect of these problems.

If hon members consider the circumstances of farmers they will find that some of the farmers, as in many of the other industries, are engaged in a struggle for survival. Others again are experiencing better financial conditions, but as a general rule they are engaged in a struggle against inflation. In respect of financing the Government has helped to establish a support on an economic basis so that farmers who are productive can survive. We have removed financing that does not answer the purpose, but the CP says nothing about that.

When we try to help the agricultural industry further in this struggle for survival by helping it to embark on a course along which it can apply free-market principles, the CP cries to high heaven. The fact remains, however, that the decision to work according to free-market principles was not taken by the NP. It was taken by the South African Agricultural Union in its strategy for the future, in which it asked for less interference from the State and for more free-market principles.

Here, too, the CP did not consider the facts or the interests of the farmers. It is therefore clear to me that one can speak here of opportunism of the worst kind. If we look forward and if the CP should put its plans into operation, would inflation diminish or increase? Would there be fewer boycotts against us or more? The alternatives that await us if the CP should come into power do not augur well for South Africa.

If hon members look at their written statements and at reports in the Press they will find that the CP says a sombre future awaits us in South Africa if the NP should stay in power. In the Patriot, for example, they say that poverty awaits South Africa. [Interjections.]

Surely that is the truth!

People may think that they are having a hard time now under the NP regime, but if the CP should come into power they will then see what a hard time is. [Interjections.] Then there will be a problem in this country because inflation is going to destroy us. Foreign investment in this country will finally dry up. Do hon members of the CP think that we will then still be able to trade with the outside world? [Interjections.]

You said precisely the same during the referendum!

Surely the answer is very simple. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members are making too many interjections now, and they must curtail them. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Surely the answer is simple. We shall then have more sanctions and more action taken against us. The rest of the world will take a stand against us.

How do you know that?

I know that because the rest of the world is already making plans in respect of such circumstances at this stage, and it is only the clever diplomacy and nimble footwork of the NP that has up to now allowed us to survive economically. [Interjections.]

I want to go further with this argument. Sixty per cent of our economy is linked to imports and exports. It is very easy for the CP to say that we should not pay any heed to the outside world, but what does 60% of the economy mean? [Interjections.] If we are prepared to sacrifice 60% of the economy, it means that the State income is in the long run going to be 60% less. What does that mean? [Interjections.] The CP does not think that far! What does it mean if our income is 60% less? It means that expenditure must be 60% less. It means that teachers and public servants receive 60% less of their salary and farmers receive 60% less for their products—if they can sell them! That is what lies ahead for us if the CP takes control in this country and wants to spell out an ostensibly rosy economic future for us.

That is why I say the CP is the enemy of the farmers because that party contributes to the conditions which prejudice meaningful economic conditions for farmers. [Interjections.] The hon members will hear the complaints, because they are true.

The only solution is to work with the facts and the realities. Under these difficult circumstances facts and realities are something which one does not find in the CP, but only in the NP that is trying to govern this country in a responsible way.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the duel between the hon the Deputy Minister, who has just resumed his seat, and the hon members on my right-hand side. There are many aspects of this duel on which I do not want to comment at all. In truth, they are private disputes between the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon members here, for example the issue as to who is the greatest enemy of the farmer. I should prefer to say nothing about that aspect. The hon members can fight it out among themselves.

Nevertheless there is one part of this duel which is in fact interesting and important to us all. The hon the Deputy Minister had in his hand a copy of the Patriot, the CP newspaper, bearing the following headline: “Armoede wag op Suid-Afrika.” He then engaged in an argument with the hon members on the right-hand side as to whether that poverty would be more or less onerous if the CP should come into power.

To find the answer to that, of course, one must not only go back to who is in power, in the sense of what group of politicians took the decisions and who should apply the techniques and should manage and administer the economy. This is important, and I shall simply leave that for these two groups of hon members to fight out among themselves, but there is also another matter involved here in which do have an interest, and I must say a few words about it.

If one analyses the reasons for the setbacks our country has had to endure in the economic sphere in recent years one finds that a very great many of them are attributable to the policy of apartheid and the effect of that policy on our foreign relations that were involved here. [Interjections.] Without indicating who the greatest advocate of apartheid is, because it is not necessary for me to do so, there is no doubt that the more apartheid there is, the greater the poverty. The more apartheid, the greater the setbacks. The more racism there is in this country, the more difficult a time we will have.

I want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister who has just resumed his seat for facing up to the facts so squarely, namely that a deterioration of our international relations, particularly with countries that are our trading partners, can mean only bad news for South Africa. We must all begin to realise this now. Years ago all of us, in these benches as well, were so fond of throwing our weight about and saying to the outside world that they could do what they liked; we did not care what they did.

I am pleased that economic realism has now penetrated to such an extent that we are hearing from the Government benches that we must take cognisance of the state of our relations with those countries that are so important to us.

We realise, as a former hon member of this House, Mr Japie Basson, once said, that South Africa’s foreign policy is its internal policy. This must focus our attention on the things we do internally, because these have a major effect on international relations, and consequently on our economy as well.

In debates in this House and in the Chamber of Parliament we, and I personally, have during the past weeks placed considerable emphasis on the economic deterioration of our country and the way in which our entire population is becoming impoverished. When I saw this morning’s newspapers the temptation was very great to devote all my time this afternoon to this subject again.

The reason for this of course is that I have never in all my life seen a poor hon member of this House being condemned to such an extent from all quarters as happened to the poor hon Deputy Minister of Finance this morning. There is almost no expert or authority in this country who did not say this morning how wrong the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance was with his statement, which he got from goodness knows what source, that the White people today are better off than they were 20 years ago. [Interjections.]

I am going to quote only one example. The newspaper is The Citizen and the university involved is the University of Stellenbosch. These are not organisations that are under my influence:

One can continue in this vein, and one can pick up any newspaper or consult any authority. Since the hon gentlemen of the Government are now so splendidly taking harsher realities into consideration, they must take into consideration the reality that, largely due to their apartheid policy, the people of South Africa have in fact for a long time now become increasingly impoverished.

However, I am not going to give way to that temptation any further. During the coming months there is going to be ample opportunity to discuss that issue.

In the time at my disposal this afternoon I want to scrutinise only one concept, but I think it is an extremely important concept which affects the whole essence of the present and future constitutional dispensation of this country, and which also intimately affects the own affairs budget which we are now discussing here.

I am referring to the concept of own affairs, which has been tried out for quite a few years in this country and about which it is now possible to speak with a degree of experience. A day or two ago it was also discussed here in an interpellation debate, and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is regarded by many as being the chief patron of the own affairs system, was personally involved in it. According to his Hansard he said the following:

These seem to be carefully considered words, and they comprise two ideas. The hon the Minister wants to expand the concept of own affairs even further than it is at present, and he presents it as though it were creating the substructure or the establishment of separate power bases for the various groups.

I now want to put three questions which I think all entail important criteria in any assessment of the concept of own affairs. Firstly, what do the hon the Minister and the Government in general consider to be a group? Secondly, how strong are the power bases of the Coloured and Black groups in South Africa and how strong can they become under this system? Thirdly, who really determines what becomes of the own affairs of each House in this Parliament?

Firstly, then, what is considered to be a group? I am asking this question because, while in NP language group has up to now always meant a racial group, which—please note—is determined by legislation and to which people are compelled to belong whether they like it or not, murmurs have recently been heard emanating from NP ranks to indicate that there could possibly also be scope for voluntary group formation. I am leaving the question at that for the present, but I shall come back to it.

Secondly, how strong are the power bases of the Coloured and Indian groups in the present Parliament? Theoretically they have considerable power, but is this the case in reality? In the final analysis, is it not always the Minister of Finance who determines how much money is going to be available for the own affairs budgets? I know that consultation is supposed to take place, and I assume that it does take place, but it is the Minister in the general affairs budget who decides how much money is going to be allocated to each one of those other two Houses. In that way the hon the Minister determines what is possible for them within very narrow limits. Given that no government function can be exercised without money it is therefore clear that the power bases—except of course that of the majority in the House of Assembly—are very shaky.

That in reality replies to my third question. All the real power in the tricameral system lies with the majority party in this House. That observation is nothing new. The White man remains master in South Africa. While many of us think that this should not be the case, we admit it for a fact that it definitely is today.

†However, it is the future we need to know about. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been talking in his amicable but woolly way about substantial changes that are going to be forthcoming to the Constitution. He has also said this very week, as I have pointed out, that he sees room for the further broadening of the own affairs concept. Will such broadening, however, include any real financial independence for a House in this Parliament other than White? If so, how and if not, why not?

Until evidence is produced of changes so far-reaching that they will make the own affairs system unrecognisable, I persist in saying that the own affairs system is one where the means to govern are rationed to the Brown people and even more rationed to the Black people by the dominant White minority that sits as the majority in this House of Parliament.

It is now time for me to return to my first question, namely how groups are going to be constituted. It was in a way nice to hear the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who has since announced his retirement, talking about a group for those of us who do not want to belong to a group. Those who wanted to have their affairs dealt with on other than a group basis, he hinted, might be catered for. Even the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council went so far as to say that he and his colleagues were perhaps less obsessed with groups than we had thought they were.

A very prominent South African wrote to me about this matter, and I think it is worth quoting what he said. He writes as follows:

There seems to be one reliable case and one reliable test. The concept of own affairs means that White services are always of superior quality to those provided for other groups. Quite simply, there is always more money—several times more—for a White school pupil than for a Brown one and far more than for a Black one. How will the amount for the open group now be determined when we have an open group consisting presumably of all races and who do not want to be regarded as belonging to any one of the racially defined groups? What sort of own affairs will the open group administer? Will it administer local authority matters? If so, what local authorities and how? Will there be an open group Parliament? How will its voters’ roll be put together and what is this non-group going to look like?

One asks these questions, to which there will I, am sure, be no answers at all, simply in order to stress that the talk of taking the own affairs concept and turning it into anything acceptable, is so much twaddle. Just as the concept of independent homelands was born out of the determination to avoid putting Black people on the voters’ roll in South Africa, for that was its real motivation, just so the own affairs concept is nothing more than a figleaf to hide the NP’s plan to continue to discriminate in favour of White people and against others. In each case, of course, Pretoria’s control of the purse-strings enables it to manipulate the other actors in the charade that is being played out in our country.

Nothing demonstrates the truth of what I am saying better than the story about school education. Some years ago the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, in his capacity as Minister of National Education, announced a ten-year plan to equalise the per capita expenditure on education as between the race groups. It was an ambitious plan. Some of us might have viewed it with some scepticism but, my goodness, we were all pleased to know that there was such a plan.

We were going to move away from blatant discrimination in this vitally important field. This year, with a proper amount of crocodile tears, the hon the Minister told the world that lack of funds made it impracticable to adhere to the plan. I do not dispute that he may have had a lack of funds but I point out that what this means is that racial discrimination against people of colour is going to continue as heretofore and continue for a longer period than had been anticipated.

I understand that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is currently eating lunches with little groups of selected businessmen with a view to the election later this year and that he is telling them that he fully recognizes the right of every South African to full citizenship. I take it that he will not be repudiated by his colleagues who sit here.

That is great! Full citizenship, in the understanding of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, begins with an educational system which discriminates severely on grounds of race. On grounds of race some of the full citizens of South Africa are going to have an excellent education and others are going to have a very inferior education indeed. I cannot say that I would regard that as an invitation to full citizenship, if I were a member of one of the disadvantaged groups.

Many people have said that own affairs is a euphemism for apartheid, and so it is. It is also a euphemism for unfair discrimination against South Africans of colour, in favour of Whites.

In conclusion I want to speak as someone who came to this House longer ago than anyone who is here today, except my hon friend the member for Berea. I want to say that I have seen the apartheid story from beginning to now, when I hope it is near its end. I want to say that apartheid used to be sold originally as separation—separation which perhaps allowed for equality and separation which might permit justice through the fact of separateness.

There were those of us who never believed in it but that was not really what was offensive. What was offensive was what we saw in practice, which was the discrimination that took place—the denial of equal opportunity to South Africans. I want to say that the own affairs concept which has been put forward as an improvement on apartheid, as something which leaves apartheid behind and brings a new sort of co-operative society in South Africa, is nothing of the kind. Indeed, it is simply a dishonest stratagem in order to discriminate in favour of White people who have the vote and against other people who do not have the vote.

It is a very bad basis indeed on which to go into a future in which one is looking for any sort of harmony in South Africa or in which one is looking forward to a day when South Africa will be able to trade more effectively with the world outside.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member Dr De Beer sees any unfairness in the own affairs concept, as it is embodied in the Constitution and as we want to apply it in practice, and he sees it as a perpetuation of the inequality that does indeed exist, then he does not understand and has not yet listened to what the NP sets itself as a goal, and that is that consideration should indeed be given to the living conditions of people in this country, and that we are striving for parity. However, the hon member knows as well as I do that this costs money and cannot happen overnight. His view is an incorrect and complete distortion of the policy on which the NP is engaged.

The hon member Dr De Beer said an important thing when he made the point that the availability of money would compel us towards realism. That is true. For that and many other associated reasons the NP is a party which reconsiders its policy from time to time and adapts it accordingly, wherever that may be necessary. Therein lies the death-blow of the CP, because they do not tell their people what the financial implications of what they want to do are going to be.

The hon member Dr De Beer said he listened attentively to the duel between the NP and the CP. We on our part are also cheerfully watching the three-cornered contest between the leaders of the DP. I should like to know from the hon member for Yeoville for which of those three leaders he is going to vote one day. It would be interesting to know that. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the responsibility of my own department. I want to make the statement that many questions are being asked about the rendering of health services in the Republic of South Africa. The ears and eyes of the Ministers’ Council are not and dare not be closed to the resistance that is emanating from various quarters in respect of the rendering of health services in this country.

The reasons for that in particular are that the own affairs concept is also embodied there in terms of the Constitution. It is a sensitive matter for the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly, and this will force us to re-evaluate and from time to time to deliberate thoroughly, as we are in fact going to do again now. We are going to take a fresh look at the rendering of a health service seen in general, but also at those people the responsibility for whom has been entrusted to this Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.]

Order! There are hon members here who are conversing too loudly. The hon member may proceed.

There are those who sincerely and critically question the policy and its practical implementation, because it is argued that fragmentation would in fact result in a waste of manpower and money. However, the more interviews I have with interested parties on various of the related matters in regard to this question, the clearer it becomes to me that there is also a very neat, orchestrated political campaign being planned from various quarters—indeed it is in progress—to harm and to discredit this present State dispensation.

It seems to me that when people are seized by the urge to destroy a constitution, all reasonableness disappears and one argues with such people as though arguing with a wall. Accusing fingers are then pointed at the Government as being the party that dragged politics into health matters.

There may probably be some truth in this, but it is not the whole truth. The concept of own affairs as one pillar of the constitutional plan is in fact the result of a political decision, but is it not true that every subject and every national throughout the entire world must live, work and must complete his daily task within the framework of what is sometimes for him a completely unacceptable model?

I have no fault to find with the fact that people rebel against certain systems, but there are other ways of expressing one’s displeasure than by forming extra-parliamentary pressure groups in order to attain certain objectives, as we see in respect of the own affairs concept and what is at present happening at the J G Strijdom Hospital.

I believe there are two ways of dealing with the matter, and that is also how we want to see this matter dealt with. First of all there is the negotiating table. If people are not satisfied with that, they can go to the polls and fight out the issue there. There are people who are sincerely and critically examining the so-called fragmentation. This department of ours is one of these groups. However, we must also be fair when we assess the matter.

Everyone is agreed that the missions of the respective health departments ought to be accomplished as far as possible, and we are in fact doing this. Is there any fault to find with the mission of the Department of National Health and Population Development, namely the rendering of a comprehensive and affordable health and welfare service to the entire population?

Of course no fault can be found with this. Nor can any fault be found with the mission of the Department of Health Services and Welfare when it wants to render services in respect of a specific population group. Surely there is no conflict; on the contrary, the one supplements the other. Where can one hope to find a more purposeful defragmentation effort than the objective, as it appears and is being pursued, of the generally accepted National Health Plan? The objective is namely to establish a comprehensive service in which the curative, the preventive and the rehabilitative elements are amalgamated, because this was not the case in the past. All of this is happening under one policy-making statutory authority namely the National Health Council.

Let us go further. The rationalisation and the defragmentation is given further substance with the integration of health and welfare services. Surely it is logical that although health and welfare are distinguishable as separate entities, health and welfare cannot be separated. Consequently purposeful efforts are indeed being made to rationalise and to defragment, and we are working on this. But I must make the statement that it does nevertheless make sense to divide, or if one likes to fragment or whatever word one chooses to use, these functions on the executive level. We can already demonstrate that in many cases this has led to the rendering of a better service.

It is an accepted fact that the shorter the lines of communication between the authorities rendering the service and the receiver of the service, the greater the chance that a satisfactory service can be rendered. We will not allow ourselves to be constrained by those who are singing this chorus so lustily and trying to imply that fragmentation will inevitably lead to a waste of funds and manpower. What must in fact be assessed is whether those funds and that utilisation of manpower have the desirable grass-roots results and whether they are producing the desired results there. One need only ask a colleague of mine in one of the other Houses how that utilisation of manpower and the funds he is applying did in fact create a grass-roots situation for him in which he could never otherwise have participated.

I want to come back to the mission of the Department of Health Services and Welfare. Nowhere, but nowhere in the world, is there any fault to find with the concept of community-oriented service and community involvement. The hon member Dr De Beer spoke as though this was something that should disappear and as though there was no such thing as community-oriented service, community involvement and a desire for togetherness on the part of a community. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to react to the last speech which the hon the Deputy Minister of National Health made here. He will definitely not return as the hon member for Rustenburg.

As I was listening to the hon member for Turffontein, it was very clear to me that the NP had the shakes. As regards the hon member for Turffontein’s contribution, I want to ask him why he hates other people so much. When he refers to his opponents, he radiates hate and viciousness—as was the case again this afternoon. I want to give the hon member some good advice: Cool down; the world laughs at such funny fellows. [Interjections.] The hon member could have made that speech of his when Dr Connie Mulder was alive but he waited until Dr Mulder was dead to make his statements here. I consider this a disgrace and it is evidence of a man and a member of Parliament who has no respect even for death in trying to score a few political points. [Interjections.]

I have been instructed by my constituency to find an opportunity this afternoon to tell the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance that it is not only housewives who are up in arms about his statements last week that South Africans have not become poorer over the past 20 years. Pensioners and recently married couples are also up in arms about this. At best it is evidence of insensitivity and at worst of shameful ignorance on what is going on in the average household—as Die Transvaler says. It is clear that the NP is not concerned about what the voter eats or does not eat. [Interjections.] The NP has become the rich man’s party. [Interjections.] Members of the NP have become the fat cats of South Africa. The hon the Minister admitted to this in the speech which he made the other day.

Tell me how many votes you polled yesterday on the swimming pool issue in Port Elizabeth?

You are swimming on the fence! [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance said in the speech he made last week that the Whites in South Africa had a message for the CP. A White South African had to have an income of at least R35 000 per annum before he could make a personal contribution to the cost of the Police and Defence Force. That was why we could tell people that among the Whites making contributions on behalf of the CP there would not be many CPs by coincidence. [Interjections.] That is what the hon the Deputy Minister said. It seems to me that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is getting hurt.

Hurting very much!

The voters are rejecting them.

You are a fat cat!

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a fat cat. [Interjections.] I was asked to remind the hon the Deputy Minister, if he said that we had not become poorer, that over the past fiscal year inter alia—concerning only what had happened in and about the home—there were the following increases. Medical fund contributions rose by approximately 25%, as did the cost of school uniforms, sugar, milk, butter, bread, mortgage bond rates and petrol.

Interest rates! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal is not taking part in the discussion!

They do not spare even the deaf. Even the tax on hearing aids was simply increased without consulting those people. These are only a few items of which the prices increased.

In less than eight months’ time the price of petrol rose by 37%.

Are we responsible for the world oil price now?

In August 1988 a litre of premium petrol cost 82c. In September 1988 this rose to 95c per litre. In January 1989 this rose further to 105c per litre and in April it was increased to 112c per litre.

Interest rates on home loans rose from 13,5% to 19% in 14 months. Expectations are that they will reach 20% in the next few weeks. A bondholder with a R50 000,00 loan, without a subsidy, is now paying in the region of R200 per month more than about a year ago. These are only a few items which indicate that the hon the Deputy Minister’s statements reflect an absolute insensitivity toward the White consumer and voter.

White women represent about 52% of voting power in the country and women realise that their votes are just as important as those of men during the coming election. The hon the Deputy Minister’s contempt and insensitivity will cost the NP dear. [Interjections.] The voters showed this during the municipal by-election last Wednesday in Standerton where a ward which was won by the NP in the October election was gained by the CP with a 9% increase in favour of the CP. [Interjections.]

My goodness!

That is why he is fleeing from Vereeniging!

Voters are tired of the Government’s inability to govern the country properly. Not only have they repealed the influx control legislation in an irresponsible way but they have created chaos by putting nothing in its place. This has resulted in the uncontrolled influx of Black people to our towns. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is only when one has the final opportunity to address this House that… [Interjections.]

Order! I do not wish to listen to salary adjustments. The hon member for Fauresmith may proceed.

It is only when one has the final opportunity to address this House that one realises what a special privilege it is to have been able to participate in this House.

At such an opportunity I should prefer to participate in a political debate—and to have the last say about how I see matters. [Interjections.] This is how I see it. An election is coming, and one can of course expect the political parties which oppose the NP, to spread their political sails in order to obtain as much electoral support as possible. How absolutely true this view is if one measures it against the debate which is being conducted here today.

The hon member for Yeoville springs to mind. The hon member for Yeoville, who is unfortunately not present in the Chamber at the moment, is the first hon member of the DP who stated clearly and directly that their policy, as he saw it, would not lead to Black majority rule in South Africa, as it was initially stated. He said that it was not heading in that direction. [Interjections.]

However, when we consider the DP’s programme of principles, we read in the first standpoint of principle about general franchise on a common voters’ roll for every level of representation and for all adult citizens of South Africa. Then it is right that the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP asked the hon member for Yeoville across the floor of the Chamber where else this statement of policy could lead to if not to Black majority rule. [Interjections.] It is naturally very clear to me that this is indeed the case, especially when I read this policy document of the DP.

This brings me to their following statement of policy. You see, Sir, in the election struggle they have to back-pedal to a certain extent as far as this statement is concerned. They are of course going to use this next point of policy of theirs. I refer to the fourth point of policy, in which they say that the cultural, religious and language diversity of the South African community is acknowledged and that the rights pertaining thereto should be reflected and protected in the Constitution. [Interjections.] Yes, but in what way? How else will it be possible to protect this cultural diversity if not by the inclusion of group rights in such a DP constitution? This is the standpoint which until now, has not been stated anywhere by any of their spokesmen, nor has it been defended.

However, we are heading for an election. That is why we expect that the DP, this left-wing party, which has in the past moved increasingly in the direction of radical left-wing, is now suddenly going to move more to the right. [Interjections.]

After the hon member for Randburg and Dr Worrall joined the DP and contrary to what we had expected—we expected it to result in a moderate influence on the policy standpoints of that party—we found that to date the DP has moved further and further to the left. [Interjections.] The mere fact that the membership of the hon member of Claremont is now acceptable to the DP, while recently it was not, is conclusive proof of the validity of my statement. [Interjections.] I am also curious to see how the CP is going to react in the election period which lies ahead. Let us very quickly consider how they have moved since their formation in 1982… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Greytown and the hon member for Germiston must please control themselves. The hon member for Fauresmith may proceed.

Mr Chairman, let us quickly consider how the CP’s policy has developed from 1982 up to last night. I am referring to the statements made on television last night by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Hon members will recall that in 1982 this Official Opposition, through its spokesmen, adhered to the so-called constitution proposals of 1977, which assumed that a Council of Cabinets, in which a pure form of power sharing was present…

That is not true! [Interjections.]

Oh, I do not feel like quoting ancient history today. I just want to say briefly what the then Prime Minister, Mr John Vorster, said. He said that that Council of Cabinets would function in precisely the same way as the Cabinet was functioning at that time. [Interjections.] From there the CP then moved to their idea of an independent homeland. [Interjections.]

I want to make haste and refer to the statements made last night by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the house of Assembly tried to explain what these homelands were going to look like. The statement was made that, for argument’s sake, the Coloured homeland was something about which the NP need not question him, because it would obviously consist of the rural Coloured areas as well as the separate group areas of the Coloureds, and so, too, in respect of the Indians. And this is supposed to be the homeland!

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

If I had the time I would gladly have afforded the hon member the opportunity.

This is the homeland which will be part of the CP policy. In these days of election it will be to their advantage to steer away from the final consequences of their homeland idea, namely the solution offered by Prof Boshoff.

Are you going to stand in Fauresmith again?

After all, it is the final consequences that they are afraid of. They are only addressing half of the political and constitutional problems of South Africa. By means of their policy they are addressing only that part which affects the individual and group rights of people. They are not, however, finding a way for the people who share one economy with us, to take decisions with us, even if a Coloured or Indian homeland was created according to their policy.

It is too ridiculous for words to think that these hon members, who I accept are intelligent people, could reckon that we could fragment the economy and the Public Service in such a way that completely divided control could occur between various White group areas, Coloured rural areas, White rural areas, and the same with regard to Indians. [Interjections.] How can such a division of the administration of the country take place between these elements without a joint decision being reached? Surely there is no alternative for that.

The impression which I have today is that the members of the CP who are present here today, realise that these policies of theirs are not feasible, but that they will continuously emphasise the right of the group to maintain itself, manage itself and make its own decisions with regard to its living-space. It is a standpoint which the NP shares with them. We share that standpoint with them, but we say that the realities of this country are that apart from this one, there is also the reality of an economy and an entire administration system which we have to share with one another, and that we have to find practical and workable solutions to the problem.

One day!

That is why it is gratifying to be a member of this party which, over the years, has had leaders who have considered this problem in a level-headed way. It was also my privilege to have been a member of this House under the leadership of the present hon State President…

But you abstained from voting in 1982!

That is better than what you did!

At least I voted!

… and also under the leadership of the hon leader of the NP. These are people who can consider the problems of South Africa in a level-headed way. These are people who suit actions to their words when they offer the White group the prospect of being able to live in security and prosperity. They do not merely talk, they also say how it can be done. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Fauresmith who has announced his retirement. May the hon member fare well personally because the NP will not fare well. I should like to tell hon members why we think that the NP cannot fare well in future. [Interjections.] By the way, we have been informed that the hon member for Fauresmith was also one of those people who abstained from voting in 1982 so we cannot actually praise him for his firm principles. [Interjections.]

Quite a number of matters will be in contention in this election but in particular constitutional development and finance. I now want to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works whether he agrees with the statement made by the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance a few days ago, namely:

The hon the Minister is writing at the moment but I want to ask him for a direct answer to this so that we can hear whether it is the NP standpoint. We want to know whether he agrees or disagrees with the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance. [Interjections.]

There is a second statement to which I should like to refer. This is actually a disgraceful one. This statement by the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance reads as follows:

The implication of this statement is that there are very few CPs who earn R35 000 or more; in fact, the statement actually means that most CPs earn less than R35 000. Consequently they do not contribute to the costs of the Police and the Defence Force.

The further implication is that they probably then cannot lay claim to protection by the Police or the Defence Force because they do not contribute to the costs involved. Does the hon the Minister agree with this statement? He is to tell us because we want to comment on it in the election and we want to say that this is the NP standpoint. We therefore want to know whether the hon the Minister agrees with this Or not.

I should like to refer to the NP leader-in-chief, who has unfortunately left the Chamber. [Interjections.] He is the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and is responsible for own affairs but he is also by coincidence the leader-in-chief of the NP. [Interjections.] I should like to deal with two aspects with him.

In the first case, I want to refer to a report in the Financial Mail of 19 May 1989. It reads as follows:

It states explicitly here that there are South Africans who are causing capital to flow out of the country illegally. We now ask the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP why he has not done anything about this illegal outflow of capital from South Africa since he became the NP leader-in-chief. [Interjections.] Has he instituted a commission of inquiry into this? Has he taken steps to prevent this happening? [Interjections.] He is not to hide behind the fact that he is purely the leader-in-chief of the NP. If he wants to be a dynamic leader-in-chief, why did he not recommend to the hon the State President that drastic and immediate steps be taken to prevent this capital flow from South Africa? I shall tell hon members why he did not do this. He is probably unaware of his powers as he is the NP leader-in-chief but not the State President yet. [Interjections.] We want to tell him that one does not govern a country in this way.

There is a second facet to which I want to revert. It is being said at present that the inflation rate in South Africa is not 16%. Some sources assert that it is 30% or 31%. If the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP wishes to profess that he has the interests of South Africa at heart and wishes to profess that he is the new and dynamic aspirant State President, I want to ask once again why he did not suggest at a much earlier stage or at this stage a commission of inquiry to investigate methods to curb inflation in South Africa.

Barend spends the money!

Those are the two economic facets which have led to the current state of affairs in the South African economy indicating that large-scale impoverishment is taking place. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, one thing is certain in this world and that is that it is easy to follow the CP when they start talking about money because not many of them understand much about money.

In the first place I would like to say to the hon member for Losberg that we have got a State President in the country and that not even he was the person who had to plug the holes of the money leaving the country. I would also like to say to him that the Reserve Bank is the responsible institution to plug the outflow of money. If the hon member will only read his papers, he will see that the Reserve Bank has taken very strong measures to plug that gap and they have already caught quite a few people. What happens is that the moment they plug the holes and people are caught, they start with another tune; then they say it is all about corruption. [Interjections.] We have plugged the holes and we are holding it.

Funny enough, I cannot even blame the hon members across the floor here for the people who are pushing out the money. It is not the Government losing the money. It is the private sector. The same people who accuse us for not giving the whole Government over to the Blacks, are the people who push their money out of the country just in case the Blacks do take over. So it is not their fault, it is not your fault but we are trying to plug it.

I want to raise another point concerning money. I wish that, with my limited knowledge of economics, they would allow me one day to teach the 22 people here on the CP’s side some of the basics of economics. One basic aspect is that there is a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. One does not need a commission of anything to tell one that. It is a fact of life and it has always been a fact of life. We will keep a certain amount of inflation going. We are almost forced to if we want to keep our Blacks working. The CP can say what they like. We can stop inflation tomorrow morning but what will happen then? We will have vast unemployment and we cannot deal with that.

The other person I would like to defend this afternoon is the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance. I think one of the most dastardly attacks made in this country has been made on one of the nicest hon Deputy Ministers we have ever had. [Interjections.] When they attacked our hon Deputy Minister of Finance and said he was uncaring, I think it was one of the worst and most dastardly attacks ever made. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the people who say they are not living as well as they were living 20 years ago…

Are you supporting his statement?

They may not be living as well but that hon Deputy Minister is the most caring Deputy Minister we have ever had. Do hon members know what is happening? We are caring for and looking after more people. We have got more services in this budget for pensions, hospitals, schools and things of that nature for everybody in this country and not just for one group. That is why everybody is claiming they are not living as well as they were 20 years ago. That hon Deputy Minister is being attacked for not caring but he is caring for a far vaster number of people. The people who attack us and say they are not living now as well as they lived 20 years ago are a little bit unfair.

First of all, we did not cause the oil disaster. It was caused by the Arabs during those 20 years. It did not only strike our cost of living and the way we live here. It affected the whole West. In the time that these people attacked us for being responsible for not living as well as we should be, the whole world had one of the biggest depressions that it has ever had. It was not just us, but the whole world. In that time they accused us of making a worse world to live in, the stockmarkets of the world crashed in one of the worst crashes the world has ever seen. We did not make those things happen. We have a caring Deputy Minister and we are trying our best. [Interjections.]

Let us talk about one or two other things inside this country. Inside this country—never mind what is happening about the foreign exchange situation—the purchasing power parity of our currency is 79 US cents, according to the United Bank of Switzerland, and there are not many countries in the world which can say that. Perhaps we are not living as well as we could, and perhaps we would live wonderfully well if we limited the policy of this Government to one nation and worried just about the Whites, but we have opened up this country to all nations and still held our purchasing power parity at nearly 80 US cents. Any country in the world that can say it is living at 80% of the level at which the Americans are living is not doing too badly at all.

When the hon member for Yeoville was talking about the financial comparison between Boksburg and Johannesburg, he let slip something that he should not have. He referred to Johannesburg as a thriving city. Of course it is thriving! If one looks at the stock market, one finds that despite all the criticism we endure, our profits are up about 33% this year. This country is thriving. [Interjections.]

However, I want to agree with him about the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who said on television last night that he did not know of one firm in Boksburg that had closed. Let me tell him about what is happening right next to a little firm that my sons have in Boksburg. We bought a business called Cat Ballou because it went out of business along with a lot of other firms in Boksburg. [Interjections.] With all due respect to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, there are quite a few firms in Boksburg that did not make it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Middelburg is making too many interjections.

I liked hearing what the hon member for Yeoville said. It was quite good PFP policy that he gave us here today, but—let us be honest—the people he finds himself with now are not PFP. I would like to quote what was said by the hon member for Greytown in the Chamber of Parliament this week. He said that the essence of democracy was majority rule and that the Blacks were in the majority. [Interjections.] That does not sound like what the hon member for Yeoville said.

He did not say that! [Interjections.]

My son is at Wits, and he attended a meeting addressed by Tony Leon, who is also a DP member and is now going to replace the hon PFP member for Houghton. [Interjections.] He said “Let us not beat about the bush. Democracy means one man, one vote, and the DP stands for democracy.” [Interjections.] That party is about as far as it can get from the old PFP. It is going wildly to the left.

Did you like the old PFP? [Interjections.]

We will get there one day, hon members should just wait. [Interjections.]

Amongst the shops that have closed in Boksburg are Connalex Outfitters, New Gold Outfitters, a baby boutique, a bicycle shop, Cat Ballou which I mentioned and Karen’s Dress Shop, so I do not think that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was being particularly honest on TV last night. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said some other things that I also really enjoyed. He said that all we had to do in this country was go back to proper apartheid, and then there would be people to give us capital.

Are you against apartheid?

I have never been… [Interjections.] Let us say, as far as what this party calls apartheid now is concerned, that what apartheid was 40 years ago and what apartheid is today are two different apartheids. I am not for the apartheid of 40 years ago. [Interjections.] There is no apartheid today. Today we are moving away from that old-fashioned apartheid. That hon member will just have to give our leader a little bit of time and we will show him what we can do in this country, no matter what this leftist party calls apartheid. [Interjections.]

When it comes to preserving capital, I am glad to see that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition thinks that all we have to do to get new capital in this country is to preserve capital. I tried to work out how we could get more capital by preserving machinery, buildings, fixtures, fittings and stock, but I could not work that one out. I must ask him later what he meant.

The hon member also said we would get capital into this country if we did not import luxury goods. My knowledge at the moment is that luxury goods make up about 2% of what we import. I do not know how we are going to preserve capital or get new capital in by not importing luxury goods.

The hon member also said that if we carried out a policy of apartheid we could form a confederation of Southern African states in which all the African states will join us because they will be so happy because we are carrying out old-fashioned, classical apartheid. I like that very much as well. I cannot see anybody giving us more money or the Southern African states joining us if we have the CP’s policy of apartheid.

I think there is only one policy for us to follow and that is the policy that our new leader is going to employ. We cannot deny that there are groups. This party next to me has grouped itself around a group idea. The CP has grouped itself on a group idea. The parties in the other Houses have grouped themselves on a group idea. If we can stop one group from dominating another and hold the progress that we have made in these three Houses over the past session, we will go forward to a good South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank you personally from these benches for your kind words. We have actually come a very long way together, in many capacities and in various sectors. We want to wish you everything of the best from these benches.

I want to thank the hon member for Yeoville that he is back in the House. It seems nowadays as if the hon member is the patron of everybody who gets into trouble with the CP.

†Yesterday the hon member had much to say about my colleague, the hon member for Barberton’s presentation of the sales tax figures for Springs, Boksburg etc. He accused him of giving those figures selectively. I do not think one could call the hon member for Yeoville’s quotations non-selective. The hon member should have informed the House of exactly what the position was.

Table the document.

I would like to know why the hon member did not give the averages which showed the difference between two corresponding periods.

I gave the next month’s figures.

Order!

That is correct. The hon member did give the next month’s figures. Why did he however not give something else? Why did he not give the totals? [Interjections.]

Order!

Table the document.

Order! When I call for order in the House, the hon member for Yeoville is included. The hon member for Soutpansberg may continue.

Mr Chairman, I want to proceed by giving the figures of a few towns like Springs, for the period November 1987 to March 1988 and for the similar period in 1988-89. The growth rate there during this period was 34,56%.

We are talking about Boksburg.

I will get to Boksburg in a moment. The hon member must be patient.

You have already left Boksburg.

The percentage of growth for Boksburg was 26%. Johannesburg, a much bigger city with a wider area, had a growth rate of 34% while the growth rate for Krugersdorp was 32%.

You have missed the whole point.

Order!

The point is that the growth rate for Boksburg, not withstanding all the terrible messages the hon member sent into the world, was 26%. I want to leave it at that. [Interjections.]

Order! For the second time I would like to mention that when I call for order, the hon member for Yeoville is included. The hon member for Boksburg is also included. The hon member for Soutpansberg may continue.

The hon member for Turffontein was visibly upset about my hon leader’s brilliant showing on television last night. [Interjections.] Then the hon member did something unforgivable—the one matter of which the English warn when they tell one that comparisons are odious. Then he dragged his hon leader in and tried to compare the two leaders. I want to tell hon members what I recall about his hon leader’s 40 minutes on television one Sunday evening. This occurred when Johan Pretorius asked him what he thought of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s statement the previous Friday that we would have one Parliament. Sir, do you know what he said then? The hon leader of the NP said that he did not express opinions on other Ministers’ speeches. [Interjections.] When Johan Pretorius pressed him, it took him about five minutes not to reply to Pretorius’s question. [Interjections.] That is the degree of clarity his appearance on television exhibited that Sunday evening.

The one aspect which the hon member for Turffontein brought home very clearly to us was that he was a great reader of CP posters and the HNP’s Die Afrikaner. I cannot believe that a man of his political status and his years of experience could put his foot into it as he did. He tried to get at the CP with the smear of corruption but he failed; he failed entirely. [Interjections.]

The hon member gave us a display of his bitterness—probably personal bitterness about personal disappointments. I want to reply to him on two matters in a single point. The fuss he made was centred on a decision of the NP caucus. He had to go on hearsay as regards what occurred in the NP caucus because he was not a member of the NP caucus at that stage. [Interjections.] He was not a member of the National Party yet because he asked God from these benches to defend South Africa against P W Botha, the present State President. That was where he stood at that stage. [Interjections.] Why did the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament not come up with this story?

Secondly, I want to tell him that there is no poison for him to extract from Pietersburg. The CP did not lose a single cent of that R31 000 that he talked about in Pietersburg. It was a matter between the bank and an individual; that is what it was. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said that the Whites paid 48% of the total tax in South Africa. Unfortunately he is not here now but he will have to tell us how he and Finansies en Tegniek of 19 May of this year differ on their figures. Finansies en Tegniek says it was estimated recently that 92% of all tax payable comes from White taxpayers; 3,5% from Coloureds; 2,4% from Asians; and only 1,3% from Black people. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture should then argue with Finansies en Tegniek when he wants to discuss these matters; not with us. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister next tried to instil fear in South Africa about sanctions which would be the consequence for South Africa if the CP came to power. The NP has been trying to combat sanctions and boycotts for years. In this process they have been refashioning their internal politics. [Interjections.] What has this helped? What has it helped the NP in everything? Not a jot or tittle. There has been no relaxation of sanctions. There has been no relaxation of boycotts. There has been no decline in the insistence on the release of Mandela, the relinquishing of our internal policy, the interference in our penal system and so on. Sanctions followed and pressure on South Africa actually increased as the NP retired.

The day before yesterday, when we debated the new Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Bill, I referred the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs to the clause which reads that a sending State will not use its land to interfere in the internal affairs of a receiving State. I referred to the American ambassador who has left and what he said when he arrived here because he explicitly concerned himself and undertook to interfere in South Africa’s internal relations. I requested him that his government should watch carefully when somebody came from America again whether he made similar noises.

Do hon members know what the hon the Deputy Minister said to me? He said that I was not to worry because the South African Government was lodging an objection. I say that the NP Government lodges objections so inaudibly and invisibly that, although one can see and hear the interference in our internal affairs, this does not register with anybody. [Interjections.]

Order! I hear the hon member for Meyerton making unnecessary interjections. The hon member may proceed.

The hon leader of the NP, after the hon member for Germiston had praised him so highly and said that they followed his leadership, said on television the Sunday evening before last that he did not want to express an opinion on the hon the Minister’s statements about one parliament. He did not wish to reply to another question at the direction of Huntington on what he saw as the final objective of NP plans for South Africa.

If my memory serves me, he spoke about interim stages—in other words that there would be movement from one point to another. This links up with what his hon Minister of Finance said last Friday. The hon the Minister of Finance dealt with the situation last Friday. He said, and I quote from the unedited version of his speech:

He continued:

On the next page he said:

This reminded me of the hermit crab. As it grows, it becomes too big for the shell which it has moved into. It peeps out from there and, when it sees the coast is clear all round, it extricates itself from that shell and storms across the sea bed to another shell which is large enough. Frequently, when it is halfway to the other shell, it sees a fish approaching and flies back to its original one. This is how I interpret the hon the Minister of Finance’s story. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in view of the number of speakers who have already taken part in this debate, it may be viewed as a particular compliment to the hon the Minister and his Department that not the slightest bit of criticism has been expressed about him and his department. I wish to congratulate him most heartily.

I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on his achievement. He instills confidence as a person, both inside and outside this House. He is still young, but he has already served as Deputy Minister of Finance, in which office he was moulded and schooled. He has been actively involved in politics for fifteen years now—an achievement which makes him a veteran. It is that background and experience that led to him being in a position to limit the additional request to 5,4%, notwithstanding the fact that new services amounting to approximately R24 million are embodied in this department. This is happening whilst the same standard is being maintained, which shows that he has introduced discipline into his department.

I also want to congratulate him on the sound financial administration in his department. We know that he does not have enough suitable financial personnel, but the Auditor General is nevertheless satisfied with that department. I also want to congratulate him on having successfully undertaken and applied performance auditing in his department, which is leading to greater efficiency. I also want to congratulate him on the positive progress that has been brought about with regard to own affairs under his able leadership. A few years ago, as recently as the 1985-86 financial year, an amount of R2 350 million was allocated to this department, but now it has been increased to R6 615 million. This is very great progress, which proves that the concept of own affairs is being expanded, and that it is becoming bigger and stronger. Disparaging attacks by both the left-wing and right-wing opposition do not amount to anything, because these are the facts.

I have listened to what was said in the debate, and I was quite amused when the hon member for Middelburg told us about what would happen if his leader were to become head of state. May I say in all humility that I do not think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is to be trusted as a head of government. I should just like to say one or two words about that. [Interjections.] He and his party are not to be trusted, and I want to tell hon members why. I do not think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can handle pressure, and I want to tell hon members why. Twice in this Parliament I have seen pressure placed on him, and on those two ocassions he was flustered and, I might almost say, out of his depth. [Interjections.] I shall now tell hon members why. He lost his perspective, and those two crises were not great crises.

Let us look at what happened in regard to the Boksburg affair. When the Boksburg problem flared up around the CP, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition held an interview with the magazine Leadership. I have a copy of Leadership here in front of me and I could quote hon members what he said here verbatim, but briefly it amounts to this: He said the CP did not have an obsession with apartheid signboards, which amounted, under pressure, to a denial of what his party stood for. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went on to criticise his own town council by saying that the measures could have been taken in a different manner. The measures could have been taken in a different manner, and he said this about his own town council when he was under pressure. He retreated. He backed down. I say he cannot handle pressure, and for this reason he is not to be trusted.

I could also indicate further facts which point to this fact. He told Leadership in the Boksburg situation that not all of the racial restrictions that had been used in the past, were absolutely necessary. Once again he departed from his standpoint because he was under pressure in Boksburg. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also said that he was in favour of White money… [Interjections.] Will the hon member just listen to me. I listened to the hon member for Middelburg, and he would do well to listen to me now, because it was he who praised his own leader so highly. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that he was in favour of the facilities at Reiger Park being upgraded with White money. Therefore, if it is the CP’s policy to have a Coloured homeland in a certain geographical area, surely it is counter-productive to upgrade Reiger Park and to invest capital in it, because after all, one would not invest capital if it were one’s policy that they had to go away. [Interjections.] That argument is entirely counter-productive, and this is how the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition jumps about when he is under pressure. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Middelburg must contain himself.

For this reason I say that he is not to be trusted in situations in which pressure is brought to bear on him. [Interjections.] Consequently, I shudder to think of a situation in which the hon leader of the CP would have to take decisions in the interests and on behalf of South Africa. This tendency towards instability also emerged very clearly during the SWA crisis when, on 1 April, the Swapo forces committed treason and crossed the border.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition appeared on television and made four demands in an emotional manner. Those demands were firstly that resolution 435 be lifted with immediate effect. That was an immediate requirement. He demanded that the settlement plan be broken off. The third demand was that Untag forces be expelled from South West Africa. The fourth demand was that the Defence Force be unleashed.

If any of these four requirements had been complied with, we would have been in a far less favourable position under those circumstances than we are at present. It would have been a blunder to give in to any of these requirements. [Interjections.]

Now that hon member is telling us how well his hon leader is going to perform. We have no confidence in his ability to act under pressure. Where would we have been if we had acted in accordance with the demands which that party and its leader made on us? We would have been in hot water. It would have been an ill-considered decision. These would have been ill-considered actions. We would not have derived the advantage from overseas which we have, in fact, received. We have, in fact, achieved this by acting correctly, by remaining calm and reasonable and by not rushing into a decision which would have been to our disadvantage. Just how wrong and ill-considered those requirements were, was illustrated most clearly when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made a speech in the House a few days later on 13 April, and do hon members know that he did not repeat in Parliament a single one of those demands which he had stated so dramatically on television? That is the clearest proof of how he reacts and makes wrong judgements under pressure.

For this reason I say that that party and their leader are not to be trusted with the political responsibility of making decisions on behalf of South Africa in times of crisis. They cannot remain level-headed. They do not have the nerve for it, and it is disadvantageous to think that that hon leader would ever be able to successfully replace my hon leader.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in referring to the hon member for Klip River said that he was naïve. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition probably believes everyone in South Africa who watched television last night is naïve and believes that he answered the question that Mr Johan Pretorius asked him about the way he would encourage investment in South Africa when the CP has come into office.

How much is currently being invested in South Africa? [Interjections.]

Does he not realise that everyone who watched television last night could see exactly how inept the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is with regard to that issue? He is very deft at eluding a question, but the minute he is under pressure to answer a question such as this, one can see how totally inept he is. He could very well say that all of us in South Africa are naive about this, but we notice that he does not address issues that are important.

The hon member for Soutpansberg is exactly the same. The hon member for Soutpansberg said the NP’s policy caused the increase in sanctions against South Africa, that the Whites are becoming impoverished and that South Africa is generally worse off economically. The NP’s policy is to blame for all this.

Yes!

Hear, hear!

They say hear, hear! The hon member for Ventersdorp also confirms this. I should like to know if there is any hon member of the Official Opposition who would like to tell me that sanctions against South Africa would decrease immediately if the CP came into office. [Interjections.] There is not one! All I hear is an absolutely unanimous silence! [Interjections.]

What will happen to the economy of South Africa? Sanctions will increase drastically. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is going to tour abroad to talk to businessmen as well as bankers, industrialists, academics and I do not know who else.

Derby-Lewis is his advisor!

His advisor is the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman on economic affairs, the hon member Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.

That cannot be! [Interjections.]

That is his advisor, whom the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is taking with him. I notice the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is about to leave the Chamber. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is already leaving to go abroad. He is going abroad straight away! [Interjections.]

If he had his ears open… Oh, there the hon member for Soutpansberg goes as well. They are leaving one by one, Sir. [Interjections.] Apparently they do not like our discussing this with them. The hon member for Soutpansberg is the one who says that sanctions against this country have been increased as a result of NP policy. By saying that he of course seeks to imply that the CP will ensure the decrease of sanctions against South Africa.

I want the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, while he is abroad, to make a statement or have a statement made by any of these people he will have spoken to—any of them—indicating that that person will strive for the abolition of sanctions against South Africa when the CP comes into office. I ask any one of them to do this. After all, this is a reasonable request. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is going abroad as a “great statesman”. We ask that just one of those people to whom he will talk should make a statement in this regard, and the Official Opposition, under the leadership of that great propagandist of the party, the hon member for Overvaal, can then publish it for us. He need give us only that one name. Let them do it just as in the case of the name of the Coloured leader with whom they are negotiating the issue of a Coloured homeland. [Interjections.]

Had the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not left the Chamber just now, I would also have asked him about certain remarks he made last night.

The worst of all…

You are the worst of all! [Interjections.]

The worst of all is that the general thrust of the CP’s attack on the NP—and this is just what the ANC also maintains—boils down to the fact that the NP is South Africa’s biggest enemy. That is their general approach—their general assault on the Government, and on the NP in particular.

The Official Opposition in this Chamber is even prepared to enter into an election agreement with the DP… [Interjections.]… to ensure that the NP does not take away more seats from both those parties. [Interjections.] I now ask whether it is not so that the hon member for Overvaal is negotiating with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central about the possibility of putting up a CP candidate in the constituency of Port Elizabeth Central to ensure that the NP does not win this seat from the DP. [Interjections.] I want to know whether the DP, in exchange for that favour, is not going to put up a candidate in Overvaal to ensure that the NP does not win Overvaal from the CP. [Interjections.]

It is not in my nature to retreat; it is more in my nature to attack. I am telling hon members now that I shall return to this Chamber. The NP will win Sasolburg. [Interjections.] There is no doubt about that. The NP is going to win Sasolburg. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Overvaal will be hanged by the so-called Koos’s plan. After all, he put Koos’s plan before the voters of Overvaal. In that document he stated that if the CP won the municipal elections in Vanderbijlpark they would use Koos’s plan to get the Blacks out of the Vaal Triangle—to make the Vaal Triangle White. That is the basic principle of this plan. [Interjections.] I now want to know from him whether he believes that he can explain and prove to any voter in his constituency that there is a single Black fewer in the Vaal Triangle than a year ago, when he made that promise; only a single Black fewer. [Interjections.] No, that is not true. With Koos’s plan he is demonstrating what a total failure the CP’s plan is. [Interjections.] He is demonstrating this, Sir.

Can he show us one single Asian businessman who moved out of Vanderbijlpark’s business district after the CP had come into office there? [Interjections.] Can he show us a single one? No, he is merely demonstrating how miserably the CP’s policy of partition is failing. This is the kind of nonsense the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition wanted to dish up for us on television last night—as if 53% of Black people were already in the homelands. With this he is also insinuating that this percentage will increase; that the stream will increase further.

They will not remove more people. They will get the people there by means of demarcation. [Interjections.] In the Free State in particular we will badger the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition from platform to platform to tell us whether White majority occupation in the Free state is also part of the CP’s policy, and how they will implement this. To whom will they give the Free State if they intend applying their policy of excision? Or are they going to move the Black people? No, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly will once again, as he demonstrated so pitifully last night, not answer one of these questions.

*Mr Chairman, I move:

You are going to run yourself ragged in Sasolburg! [Interjections.]

Debate adjourned.

Mr Speaker, the objects of the Bill now before the House are contained in the printed memorandum to the Bill. I should like to refer to a few aspects.

Firstly I should like to thank the House Committee that considered the Bill under the competent chairmanship of the hon member for Bellville. This is, in fact, the first time that a committee of this House has dealt with important legislation in the field of local government. The committee gave interested parties an opportunity to appear before it to give evidence. The proposed amendments are well-considered and are, in my opinion, an improvement on the original Bill.

The constitutional reform process on local government level has as a consequence that certain institutions directed to development on local government level have been abolished. The Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas, the Peri-Urban, was abolished with effect from 1 July 1986 by the Abolition of Development Bodies Act, 1986—Act No 75 of 1986—and was temporarily placed under the control of the Administrator of the Transvaal.

Owing to the extent of the administration involved in the 47 local affairs committees which were under the control of the said board, the Administrator of the Transvaal has appointed advisors to assist him in this regard. These appointments took place during a phase in which it had already been decided that the powers of the former Peri-Urban and the administration of the 47 local area committees would be entrusted to the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly.

The functions of the Peri-Urban are in the process of being transferred to the Minister entrusted with local government. The target date for this transfer is 1 July 1989. I have every reason to assume that the transfer will take place on this date.

These functions entail extensive executive powers which would involve the centralisation of authority if the relevant Minister were to carry out the functions himself. The need for a council, as proposed in the Bill, is therefore a fundamental one, and it is preferable that the functions which are to be entrusted to me, should subsequently be transferred to the council which is to be established. The council will be a juristic person.

The general objects of the council, as presented in clause 16, are the following: Firstly, the development of identified declared local government areas for Whites, including their management bodies, with a view to the establishment of possible local authorities in respect of such areas as quickly as possible; secondly, the furnishing of ordinary municipal services in declared local government areas; thirdly, the furnishing of agency services to other Government bodies, where appropriate, and fourthly, the furnishing of advice in regard to local government matters.

In the Transvaal the council will perform functions in 47 local areas which previously fell under the Peri-Urban. Since similar needs to look after smaller communities, which are situated outside a local authority’s area of jurisdiction, also exist or may exist in other provinces, provision is made for the council to function throughout the country.

The Bill also regulates the powers of the Minister to appoint the members of the council, and in clause 10 provision is made for the establishment of an executive committee or executive committees to deal with the day-to-day matters delegated to it by the council.

†I want to emphasize that the proposed council will not be a bureaucratic institution. The council is authorized in clause 7 to determine its own procedures and I want to assure hon members that it will be directed towards the interests of local government as contemplated in clause 16.

Financial matters are regulated in clauses 17 to 29. The proposed council must act cost-effectively and should not bring about a financial burden on those small communities to be served.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is designed primarily to create a new structure of government to cater for the needs of the White population of South Africa at local government level. It is being debated in this House as it is an own affair. The other groups represented in this Parliament are not involved as it is of no concern to them. They can decide in their own time and in their own way how they wish to regulate their own affairs in this matter.

Let it also be remembered that the vast majority of South Africans, namely the Black people, have no say whatsoever. Whether they like it or not, this is the way that Whites will govern themselves—in the artificially created own affairs concept.

We recognise that this legislation is based on a fundamental cornerstone of NP policy, namely apartheid, and that it represents a further step along the road we started when the Constitution was changed to introduce the tricameral parliamentary system. We opposed that change to the Constitution as we believed it entrenched apartheid whilst failing to recognise the realities in South Africa. We have opposed every piece of legislation enacted since then which embodied this fallacious principle. For the same reason we wish to express our opposition to this Bill.

We have argued and will continue to argue that apartheid has been the fundamental cause of the problems besetting our country, be they political, social or economic. Earlier this afternoon the hon member Dr Zach de Beer dealt in detail with the concept of own affairs and this party’s attitude thereto. I shall not repeat those arguments now. The fact is that all South Africans must participate equally in one constitutional system in which there is no domination. [Interjections.] Failure to achieve this will ensure the ongoing political and economic instability which we are presently experiencing.

Secondly, we wish to oppose this Bill as it fails to offer a framework within which local government can effectively operate. In 1987 this hon Minister stated in the debate on the Local Councils Bill that he was faced with a dilemma. We sympathised with him at the time. Changes to Government structures had been steamrollered through by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Divisional councils were scrapped, as were the peri-urban areas of the Transvaal. This hon Minister was left to fill the gap for Whites.

Local councils and now local government affairs councils were designed to fill this vacuum. I, however, have the clear impression that the hon the Minister and a number of hon members on that side of the House are doing so with some reluctance. Why do I think that there is this reluctance? It is not because I believe that hon members of the Government recognise the political bankruptcy of their policy, although I do believe that some reflection is taking place. The reason for their reluctance is the total impracticality of this legislation. The NP is being attacked on all fronts because of its policies and mismanagement which are leading us to economic and financial ruin.

This Bill introduces yet further costly, ineffective and inefficient structures which will hasten us along that path. The hon the Minister did say earlier that this Bill was not intended to create a bureaucracy. That may well be his intention but the Bill allows for the creation of such a bureaucracy. That is what we are opposed to. There is no way in which this council and the system of own affairs local government can be justified against any objective measurement. It is not possible to separate own affairs in local areas where there is already racial mixing taking place.

The Administrator of the Cape made the point quite clearly earlier this year when he addressed the Cape Municipal Association Congress in George. He said, and I am quoting from the Cape Times of 19 April “that the policy of simultaneously maintaining racially open and own affairs beaches, libraries, museums and hospitals is not cost effective.”

It is quite clear that South Africans are once again being asked to pay dearly to pander to a NP ideology. When will this Government learn that we cannot afford it? The papers are filled with tales of economic woe, of people struggling on the breadline and of pensioners who can no longer make ends meet. How can this Government now introduce a system which clearly is going to cost more?

The old system of divisional councils in the Cape and peri-urban areas in the Transvaal worked well but they have been scrapped. The reason was simply that membership was not open to all races. In its place we are now to have separate structures for White local government. The remaining vacuum for so-called Coloureds and Indians will remain unfilled. Alternatively, they too will create structures of their own, and Blacks will continue to be served by their own local authorities. The cost of this complex structure is exorbitant, and the sad part is that we know that it cannot work.

We are in the process of creating structures within a framework which already is being questioned by hon members of the governing party. We have no doubt that within five years they will again be dismantled, and the taxpayer will have borne the costly burden of yet another failed experiment. We oppose this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I merely want to react to a few aspects the hon member for Pinelands raised.

I think the Bill envisages precisely the opposite of what the hon member for Pinelands tried to intimate here. The Bill before the House is creating a structure for local government affairs in the peri-urban areas for those local authorities which are too small to accept autonomy. By creating this structure one is giving substance to a very important form of local government.

The character of South African society is not only embodied in the large metropolitan complexes. The character of the cohabitation of the different communities in South Africa is also illustrated in the smaller peri-urban areas where life still proceeds at a leisurely pace. That is precisely what this Bill envisages, namely to look after the infrastructure of these small local areas and to render services according to the daily needs of the inhabitants.

We must not lose sight of this aspect. It is a very important aspect to regulate the urbanisation process somewhat, because if these services are not created there at this level, there will be a more continuous flow of people from the rural areas to the urban areas.

The hon member for Pinelands pointed out that through this Bill we are creating more structures and envisaging larger bureaucracies. Precisely the opposite is true. Certain boards, including the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas, are being abolished. This council which is to be established, will replace the old Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas. This statutory council envisaged in this legislation, affords an opportunity for the divisional councils of the Cape and the Development and Services Board of Natal to be incorporated under the jurisdiction of this council.

This council then fulfils the function of emancipating these smaller areas and guiding them to full-fledged local government status. In this sense not more bureaucracy but less is being created because the staff of this council will be sent out and form the nucleus of the staff of the autonomous local authorities which are going to come into existence.

For that reason—I listened attentively to the contribution of the hon member for Pinelands—I can state categorically that all the arguments the hon member advanced, are in direct contradiction to the objective of this Bill.

The effect of the Constitution Act of 1984 is that certain structures at local government level must be restructured. This is the case with regional councils in the Cape and the Development and Services Board in Natal. This statutory council which is now being created, affords an opportunity to regulate the local government functions in these various areas and—this is very important—there is a financial instrument built into this statutory council, which affords the smaller communities the opportunity not to have to negotiate with the province for funds cap in hand. This statutory council also has the borrowing powers to negotiate for capital on the open market in order to generate sufficient funds to handle the essential local government functions in these areas.

I think if this council is used correctly, it can afford all the communities in the South African rural areas an opportunity to have their local government affairs regulated and to bring the local government functions up to such a level that they can live a good life there.

I do not want to concentrate on the different clauses of the Bill, but merely want to refer to a few main themes. The Bill is the product of a House Committee and I personally want to thank hon members who assisted in the deliberations of the House Committee most sincerely. Every member made a particular contribution to effect amendments to the original Bill. I think the Bill in its present form is therefore a manageable instrument to achieve the objective, as set out in the long title. I want to thank every hon member sincerely for his participation in the deliberations of the House Committee.

The committee was particularly impressed by the work of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas, the divisional councils and the Development and Services Board. I want to state here this afternoon that these organisations play a very important role in the local government affairs in the areas under their jurisdiction.

These bodies, the Development and Services Board and the divisional councils, have built up their own character and their own tradition and have staff expertise which must not simply be lost in the restructuring process. For that reason I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to use his influence so that a situation such as that pertaining when the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas was abolished does not repeat itself, that where boards are abolished there must be certainty in connection with staff matters and that they must be meaningfully incorporated in the management and local government affairs of the country as a whole.

The second aspect of local government affairs is that they differ from province to province. Local government affairs are dealt with by different ordinances. In the implementation of this Bill before the House I want to put forward for consideration that the differences and the particular circumstances in each province should be recognised, deferred to and respected.

I want to refer to the Development and Services Board in Natal. I do not think it would serve a meaningful purpose to abolish this board. [Interjections.] This Development and Services Board can be incorporated as it is under the jurisdiction of the statutory council and then perform the services of this council on an agency basis.

I now want to discuss the issue of staff matters. The staff association of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas impressed the committee in its evidence before us and behaved responsibly. Since the abolition of the Peri-Urban there has been a period of uncertainty, and I am glad that this Bill now brings certainty.

I want to mention the input of the hon member for Pretoria Central. The hon member convinced and persuaded the committee by means of thorough arguments specifically not to incorporate the environmental health functions in the Department of National Health, but to place them under the jurisdiction of this council. The hon member for Pretoria Central made a rational contribution to bring calm in the ranks of the staff of this body and also made a contribution to allow this body to function well and in an orderly fashion. This House owes the hon member for Pretoria Central a debt of thanks. [Interjections.]

In conclusion the following. After a period of 12 years I have now decided not to make myself available for re-election in the forthcoming election. I therefore want to take this opportunity to thank my constituency and friends for their loyal support during the past 12 years. The Bellville constituency is unique. I was privileged, along with my wife, to represent the interests of the constituency in this House.

My best wishes go with you, Mr Speaker. I say thank you for the opportunity and the time I was afforded to participate in this House under your guidance and that of previous Speakers. My best wishes go with the NP and its leader-in-chief, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, in the great responsibility to create a political dispensation in South Africa in which there is room for all South Africans.

Over the years I have tried in this House to behave in such a way towards colleagues of various parties as not to engage in personal politicking. [Interjections.] I tried to match argument with argument, and for that reason I am leaving good friends behind in all the parties represented in this House and I am taking pleasant memories with me.

Lastly I want to refer to the hon member for Innesdal, my bench-fellow for quite a number of years. There are many uncertainties in politics, but in one respect there is no uncertainty, and that is where the hon member for Innesdal stands in the political discussion in South Africa. In his way he made an important contribution to open political discussion in South Africa, to give a perspective which he is convinced is essential in South African politics.

If we in this House can respect one another’s standpoints, I believe that this institution, the parliamentary institution, will become the symbol and the instrument in which the desires and aspirations of all South Africa’s people will eventually be realised.

We want to wish the hon member for Innesdal everything of the best with the greater status which has been placed on his shoulders. We know he will be a great success as South Africa’s ambassador in Den Haag in the Netherlands. We wish him and his family everything of the best.

I also want to mention my links with the Commission for Co-operation and Development. The years in which I was privileged to serve on this commission, and tried to make a modest contribution were pleasant ones. In conclusion I can merely say that it is a pity that some of the ideas I expressed there did not always find their way into this House. Thank you very much. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I have great pleasure in speaking after my friend, the hon member for Bellville, delivered his last speech in this House. He and I served in committees and commissions for years, particularly on the subjects of housing and urbanisation. I want to express my appreciation to him, and I think I speak on behalf of all the members of the House, for his quiet, unassuming, but well-thought-out approach to the important issues in South Africa’s politics and society. [Interjections.] His manner and style were always constructive and never disparaging, not even towards his opponents.

His particular contributions were to issues such as squatting in the Cape Peninsula, the housing problems of the Coloureds on the Cape Flats in particular and the termination of the NP’s old-fashioned Coloured labour preference policy which impeded housing for Coloureds and Blacks in this area for so many years. I want to record my personal gratitude to the hon member and on behalf of this party I want to convey my best wishes to him for good health and happiness in the years ahead. [Interjections.]

†The hon member spoke in his usual calm way and, if he had just been talking about structures of government and the problems of local authorities, I could have accepted everything that he said, but the hon member perhaps deliberately did not deal with the essential issue and that is that this Bill is trying to resolve a dilemma and a problem which is the creation of Government policy.

The problems which this Bill is seeking to resolve are the problems which were created when this Government decided that all local authorities had to be structured on racial lines. From the moment the Government did that, the effect was that there were pockets of people in and around the urban and rural areas who needed some kind of local government but, because they had to be separated along racial lines, local government was fragmented to such a point that none of those local areas could have viable local authorities.

So we sit—the hon the Minister knows this—with a vacuum as far as local government is concerned. We sit with the problem of how these various local authorities are going to provide the services. Now the hon the Minister comes along with a concept of creating yet another body to add to the local councils of two years ago. Because they are not working, he is now creating another body in order to co-ordinate and supplement the activities of those local councils.

Had it not been for this Government’s obsession with group, race, and apartheid as the basis of local government structures, there would have been no need for measures such as this. We now have, in addition to local councils or authorities, an umbrella RSC, and now we are going to have an umbrella local council for those smaller areas which are not viable enough to operate.

All hon members will understand that the easier way of dealing with this problem in many instances would be to consolidate the Coloured, Indian, Black and White areas into a single local authority in order to create a viability, rather than now create a brand new structure to superimpose on them because they cannot work and are not viable.

The problem has its origins in the non-viability of apartheid at local government level. I am sorry that the hon the Minister who is due to retire has left the room at this stage, because I am of the opinion that perhaps he can tell us that right at this moment the co-ordinating council on local government is considering this problem in a different way. It is actually considering a way of bringing these small bodies together by means of a mini RSC, rather than imposing another apartheid body on the structures of this country.

The hon member for Pinelands set out the cardinal reasons why we are going to oppose this Bill. It is once again a racially segregated body to make other racially segregated bodies function when they cannot function in terms of any economic viability. It is going to impose a new cost structure. There are going to be new councils. Furthermore, these councils are not going to be representative. Even the RSCs, which we oppose, do at least have a degree of representation. However, every single member of this proposed council is appointed directly by the Minister. The members and the chairman are appointed by the Minister. They are not elected by the people they are going to serve, but they are all appointees of the Minister.

There is nothing representative about that. There is no accountability. They are not responsible to ratepayers. They are not responsible to the urban local councils. The only person to whom they are responsible is going to be the Minister. They are his agents. This is not a form of local government, but another form of bureaucracy.

So one can continue. There will be new structures, councillors, executive committees, executive officers, premises, transport, equipment, pay, pensions and perks. More and more of them will be created around the country to make a system work which cannot work. The Government is trying to make it work on this particular occasion and taxes will go up again. [Interjections.] They will come back in a few years’ time and say they have another dilemma. How can we resolve it? Instead of getting rid of the apartheid element, they entrench it and add a new and costly superstructure.

I want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to Hout Bay, an area which relates to this problem identified by this Bill. The Divisional Council has disappeared, therefore Hout Bay is without any local authority other than an RSC to provide joint services.

The Hout Bay valley is an extraordinarily sensitive valley from an ecological and conservationist point of view. It is a very valuable valley lying not too far from Cape Town. It has, because of the law of apartheid, a Coloured area next to the harbour, the harbour area itself and what one can call the White residential area which sweeps up the valley. The people of Hout Bay want a local authority, but they want a single local authority for that area. They do not want one local authority looking after part of the area, because it will have no jurisdiction over the other part.

They want a single local authority for the area, yet they are faced with a dilemma. If they apply for formal local government status, the Coloured area can be incorporated into that new local authority, but the Coloured people cannot ever vote for it, because the only thing which they can have is a separate management committee which is a sub-committee of the White council.

I can assure hon members that the Coloured people of Hout Bay do not want to start out with a separate, racist, management committee. They are in a situation where they cannot have a local authority. The Whites in that area say that should they proceed with a local council, then the most sensitive part of Hout Bay from an administration, control and development point of view, namely the harbour and the Coloured area—if one wants to call it that—will not be part of the local council. The local council will look after the wealthier White area, but an ecologically and economically sensitive area of Hout Bay which has to share the same infrastructure and services will not be under the control of that council.

I must draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact that the people of Hout Bay, so-called Coloureds and Whites, have lived in perfect harmony for generations. It has been one of the model areas as far as inter-group relationships are concerned. The churches are integrated, they do not want group areas and they have behaved impeccably. The fact that the Whites seem to have no alterative to having a White council has immediately caused a rift in that community because the Coloureds are now saying: You are going for a council but we are denied that kind of council ourselves and we are being excluded. Thank heaven these two groups have now got together. But they do have a dilemma. They want a local authority and they want to live in harmony.

All I want to say is that I would like the hon the Minister to tell me what the people of Hout Bay should do. Should the people of Hout Bay accept the heavy hand of apartheid being imposed upon them, or is the hon the Minister prepared to find a way in which the valley of Hout Bay—the totality of Hout Bay—can be consolidated under a single local council? The hon member for Bellville who is kind, generous and not a racist says that this kind of Bill is necessary. I want to put it to the hon the Minister that a different kind of Bill is necessary. What is required in the smaller local areas of South Africa is not a Bill which is going to entrench separateness, but one which creates the possibility of a new council through which Coloureds, Whites and other people in these smaller areas can get together within one local authority.

Mr Chairman, I hope you will allow me first to express another word of thanks and say goodbye again. I should like to thank the chairman of this committee, who has also told us today that he is going to retire. I want to thank the hon member for Bellville. It was very pleasant to serve on this committee. The hon member hurried us along somewhat by calling meetings of the committee at 08h00 on a Friday morning, and again at 14h00 on a Wednesday afternoon. [Interjections.] I want to compliment the hon member and tell him that it was a pleasure to serve on the committee, but I am sorry we did not achieve the consensus that the Government is seeking. The hon member’s friends to my left rather left him in the lurch. I should also like to compliment the hon member on not deserting a sinking ship, but retiring voluntarily instead.

I cannot understand why the DP is objecting so strenuously to this Bill. If the hon members had gone through the Bill from beginning to end with us, and had looked at the number of amendments which were introduced, they would have known that there is nothing to be concerned about. It is those people about whom they are concerned who are also going to be looked after, but they find the term “own affairs” abhorrent. I think they will have to get over this at some stage or other, because they will never get White own affairs in South Africa out of us.

In conclusion I also want to thank the officials who were so patient as regards the requests and changes of these members of the House of Assembly. At one stage we amended our recommendation three times, and then amended it again. We also want to thank them very much, because I think they made a big contribution. We also thank everyone who appeared before the committee. With these words I want to pledge the CP’s support to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the previous speaker for his contribution and the fact that the Official Opposition supports this legislation. This legislation fits in with the political structures which the Government has established to take the own affairs concept further.

I listened to what the hon member for Sea Point said, but there were certain arguments which he raised which I did not understand. One of his points of criticism was that this was not an elected body, but that it was an appointed body and for this reason it was not practicable. In the Transvaal we of course had the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas, which was an appointed board, and it worked very well. In Natal there was the Development and Services Board, which performed and is still performing this task, and has always been an appointed board. Looking back over history we all know how well that Natal board worked. I find it strange that the hon member for Sea Point is criticising a council which is going to be appointed, and which in a way is going to perform the same function in the Transvaal, and perhaps in another way in the other provinces too.

The basic problem we are faced with here, is of an historic nature. In the different provinces there were the different kinds of local government for these smaller places which had less than municipality status. In the Transvaal there was the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas, which was abolished. There is consequently a reason to replace it with something else.

In the Cape there were the divisional councils, which performed this function. They have now been abolished. Where regional services councils are being appointed there is still a deficiency. It is therefore also necessary for a council such as that for which this legislation makes provision to be appointed in its place.

In Natal there is the Development and Services Board, which is still operating. Where one still has these boards, or where these boards have been abolished, and where there are regional services councils and a council such as that envisaged by the legislation is appointed, it is important to note that this may happen or that there is going to be overlapping. However, the legislation is supple enough to avoid that overlapping because provision is made in the legislation for a council.

I think it is clause 11 in which provision is made for a committee which will be appointed in each province. This can happen. However, it does not have to happen. The legislation is supple enough to be implemented and administered in such a way that provision is made for the differences between the four provinces, so that these functions, which are absolutely essential for those smaller places, can be arranged and regulated with the minimum disruption and additional personnel—and in certain provinces with no additional personnel at all. For that reason I support the legislation.

Allow me to say as well that the criticism from the DP also surprised me because they are attacking the entire concept. When the DP has stated their standpoint, I am already totally confused. The hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Sea Point spoke and used words such as “no domination”. The other day Dr Worrall spoke on television about a federal concept which fits into the DP’s constitution somewhere. It is so confusing, because that is not what other hon members tell me.

If I were to ask the hon member for Claremont whether he agrees with what the hon member for Yeoville said, that it is not “one man, one vote and one common voters’ roll”, he would never agree with that. [Interjections.] May I put it like that? Is the hon member for Claremont aware of that?

As far as this policy is concerned the position is very unclear to me. As we move closer to the election, I think we are going to find that members of the DP are going to stop short of their policy of one man, one vote on a common voters’ roll. They are going to run away from that. They are already starting to refer to no domination and a federation, which cannot be read into their policy documents at all. [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon member for Claremont and the hon member for Pinelands must please afford the hon member for Klip River an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Mr Chairman, when we are facing this election I consequently foresee a total about-face on the part of the DP. [Interjections.]

Order! Perhaps the hon member for Pinetown could also give the hon member for Klip River an opportunity to make his speech.

Mr Chairman, I am finished in any case.

Order! If the hon member for Klip River has finished with his speech, I call upon the hon member for Greytown to speak.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just spoken lives in Klip River. There they have very little contact with people who talk about the more sophisticated ramifications of politics. [Interjections.] When we talk about groups, we are only concerned with the definition of “group”. When we talk about no domination, we mean no domination by small political parties to which everyone can belong. That is why we also talk about proportional representation, etc.

But tell us what you people mean! [Interjections.]

But it is so easy. I have just said that if the hon member were sophisticated enough, he would understand that a federal system defines the structure of government. [Interjections.]

It is because it is so easy that you cannot understand it yourself!

The hon member for Klip River is asking who has access to the processes of Government. He says that groups must have access on the basis of their race. We say that political parties must have access. That is how simple it is. [Interjections.] The hon member… [Interjections.]

On one common voters’ roll?

Yes, that is what we said. [Interjections.]

Order! The mere fact that the hon member for Greytown is speaking is not a sign for other hon members to talk as well. The hon member for Greytown may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he intends standing in Greytown in the coming election? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am going to sit in Greytown. [Interjections.] I must say that as a person from Natal, the hon member of Klip River was fairly quick to tread on the toes of the Development and Services Board in Natal. The hon member says that this legislation fits in so well with the concept of own affairs. Of course, what he does not say is that the Development and Services Board in Natal is strongly opposed to this legislation. The simple reason for this is that we in Natal have, for quite a number of years now, been used to government at various levels. For years we have had first, second and third tier government. Where communities were too small to deal with third-tier governments among themselves, for example with regard to engineering services, etc, the need for a service authority arose. That authority was then created.

Nevertheless, in Natal that service authority served all the race groups. All small local communities, no matter where…

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

The hon member does not know his facts. There were, in fact, also a few Blacks.

A few, yes!

But I am saying that there were a few. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is, however, that what we have here is a board which, in Natal for example, also consists of members of all the population groups. This board provides services for small communities consisting of all race groups. What we have in this legislation is a small board, which is going to sit on this board’s head, and when White affairs are under consideration, we shall have an additional say in what the Development and Services Board in Natal must do. This is totally unnecessary, because the other two population groups are not going to ask for similar legislation to assist the Development and Services Board in Natal.

Another fact is the following. As long as a Group Areas Act exists, and this proposed board with its service staff provides services for small local communities, those local communities will naturally be White, Indian or Coloured communities. In each of those communities there is an advisory board which requests the services of this service authority. This means, therefore, that we do have own affairs at the local level, in the sense that the board can only provide services to communities which operate within a specific group area in which a certain population group lives. Even in that sense we merely have a service authority which does not recognise race, but provides services for different communities comprising of different races.

In Natal, with the situation that exists there, this legislation is totally superfluous. We do not need it. Things can function as they are at the moment; we shall therefore oppose this legislation. I told the hon member for Bellville as much.

I am thinking of some of the things which are said in his other commission and which, as he says, are not always said in the House, and I therefore think we should have said out of conviction: “Go back to the drawing-board, redesign a new system which will rectify omissions, and do not continue adding on things which we know, in our heart of hearts, will simply have to be abolished.” I am actually sorry that the hon member is not going to be with us for the next five years, because I am tempted to say that he might well be the chairman of the committee which will abolish this legislation within the next three or four or five years.

We are opposing this legislation now, because if it is not put into effect, it will not have to be abolished again.

Mr Chairman, before I react to the hon member for Greytown, I first want to announce something gratifying. In a municipal by-election in Winburg, on 23 May, the NP was able to poll 60% of the votes cast. This tallies with the percentage poll in that province in the past municipal election and in the parliamentary election. [Interjections.] We sincerely congratulate the member of Parliament for Winburg. [Interjections.]

In a sense, the hon members for Sea Point and Greytown implied in a snide way that this legislation was aimed at the following—this is according to the hon member for Sea Point, if I wrote down his words correctly—“It will be for wealthy, rich White areas.”

Where?

The hon member for Greytown also attacked this council which is to be appointed. Let us look at one point.

The abolished Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas, the old Peri-Urban, has a rich, proud history from 1943. I want to ask the hon the member for Sea Point whether he is aware that Sandton is one of the places which was developed by the old “Peri-Urban” to what it is today—a proud place which supports itself. [Interjections.]

I do not think one should degrade such a body. I do not think one should attack such a body; as a matter of fact let us look at something like the municipality of Verwoerdburg. This is a place which was developed and guided to independence by the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas. I want to suggest something to the hon member for Greytown. He must sit down and see how this council works before he attacks and criticises us.

Mr Chairman, allow me to thank the chairman of that committee, the hon member for Bellville, for the kind words he addressed to me, as well as for the opportunity and scope he created so that I could state my standpoint impartially. I also want to thank the hon the Minister and the department for falling in with my wishes by accommodating me, because I am convinced that, in spite of what the hon member for Greytown has predicted, history will show that this measure which has been built in, namely vesting environmental health services in the new statutory council, is an excellent and orderly measure which can render a full and equal service to those communities which cannot afford those services for themselves.

I believe if there is one thing which has bothered the officials of the abolished Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas since 1986 it has been the so-called uncertain position which could arise. However, I believe there is one truth which has emerged since this House Committee has dealt with this Bill, namely that confidence in the working of democracy and confidence in the working of NP policy, and also in the politicians instrumental in that working, will be held in higher esteem by those officials.

I have already said that the history of the Peri-Urban is rich. This is a board which was established in 1943, to render a service to communities which could not stand on their own feet. I have already mentioned two examples of such places which developed to independence. The point is that that service delivery aspect must continue in South Africa. I am grateful that the knowledge and means at the disposal of this board did not get lost in the process, but that they can be used to the benefit of South Africa’s communities which cannot stand on their own feet.

The new statutory council has a duty to look objectively at solutions which will serve the interests of the country in general. The interests of those communities affected by the new statutory council must be served to the best ability of everyone involved in the carrying out of those duties.

I take great pleasure in supporting this Bill. In conclusion I merely want to mention that the hon member for Middelburg attacked me earlier on today, but I am not going to reply to that now. He will not be back after 6 September either, so that I can reply to him, but I am prepared to discuss and debate that matter with him at the first opportunity.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank my hon colleagues and hon members of the House for the contributions they made about a very interesting measure this afternoon, as well as for the positive approach which came from this side of the House.

It is clear from the nature of the case that the DP, with respect, do not fully comprehend the situation and the activities of the old Peri-Urban.

I would like to express my thanks to the hon member for Bellville, who was the chairman of this House committee. I greatly appreciate the work he did particularly in this regard. As was evident from his speech this afternoon, he played a particular part in the framing of this piece of legislation. I would also like to thank the hon member for his approach to this measure and for the fact that he organised the meeting in such a way that maximum consultation could take place; as a matter of fact the provincial administrations of the Cape, the Transvaal and Natal, the representative of the Association of Divisional Councils in the regional services council, the staff association of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas, the Department of Development Planning and the Commission for Administration were consulted, and the United Municipal Executive also submitted a memorandum. The other seven bodies gave evidence before this committee. It is therefore the result of a really thorough study and of submissions which were made by experts in this field.

The hon member for Bellville indicated this afternoon that he has decided to retire. On this occasion I would like to say on my part and on behalf of this side of the House that we are sorry he has decided to retire. Over the years the hon member has always made very good contributions in this House; as a matter of fact he also has an exceptional reasoning ability. He could give critical answers to points which were raised; in fact, his reasoning with the hon member for Pinelands this afternoon once again proved that. [Interjections.] We have a high regard for the hon member. He was the chairman of my study group for years and I found him not only to be loyal but also a very good friend. I would like to wish him and his family all the best.

The hon member is also an expert on the question of housing. He has a very big undertaking in which he is particularly dedicated to providing housing for the elderly. I would like to wish him every success in this regard. I thank the hon member sincerely once again.

The hon member for Bellville raised important points concerning the personnel situation and the abolition of development bodies. Like other hon members he referred to the Development and Services Board. He also pointed out the situations which were peculiar to various regions or provinces. I would like to tell the hon member that I will also approach these matters positively as he had indicated.

Where this measure specifically provides for agency services and for other statutory bodies also to act as agents, I have no doubt in my mind that we will find a solution by means of the Development and Services Board; as a matter of fact, there are at present negotiations in terms of which it may be possible for the Development and Services Board in Natal to continue to exist. I am convinced that this body renders valuable services and that in certain situations it will also be able to do useful work for this House in this regard.

This measure also provides certainty for the local government set-up in the smaller local areas and I, together with the department, look forward to handling the affairs of smaller local communities in close consultation with, and through the medium of, the proposed board.

†The hon member for Pinelands naturally indicated why, on a policy principle, they do not support this legislation. I am quite sure, however, that the hon member does not understand how the Peri-Urban operated, and he does not know of the most valuable services it rendered to the smaller communities and which can continue to be rendered in terms of this Bill by the proposed board that is to be instituted. We are interested in the well-being of the small communities, specifically as it relates to the provision of proper municipal services.

*The hon member for Sea Point raised certain issues, in particular the one concerning Hout Bay. It is true that Hout Bay has applied for a local board. I do not as yet have any knowledge thereof, but I gathered from what the hon member said this afternoon that the residents are now probably applying for a local authority rather than a local board.

They want advice.

I will have another look at the hon member’s speech and at the information he provided. Needless to say, I will then have further discussions. The point I would like to make is that this region is fully administered by the regional services council. Both my colleague in the House of Representatives, who also has a responsibility in that area, and I have agreements with the regional services council which carefully and thoroughly sees to the services in that area.

Therefore these people are not being inconvenienced. Development is going ahead; as a matter of fact, last year my department made significant financial contributions to the community of Hout Bay. This was specifically to promote the development of services.

It is true that the situation in Hout Bay is peculiar to itself. Hout Bay has even declared itself a republic. There is a coat of arms for the Republic of Hout Bay and I have noticed that the residents even have Hout Bay passports. So the residents of Hout Bay want to do their own thing.

†The hon member for Constantia said that local councils are not getting off the ground. However, at the beginning of this year Constantia opted to institute a local council and it was duly instituted. They are proud of their local council. I find that they are very co-operative and they further the interests of the community of Constantia. Obviously Constantia is now represented by its own people in the Regional Services Council of the Western Cape.

*I would like to thank the hon member for Middelburg for his support and for the contribution he made, as well as his colleagues on the House committee. Nowadays, since Jimmy Abbott also joined the CP, the hon member for Overvaal has appeared a little tense. He seems to be running a risk. [Interjections.] I can understand why the hon member no longer wants to stay here until half past six. He now has to go home a little earlier.

I still have to go and train against Jimmy!

I wish the hon member success with his fitness exercises. [Interjections.]

I would like to thank the hon member for Klip River, who is an expert on local government, for his contributions here and on the House committee as well. His reasoning on the issue was very good, unlike the DP who do not support the measure on the grounds of so-called principles.

I would now like to come to the hon member for Greytown. I have already referred to my approach to the Development and Services Board, a subject which the hon member raised here.

I would like to say that with the Bill as it is—the hon member for Bellville also made this point—this board can operate in a particular province and is at the moment primarily aimed at handling the situation concerning the 47 local areas in the Transvaal which will fall under the jurisdiction of this board.

I would like to refer finally to the hon member for Pretoria Central. The hon member has a very sound knowledge of the old Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas. He has made it his task over a long period of time to promote this board, not only as far as the personnel set-up is concerned but also its activities. I would like to thank the hon member for the manner in which he has continued to further the interests of this board.

Because of his particular knowledge, the hon member also gave excellent examples this afternoon of the work and the success of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas, which this new board will no doubt also be able to provide. With this particular legislation we can build on the experience and skill which have been developed over a long period of time.

This legislation also gives us the opportunity to render services to the smaller communities more effectively. I would like to point out to the hon member for Sea Point—he apologised for not being able to be present—that in the municipal elections in the Transvaal last year elected committee members were appointed in all these areas, including the relevant 47 areas. As the board is a juristic person this measure will also be able to lead them to a point where they will receive local board status, and accordingly eventual direct representation in the regional services councils.

I feel this is a positive development in the field of local government. I want once again to thank the House committee sincerely. I would also like to tell my hon colleagues who participated here, as well as other hon members, that with this we have made considerable progress in promoting the own affairs concept, which is of course an obstacle for the DP. I can understand their concern in this regard very well indeed.

It was a privilege to be able to introduce this Bill in the House of Assembly.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Division demanded.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Burrows, R M; Cronjé, P C; Dalling, D J; De Beer, Z J; Gastrow, P H P; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Swart, R A F; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Walsh, J J) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Population Development, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to take part in this debate at the end of this session and to convey my good wishes to the Ministers’ Council and especially to the hon the Minister of the Budget, whose Budget we are discussing here today, for their fine contribution over the past five years to the development of the Western Transvaal in particular. The face of the Western Transvaal has changed so much that nobody would recognise it. Over the past five years we have made so much progress that nobody would believe it.

Everybody is speculating, because we are on the threshold of an election. Everybody wants to be a candidate and parties are fielding their candidates left, right and centre to oppose the LP. It is a fact that we ought to warn the candidates to be on their guard, especially if they are going to tackle the LP. The LP has not merely become a political party in name, but a real party that looks after the needs of the people.

We have complied with the requirements of the Constitution and have honoured the mandate which the voters gave us in 1984. I speak with an open mind and without trepidation or fear of any frivolous hon member of the opposition. I want to tell the opposition that we are waiting for them in the Transvaal.

Hear, hear!

We are going to give them a hiding. That goes for both of the opposition parties in this House; for that of the hon member for Reigerpark and for that of the hon member for Southern Cape. Before I digress any further I should like to deal with the Official Opposition. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has advertised for candidates in weekend newspapers as well as in Transvaal newspapers during the past few weeks. This clearly shows what political bankruptcy that party suffers from. This shows the paucity of their policy and the paucity of the product they have to sell to the public.

Wait until October.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis is speaking about October. I actually want to get to that hon member. Yesterday a good cause came to grief as a result of the doings of the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. However, the chairman of that committee will…

Order! This House has nothing to do with that committee. We are debating the Budget.

Mr Chairman, I should like to return to the Order of the Day.

Order! The hon member should return to it right now.

In the joint sitting it was frightening to see how hon members of the Official Opposition fell over one another’s feet. They accuse the LP of being boycotters. Yesterday they did not know if they were coming or going when they voted with the LP against the Constitution Second Amendment Bill. They did not know what it was about. They asked one another what was going on. Is that what they are going to tell the voters? Yesterday they proved the LP to be their senior. It is my duty to point out their political bankruptcy in this House. What else are they going to tell the voters now? [Interjections.] What do they have for sale?

Lots.

They cannot continue. They were very frightened when they saw that they had to start speaking. Yet surely it is their prerogative to speak? Why did they not get up to do so? Once again this has shown that the hon members are not concerned with the interests of their people. They should have put forward their people’s case for the last time here, have spoken about the housing which has been provided through the LP and for the last time have debated the schools and the improvement of welfare as established by the LP, but this was conspicuous by its absence. I am sorry that I have to get up here today virtually to ask them to speak.

I do not know. From Monday on the tanks will be in the LP area. We are on the warpath to establish a policy of liberation politics for all of South Africa, because in the next parliamentary session that lies ahead of us one will of course have to state one’s case—not one’s own case as those hon members have been doing of late, but the case of the general public and all South Africans, and state what lies ahead for them.

We must establish what our people desire. Our voters are asking for the Black man to be given a rightful opportunity to take part—not like the legislation which provides for a nominated member to come and serve in the Cabinet. We should look at the political viewpoint and direction in which we are moving. The LP is moving in a direction in which we believe and also aspires towards a totally new South Africa—a South Africa in which everyone can contribute his rightful economic, social and constitutional share and not one group above the other.

I believe that we in the LP are ready for battle. From Monday on we are returning to our community to ask for a mandate to open the door for everybody, to fight for an entirely free South Africa that has been freed from all discriminatory legislation.

Mr Chairman, having listened to the hon member who has just spoken, I just want to say I do not have a problem with the LP. They should understand this once and for all today, but my problem lies with the way in which I was treated.

I was a loyal member of the LP. My children starved for the LP. When this party was at its lowest point, I did my best to let the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council drive around this country so that we might sit here today. What hurts me is not so much the hon members who are against me. I am not talking about them today. The people who make threats at social functions about taking me on, should forget about it. Those who stand by me and are friends, are my friends, but those people who have fallen in along the way and who arrived here yesterday, should be careful of Oom Hansie. Oom Hansie has made his mark and nobody can deny this. Therefore I have the right to speak on behalf of my people in South Africa. Nowhere have I deviated from the mandate with which my people sent me here. Nobody will distract me and nobody in the House can tell me how I should defend my people. [Interjections.]

My people gave me a mandate to come and dismantle all discriminatory laws appearing on the Statute Book. They told me I should come and fight for them in Ravensmead, and not discredit parties or personalities.

Order! Hon members must please converse more quietly.

Sir, I came here to speak on behalf of my people in Ravensmead. Nobody tells me what to say, because my dad always told me never to be intimidated and nobody in this House is going to intimidate me. [Interjections.] My dad said that even if somebody flattened me, I should get up and fight again. He taught me that my surname was Christians and not Perfect. He taught me to work. He kicked me and hit me and therefore I can work and fight for my people today.

There are hon members on the other side of this House who are blackmailing and threatening me, but I will no longer be threatened by them. They should just come to my constituency. Tonight I am meeting some of the LP people and if we cannot agree, then that is as far as it goes. People have been bent and broken here; I would rather go. I almost lost my life in Bishop Lavis through the doings of Pieter Marais. He is a member of this party, but I am outside the party and have done nothing wrong.

Order! The hon member must return to the Appropriation Bill.

Sir, do not be so hard on me! [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister that I have here many letters that I have written to one Minister after another, about the school in Ravensmead, especially the Northway Street School. Here I have all the letters, and I am warning today that if that school, which is so cracked and broken, falls on my children, there will be trouble. For two years I have written regularly about this matter.

I know why I can speak like this today, because I walk around in my constituency and I win there. The school committee supports me completely because for four years they have been writing letters about this matter to the House of Representatives, to no avail. However, since I have been writing, some attention has been paid to the matter. I am one who follows up his work, and a White Minister has had a rough time because of me (gebars onder my).

The hon member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Those Ministers have suffered because of me and the Brown Minister is going to suffer just as much. When I have written and the hon the Ministers do not answer me properly, I keep on writing to them. I follow up my work.

That school is falling apart. The inspector was there the other day and the school principal warned him about what would happen if the school were to collapse. If this matter does not receive attention now, I will take the matter to the newspapers in the coming elections. I have done my work and I have all the letters here. However, nothing has been done about the matter.

Next I want to speak about those men who are threatening me. I am the only one in the Peninsula who can hold a public meeting. Not one of them can do it. [Interjections.] It is true; they cannot. That is why I wrote to my hon leader twice in succession for permission to hold a public meeting, but I never even received acknowledgement of the letters. I do, however, know that the hon leader is very busy but I cannot hold a meeting without his consent. People who see me at a social function and who have no knowledge of my ties with the LP, now come and threaten me. I want to warn them that I am going to return after the election.

Again I say that I have never stabbed that hon leader in the back; I am fond of him because I know what a leader is. I also know how people run down someone like that behind his back. However, Waterkloof will out, and I will mention names when I return. [Interjections.] I will return. I would not like to let the LP falter at this stage, otherwise I would mention those names right now, because then I know the hon leader of the LP would not give them a seat. [Interjections.] They laugh; look at them laughing. However, I have never run down that hon Minister. Let them laugh.

Order! The hon members must please give the hon member for Ravensmead a chance to make his speech. The hon member may continue.

They are laughing in vain. Our poor hon leader’s back has been stabbed to pieces. They should just get up and go. When I told them so, they said that Peter Hendrickse was the boss of the party. I am merely saying these things because they discredited me so the other evening. I will name those hon members when I return, and I will return. It is a disgrace to run one’s leader down like that in his absence. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Ravensmead. I am a good friend of his and I am not going to tackle him, even if he made a slip here and there today. [Interjections.] I want to confine myself to the Appropriation Bill, and merely say that I support the Bill as introduced by the hon the Minister. I should also like to thank the hon the Minister and his staff sincerely for their excellent co-operation during the past five years. Although the hon the Minister has only taken over the Local Government, Housing and Agriculture portfolio recently, his door has always been open to me and I have always gone to him with my problems. I thank him sincerely for that. Sometimes I walked in there without an appointment, and if he had the opportunity the hon the Minister always received me very cordially. If I had not known what to do, I knew how to solve my problems by the time I walked out of there. [Interjections.] I thank the hon the Minister once again.

I also want to express my appreciation for the fact that he recently paid the management committees in my constituency a visit. He did so at a time when that community needed it most. Hon members know, from Press and other media reports and their own experience, that those once peaceful communities have been torn to pieces by a wave of conflict that has also arisen there over the past approximately two and a half years. Jealousy, discord, and in some cases even hatred of one another have become part of these communities. Seen against this background the hon the Minister’s visit to the management committees was just in time to reassure them that they were not alone in the midst of the conflicting interests in the communities they have to serve.

With regard to the debate I should like to ask that the adjoining State land east of the Steinkopf area, known as the Corridor East farms currently under our department’s control, be leased to Coloured farmers with the option to buy. Nobody has lived there for a long time. It is being leased to White and Coloured farmers. I believe the time has come for that land to be sold to our people, because it will contribute towards our people also becoming land owners. South West Africa will become independent soon, and then that uninhabited land could easily become a breeding-ground for unsavoury elements in that area. It will therefore be a good idea if those farms could be inhabited now and at the same time bought by the Coloured people. The people living there will then at least have something to defend.

There is also State land known as the Vioolsdrif South State Land. The Steinkopf community has fought for possession of that land for a long time because this land was incorporated in the Steinkopf area initially, but was later taken back as State land. It is argued, inter alia, that people cannot farm that land economically. However, I wish to assure the House that people who farm that land can make a success of it by means of a sensible grazing policy. After all, there is proof that people have already made a success of their farming operations in that area.

Since the conflict and dispute between the State and the management committee of Steinkopf has already been in progress for quite a while, we would like to ask the hon the Minister to defuse the conflict and to do everything possible to get that land back for Steinkopf community, the way it ought to be. As soon as that land is back in our possession it can again be divided up into farms so that our people can also have farms there.

Order! Will hon members please converse a little more quietly.

As you say, Mr Chairman, if hon members will keep quiet, I will appreciate it. [Interjections.] That land can be divided up into farms and given to our farmers.

I do not want to dwell on this matter any further, but I still want to mention that there are problems with regard to the national park in the Richtersveld. Since that matter is pending I will probably not say much about it. I should merely like to say that the people from the department negotiating the issue should listen to even the most insignificant person’s opinion there in this regard so that general satisfaction about this matter can be achieved in that community, because it is essential that that area should be regarded as a national park. I want therefore once again to make an appeal to the department to give the negotiations in this respect their undivided attention.

Hon members know that in Namaqualand our natural resources are very limited, and therefore it is essential that existing resources—the few that we have—are used to the greatest and best advantage of the community in that region. I therefore want to ask that development in those regions should get off the ground. In this instance I am thinking especially of the financial assistance that the people need to expand projects such as the mining activities in the Richtersveld, Steinkopf and Concordia, and the quartzite tiling industry in the Lekkersing district. I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister to give those projects the necessary financial support so that they can be exploited to the full. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon the Minister and his staff for the work they are doing. I know in some cases it is not easy, but they have to make adjustments and use the time available to them to do the best possible for our people.

It is not easy to close this big backlog, the beginnings of which may be traced back to about 30 or more years ago. I trust that with the staff at his disposal the hon the Minister will have great success.

May I at the same time restrict myself to the Budget. I believe that what I have to say today is very important to the only farming community in my constituency in the Northern Transvaal.

I feel highly and singularly privileged today to be in a position to talk about the needs of this community. I have written countless letters to the hon the Minister concerned about the disparity of the only truly devoted and faithful farming community. I am referring to the Buysdorp community.

I have received disastrous criticisms about this community, not only from the CP farmers, but also from the CP representative of the Soutpansberg constituency in the House of Assembly. The people of the community feel that they has been left in the cold completely. Because of their problems they are bound to do subsistence farming instead of economic farming.

They have very beautiful land on the slopes of the Soutpansberg which is fertile, but water supply remains the most significant problem of the area. A few boreholes have been made without success. Because they live on a communal farm their situation is irksome; they cannot get loans even if these people with exceptional farming skills can practise farming to the point they wish to. Because of lack of funds and because they live on a communal farm, they cannot get loans. They have to depend on the rain. In times of drought, as was the case a few years ago, the families face disaster.

Whilst I addressed the water situation as a problem… [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices.

Mr Chairman, the water supply of course would be the backbone of any farming community. This is a problem. Luckily for this community there are two perennial fountains which have a limited water supply. By having a reservoir with the necessary filtration built, much can be achieved with this water.

My special but sincere appeal is for the administration to consider granting personal loans for various purchases such as proper stock—that is beef and milk cattle; fruit farming which should be encouraged and which could do very well in the area; poultry farming; grain farming and vegetable farming which should all be encouraged. Farming implements should be made available to the people so that they can farm with success. Because of lack of funds these people cannot venture in this direction. Mechanisation is the order of the day and they need tractors to help them along. Farming without proper implements is not worthwhile and I am pleading that these people be helped.

White farmers in the area successfully obtain loans and in times of drought the Government proclaims disaster areas, whereupon subsidies are made available. This community has to face the drought and failure of crops with bitterness and starvation. I have no doubt that the department has a team of experts who can visit the area with the aim in mind of giving expert advice in this regard. This is the only Northern Transvaal farming community in the real sense of the word and we would love to see them prosper and even encourage others to buy farms and perform hard work in the area. Arterial roads are a necessity in the area as people need to walk on clearly marked roads. My appeal is that help be made available in that direction. The days of footpaths are over and help should be given to this community.

I should mention that through the House of Assembly I have tried other departments and also the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and of Water Affairs. As far as the erection of a reservoir is concerned they all feel that this falls under own affairs and therefore I appeal to our hon Minister to help. [Interjections.] I am not fighting, I am talking nicely. [Interjections.] I would rather like to keep the young fellows on the land than to see them go to the big towns where they eventually settle. Marriage is said to be a geographical factor and as a rule a man marries where he works. Once these young fellows reach the big towns they never feel that they should return to work on the land. The result is that we have a community of the aged and their grandchildren living in the area. I am appealing to the department to do something about this community. A team of experts should be sent, one that could report back and give good advice. The need exists to farm economically and this differs from subsistence farming. We would like to see more and more Coloured farmers. Expert help could open a new vista for this community.

Mr Chairman, I would like firstly to thank the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the Ministers’ Council for what they have achieved for our people over the past five years. What the LP has done for our people is often underestimated.

Looking at education, one can see how the budget has increased over the years. It now stands at R1 792,2 million. Since 1985, 57 new primary schools and 50 new secondary schools have been built. This year 5 new primary schools, 11 new secondary schools, 7 hostels and 8 school halls are to be built.

Yet there are still people who say we have not done anything. Let us look at welfare services and pensions. In 1985 the old age pension was R103 per month; now it is R200 per month. Pensions for war veterans were only R110 per month in 1985; now they are R266 per month. As far as the latter is concerned, we have reached parity.

I would like to thank the hon the Minister, who is now also responsible for the Agriculture Vote. The hon the Minister was only recently appointed to this position but he has already paid a visit to Saron, the rural area in my constituency. The hon the Minister spent the whole day with the management council. He looked at everything they wanted to show him in regard to which there are still problems. I am certain the hon the Minister will take up and solve these issues on behalf of our people.

However, there is another issue to which I would like to draw hon members’ attention. With the coming election a lot of foul play is cropping up. I am referring to an incident in Malmesbury. As a commissioner of oaths I certified a form for a person on which he had to indicate his income for the year to the municipality. I do not know how these people got hold of the form or how the information leaked out. Nevertheless, on Tuesday the 23rd, members of the opposition party’s executive went to see that person. When they got to him, he was totally inebriated. The members of the opposition party had written a letter which they wanted to send to the newspaper and in which they alleged that I had told that man to put down a certain amount on the form to enable him to pay less rent. They made this man sign the document while he was under the influence of alcohol. I asked my people to take this man to a lawyer so that he could testify under oath that he had not had the opportunity to read the letter, and that he had not known what he was signing. I would like to warn hon members of the LP in this House that dirty tactics are going to be used. They cannot get to us in any other way, but they want to use dirty tactics like character assassination and denigration. [Interjections.] Those hon members must remember that the man who slings mud will eventually have no more ground to stand on.

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, and particularly those who have made things easier for me by not taking part. [Interjections.] I want to thank the entire House, including the opposition parties, for the support and respect I have received during my term of office.

†I think it is a matter of respect earns respect. I thank all hon members for that.

*I am pleased that the hon member for Western Transvaal was able to say that the Western Transvaal had undergone a transformation. Anything that smacks of the LP undergoes a transformation. [Interjections.] One finds everything in which there is power, in the LP. We are sure that it is not only in Rust Ter Vaal that even more of a transformation is going to take place during the next five years, but also in those areas throughout the whole of South Africa which we have not yet been able to reach. I want to thank him for having emphasised everything that has been achieved by the LP, and for finding it so easy to do so whilst sitting on the right of the Chamber.

The hon member for Ravensmead said a few strange things, inter alia that his children had in the past gone hungry owing to his sacrifices for the LP. He must not think that this has gone unappreciated. For this reason it was in fact the LP that ensured that his children were able to eat well once again after they had gone hungry. I merely want to point out to the hon member that the LP is a party with strong principles and that it is expected that those principles will be respected. When he is once again able to comply with the desired requirements, he will once again be able to take his place in the LP.

I also want to give him the assurance that his request in relation to the school which he spoke about is not being ignored. It falls under the programme for schools. Whenever schools are in too poor a condition to be restored, negotiations take place for the construction of a new one. However, we have taken note of his statement that the school is dilapidated and I can assure him that the department concerned will pay attention to this. We find it gratifying when hon members are concerned about the children in our schools. As far as the LP is concerned, our children come first because we should like to see them one day be able to set a good example to their children.

I want to thank the hon member for Steinkopf sincerely for having expressed a word of thanks to my personnel. We very often forget that those people work under just as much pressure as we experience here in Parliament, and that they also become short-tempered under certain circumstances, and can sometimes make a faux pas. I want to assure hon members, however, that the hon member for Steinkopf is someone who always enters our offices with a smile. For this reason it is possible that people also serve him with a smile.

For his information I want to make a correction, namely that I have not taken over the portfolio of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, but merely that of Agriculture.

The hon member made mention of the Corridor farms. I hope he will be gratified to learn from me that we are already attempting to ascertain what the real state of affairs is. Miracles are expected of Ministers. Hon members ask us to solve all their problems. We shall try. More than that, however, I cannot promise. As the expression goes, “You cannot fool all the people all the time”. It is just as true that one cannot satisfy all the people all the time.

†I should also like to thank the hon member for Northern Transvaal for his acknowledgement for the service he received with a smile from myself and my department. I want to thank him for talking nicely. I want to assure the hon member that the provision of water for those farmers he mentioned, will receive attention. It falls under the Department of Agriculture. The amount of R2 118 000 in programme 7 has been budgeted for this purpose. I would therefore advise the hon member to act quickly. MPs are urged to assist farmers whenever they make applications.

*I also want to thank the hon member for Swartland sincerely for his acknowledgment of the improvements that have been brought about by the LP. I want to assure him that because we are so sure that we shall be able to serve him here once again next year, we shall ensure that even more improvements take place in his constituency next year. [Interjections.] We are very sure that those men who have done their bit will once again have the opportunity to make a further contribution. [Interjections.] The hon member must listen carefully. The Whips can also join in the conversation. I want to give the hon member the assurance that some of the problems at Saron are already being investigated and that I believe it will be possible to solve them shortly.

†In general I want to wish every hon member in this House Godspeed for the future.

We are leaving each other at the end of this week to fight an election. We will do it in the spirit of politics. I am sorry that when we meet up with the Official Opposition we are not going to pull our punches. However, we want to assure them that after we have knocked them down we will attend their funerals. [Interjections.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, in his report on the Appropriation Account of the Administration: House of Representatives for the 1986-87 financial year, the Auditor-General reported unauthorised expenditure in the amount of R29 496 312,31 in respect of the Health Services and Welfare Vote.

During the course of the 1986-87 financial year, it became clear that the appropriated amount for social pensions and allowances, emergency aid schemes for the unemployed and social emergency aid would not be sufficient to cover the expected statutory expenditure. In view of this there was a revision of the expected expenditure and an additional amount of R22 730 000 was requested in this additional appropriation in order to meet the rising need. As a result of various factors which it is possible to determine, however, expenditure increased more rapidly than was expected.

Of the factors that had a significant influence, the following were most important. The means test to qualify for social pensions was adjusted upwardly, with the result that many more people qualified for pensions. [Interjections.] Members of Parliament quite rightly informed their constituencies and the public of benefits to which they were entitled. The result was that many more people came forward and applied for pensions. It was not envisaged that there would be such extensive reaction to this. Thirdly, it was extremely difficult to estimate expected expenditure under the emergency aid scheme for the unemployed. No one could have foreseen that the economic slump would assume such proportions.

Final expenditure for the 1986-87 financial year indicated that in respect of emergency aid schemes for the unemployed, there was an increase of 379% in comparison with the allocation for the previous financial year. Despite the additional appropriation amounts totalling R22 730 000, which were allocated for the additional appropriation for the 1986-87 financial year, the aforementioned factors resulted in an overexpenditure of R29 496 312,31 as against the approved appropriated amounts. This amount was rejected in the Administration’s books as unauthorised expenditure and was reported to the Auditor-General as such.

The circumstances sketched above were presented as evidence in detail by the accounting officer of the Administration: House of Representatives during his appearance before the House Committee on Public Accounts, Own Affairs: House of Representatives. The committee considered the evidence and in its report recommended that the amount of R29 496 312,31 be made available for the specific purpose by the House of Representatives. Consequently the unauthorised expenditure of R29 496 312,31 must be authorised in terms of section 33(3)(a) of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1957, Act No 76 of 1957.

In order to implement said provision, this Bill is being submitted to the House for consideration today.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Official Opposition we support this Bill. [Interjections.] Yes, we support it on the grounds that the motivation for this expenditure was honourable. It was done in the interest of the people. Therefore provision is made under the Act for this unauthorised expenditure to be approved. This is the whole essence of this kind of legislation.

It brings me to the other part of the report by the resolution of the House committee on the question of expenditure with regard to the Toam computers in two of our schools. [Interjections.] This decision by the House to have the money defrayed by other means is part of the report and flows from the report.

Why was the same not done with the so-called unauthorised expenditure by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, which was me at the time? I want to read the relevant section of the report:

It is childish to make such a statement. No Minister can sign any cheques with regard to his budget. No Minister can decide to make unauthorised expenditure. We have what is known in Afrikaans as a “rekenpligtige amptenaar wat vir alle uitgawes verantwoordelikheid neem”. In any case, if the Director-general felt that this expenditure was wrong in principle, that it did not conform to prescribed procedures, he should have told the Minister concerned that he disagreed; that the Minister could not spend that money. He should have told the Minister in writing that he refused to pay out that amount. [Interjections.] He had the power to do that. However, I am apparently accused of making unauthorised expenditure. R29 million of unauthorised expenditure for the health and welfare portfolio is, in a way, written off. There is a possibility that I am expected to repay R50 000.

Let us look at this. When I, as Minister of Education and Culture in my time, took the decision that it was absolutely essential that we introduce the most modern technical aids in our schools—the computer for example—it was done with the full knowledge of the Ministers’ Council. At every point I reported on progress made.

The story is in fact that the firm who provided two computer systems as demonstration models for approximately a year or more in two of our schools here in Cape Town…

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must bear in mind that we are discussing health services and welfare.

Mr Chairman, it flows from a report.

Order! I have afforded the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition the opportunity to state his case, but I only mention it in order for him to notice that the unauthorised expenditure for which approval is being asked now has a bearing on health services and welfare. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, however, is now talking about education and I ask him to bring it into context.

I am bringing it into context, Sir, as it is part of the report that I have in my hand. It is stated there that the hon the Minister of the Budget tabled the resolution of the House Committee. In one of the resolutions reference is made to the unauthorised expenditure of the Department of Health Services and Welfare and the second is the unauthorised expenditure… [Interjections.] I have it here with me and that is how I bring it into context.

Order! All right, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may continue.

The Chairman does not understand.

Order! No, I understand. I can use my own head; I do not have to listen to the hon member for Esselen Park!

Mr Chairman, I am very worried. I get all kinds of strange thoughts in my head that what is all right for one Minister in terms of unauthorised expenditure does not apply to another Minister when the motivation is identical. It was done in the interest of the community. I have no reservations about saying that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare made this unauthorised expenditure in the interest of the community. That is why we support the Bill.

What happened was this: The firm that supplied the Toam systems made available two of them to two of our schools here in the Peninsula as demonstration models over a certain period in order to prove the efficiency and the efficacy of these models. Is that correct or not? [Interjections.] That hon member will hear it again because we are busy here with fair dealing and not the tyranny of the majority. [Interjections.] That is what we are dealing with and I suspect this is what is happening in this House. The majority party is so aware of its power that is ready to bulldoze through any decisions that it likes. [Interjections.] Here is a classical example of that kind of thing.

On the request of the principals of the two schools…

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister of the Budget was not even present on the Ministers’ Council at the time and I am telling him what exactly happened. With the approval of the Ministers’ Council I acceded to the request of the headmasters of the two schools to please allow the systems to remain there because at the end of the demonstration period they had to be returned to their suppliers. The principals said these children should not be deprived of an aid which is proving very effective because their work had improved a hundredfold and more. On those grounds I appealed to the Ministers’ Council and I got approval for that expenditure. It is as unauthorised as the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare’s R29 million, and we are talking here about R50 000 only.

Where is my cheque book? I shall give the money now. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Border must contain himself! [Interjections.] We are not playing games.

Yes, these are serious matters.

I am saying these things in the light of justice and fair play. I am certain if I were still a member of the LP today this matter would have been dealt with in exactly the same fashion as the unauthorised expenditure of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for pledging his support to this Bill. I accept that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has the interests of our community at heart and that is the reason why he has supported this Bill, which to a great extent helped to free our people from their poverty.

I want to say a word or two about the issue of the Toam computer systems. The House Committee on Public Accounts held a meeting this morning and this matter was discussed in detail. It only concerned the R50 000, and we had to ascertain whether this was really used unsuccessfully. The Director-General gave evidence before the committee that these systems were purchased after they had been installed for a trial run at Porterville and Vanguard. Then a contract was entered into. Initially these systems would have cost R315 000 each, but by the time the order was placed, the price had risen from R315 000 to R365 000, which resulted in additional expenditure of R50 000.

The Director-General also explained that the hon former Minister had visited several schools at that stage, inter alia in the greater Soweto area, where the system was in operation. I personally asked whether there had been overseas visits. It was confirmed that the hon former Minister was accompanied by the Director of Education on a visit to Israel where they also investigated this and that they did this with the approval of the Ministers’ Council.

For that reason we had to decide whether or not this was unsuccessful expenditure, and because the committee would not reach finality on this, we decided to refer this matter to the State Attorney. The State Attorney will investigate the matter, and I really hope that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will be afforded the opportunity to put his case so that the State Attorney will be able to decide in due course whether that money was used unsuccessfully. [Interjections.] That is our side of the case. The House Committee adopted a purely subjective standpoint and we believe that the course of the investigation will be fair.

When we come back to the Bill before the House, I want to mention that we support it totally. I want to point out to hon members that the hon the Deputy Minister singled out three aspects in particular. He referred firstly to the entire matter of the increase in the means test—upwards of course—against which we all agitated and in connection with which we submitted that our people where being deprived of a pension.

It is also very important that many MPs went out and informed many of our people, who were not only impoverished as a result of a political system, but who also never applied for allowances because of ignorance, accordingly, with the result that they did apply for them. This is cause number two.

In the past few years this country has experienced an economic recession which has resulted in many people being dismissed. The Ministers’ Council seriously considered taking these people into consideration. That is why we established this emergency assistance scheme, to provide our people, who have become needy owing to the economic recession, with a livelihood.

I should like to refer to statistics. I want to point out to hon members that in the two financial years, 1985-86 and 1986-87, the number of beneficiaries increased by no fewer than 13 522. Of necessity this resulted in greater expenditure for the Treasury. We have discussed the matter of the means test. The means test was increased from R1 164 to R1 464 in the case of disability and maintenance grants, and it was increased to R1 524 in the case of old-age pensions and pensions for the blind. This means that so many more people would qualify.

In the financial year under discussion the disability grant was increased by R25, and the same also applies to maintenance grants. The foster parent grant was increased by R18 per month, and the old-age pension and the pension for the blind by R30, while the war veterans’ pension was increased by R90,50. Obviously this would result in additional expenditure.

It is very important to remember that the hon the Deputy Minister mentioned that an additional R22 million was voted in the additional appropriation for that year and that this was still not sufficient. The emergency assistance scheme cost an additional R2 609 945 and this may be ascribed to the tremendous and unexpected increase in applications in terms of the emergency assistance schemes for unemployed persons which were established to give financial assistance to persons who lost their jobs as a result of the poor economy. For example, financial assistance was given to 9 552 families in the 1986-87 financial year compared with 15 984 families in the 1987-88 financial year. This represents an increase of 57,9%. For that reason this expenditure is quite simply justified and I believe it was done with the good intention of assisting our people. We take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am very concerned because in one day I have heard two versions as to what happened when this particular computer system was acquired. Earlier today in the Public Accounts Committee of this House the Director-General of the department gave evidence.

*At this stage I want to tell hon members what we were told there. According to the evidence of the Director-General, the first offer of the firm concerned which provided this equipment was not acceptable to the department. However, according to the evidence of the Director-General, two months later our then Minister of Education and Culture insisted that the system be purchased. We were told that he issued an instruction despite the attitude of the department. According to evidence of the Director-General, we also heard that at that stage the department was still of its initial opinion that this system should not be purchased. The Director-General also stated that the order for the system was not placed from his or any other official’s office, but that it was placed from the office of the then Minister. He, that is the Director-General, simply received the account which he had to pay.

Furthermore, I believe that all of us in this House will welcome the proposed enquiry because then we will be sure that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as well as the Director-General will give evidence before that committee so that we can solve the whole matter.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to answer a question?

Certainly, as far as I am able to do so, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member if at this meeting and in his presence the Director-General also said that I had received the approval of the Ministers’ Council for this purchase? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member must keep quiet.

Mr Chairman, it was indicated to us that the full…

Order! I think the hon member Mr Douw summed up the matter correctly. It was referred.

Mr Chairman, yes, it was referred for further investigation and I do not want to go into the matter any further at this stage. I trust that the two hon gentlemen will give their own evidence at that stage.

Mr Chairman, I feel privileged to have been in a position to push this kind of legislation through Parliament. This legislation is proof that every hon member in this Chamber has gone back to his constituency and has done his work. The fact that an additional R52 million was required as a result of people’s involvement with those who represented them to my mind is an absolute achievement.

It is a reflection on the entire Chamber. It can also mean that over the years our people have been robbed of that kind of money. This is a manifestation of the fact that participation was absolutely necessary because, if we had not been here, there would not have been this additional expenditure of R52 million. Therefore, without making any excuses, I say that I am proud to be a party to this piece of legislation.

To use this legislation to cover up one’s own failures will fool absolutely nobody. Either one supports the socio-economic upliftment of one’s people, or one does not, but one does not apply half measures. This is why I would like to thank all hon members, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon nominated member Mr Douw and the hon member for Diamant, for taking part in this debate. I expected more hon members to use the opportunity to state the reason for their presence here. They are here so that money which rightfully belongs to people will find its way to them.

Mr Chairman, I take exception when people use the opportunity to misinform the Chamber.

There is a difference between unauthorised expenditure and fruitless expenditure. Let me explain the little I know about the situation to hon members.

*What happened with regard to the Toam situation? An agreement was concluded that something would be purchased. The authorisation of the Ministers’ Council was obtained for that purpose. [Interjections.]

†Noise has never been intelligent. [Interjections.] What happened there was that they did not spend the authorised amount.

†They paid an amount much higher than the value of what was purchased. That is what the investigation is all about. I do not want to say anything else about that. In my opinion the matter is sub judice, because it is still being investigated.

What I should like to convey to hon members is that it is absolutely essential for people to find themselves here once again after the election. I should like to congratulate every hon member of this House on his participation and contribution to the success of this House. As I said, the R52 million forms part of that.

This was my first opportunity to pilot legislation through here, but it is probably also the last opportunity in the history of this section of Parliament that I shall pilot something of this nature through. Mr Chairman, consequently I want to extend special thanks to you as the presiding officer. I also want to thank the hon the Chairman of Committees. He is not going to return, because he is going to retire. He deserves his retirement, because he is a man who has performed miracles in his community. He has sacrificed his entire life for the community and feels that he must retire now and give others a chance.

I also want to congratulate and thank the hon the Deputy Chairman of Committees, because he must have had the most difficult task in this House in that he has had to maintain order and keep the House on the right course. I convey my sincere thanks to him. I cannot forget, however, that other officials assisted him in this process. I also want to thank them, and everyone who has played a part in the smooth operation of the proceedings in this House. †I want to thank my own officials. In the short period that I have occupied this post they have certainly proven to me that they are worthy of the positions that they hold and that I can rely on them. I want to thank them all for a job well done. I am not doing the official thanks, however. That should be done at the conclusion of the session and that is tomorrow.

†I want to thank all the hon members for their support of this legislation and especially the hon members who took part in the debate. Things can only proceed even more smoothly in future.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a first time.

Schedule agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, while it is to be hoped that the need for the appointment of a House Committee with the brief given to this particular one should never arise again, such an ideal situation—it must be realised—will depend entirely on members of Parliament accepting that making wild, unsubstantiated, careless and malicious accusations under privilege tends to impair the dignity of Parliament.

I would like to read the findings of the committee so that this matter can be clearly understood:

[Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have just heard someone say “like hell”. I would like to know who it was and why he said that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that remark.

We have here a classic case of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives having made spurious allegations about the majority party on the strength of what three persons told him. One of them was a Press reporter who writes in the “Coloured” section of a Sunday newspaper. The remaining two were mischievous MPs. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition admitted under questioning that, other than his own two letters addressed to Mr Speaker and a reply from Mr Speaker, he had absolutely no material evidence to advance to substantiate his story.

This morning, while I was at a caucus meeting, it became clear that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not realise that the report was already printed and distributed to all members. After I had received my copy of the report in my pigeon hole, I received a copy of an additional letter from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. This letter is quite revealing. It says:

I do not need to read the rest of the letter.

Read it! Read it!

I may do it later on. The point that I want to make is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition obviously regards statements made in a newspaper as being documentary proof of a fact.

Why don’t you read your leader’s statement? He has not repudiated…

I shall do it at a later stage. The point I want to make is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition…

He is an idiot.

… I would not like to say he is an idiot… has obviously been under the impression that a newspaper article constitutes documentary evidence of something that has happened. As much as he has that preconception, he regards hearsay evidence—whatever that may be—as something that can be upheld in court. This is where the whole problem arose in the first place.

What is particularly noteworthy is that despite the fact that a notice of meeting had been served on time, and regardless of the details of the meeting that had been included on the Order Paper—hon members will know that the Order Paper is the menu for starved MPs—and, perhaps because of announcements over the intercom and hunts that followed which involved the office of the Serjeant-at-Arms, the hon member for Bishop Lavis, who happened to present himself before and after the committee meeting in the Chamber of Parliament from which the other members excused themselves, simply could not be found in the precincts of Parliament. It is reported to me that his office was open; his briefcase stood on his desk, available to the world. The hon member himself could not be found, however. This was found particularly distressing because the committee would have preferred to have him present. We wanted him to be present so that we could not be accused again of doing things underhand.

You did not look hard enough.

What more should we have done? [Interjections.] The hon member for Matroosfontein says we should have tried harder. Can he recommend to us what we should have done to find his colleague who should have known that he had to be present at this committee meeting? It shows how ignorant that hon member is. [Interjections.]

We would have preferred him to be present in order to have the full committee on duty—as we in the LP were. The most pathetic aspect of the proceedings was the initial refusal of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to present himself to give evidence before the committee.

What did he say? He sent the message that he was prepared to come and give evidence provided the hon member for Bishop Lavis was there. [Interjections.] What were we to do to see to it that the colleague or follower of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition would know that he had to be at the meeting?

He is a legitimate member of the committee who received notice of the meeting in time and who was being hunted for all over the precincts of Parliament. He receives an Order Paper every day. He failed to do his duty just like he normally fails even to come and sit here to decorate the furniture. He failed in his duty because he chickened out and actually dropped his hon leader. That is why it was deplorable for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to make that point.

During the debate on the interim report hon members of the Official Opposition accused the majority party of not wishing to conclude the business of the committee before the dissolution or prorogation of Parliament. That very non-presence of the hon member for Bishop Lavis in the face of an obvious anxiousness of the remaining members of the committee to conclude business must negate that very argument.

They were the ones who said that we were stalling. We set down dates and times for meetings in order that we could let the committee function and conclude its business. That hon member failed to turn up at the meetings. We turned up and concluded our business.

Mr Chairman, what is this debate concerned with? It is concerned with a speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition of this House in the Chamber of Parliament on 6 April. What did he say? I refer to the English edition of Hansard of 6 April, col 4854. I quote:

That was what he said. That is where the alleged reflection comes into question. I continue to quote from Hansard of 6 April, col 4855:

What was the reaction of the hon the leader of the LP, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council? Did he deny that?

No!

No, he concedes that point! He has never denied that a suggestion was made. [Interjections.] Yes, he said a suggestion was made and he went on. That is why I got up in the House and said they were quite wrong if they thought that money belonged to them. The money belongs to Parliament. The hon the leader of the LP had that matter discussed in their caucus. It was discussed that those claims should be submitted. He did not deny that.

The Chief Whip of the LP…

The people’s court!

Order! I see the name of the hon member for Border is on the speakers’ list. He can talk about the people’s court when he has a turn to speak.

The hon member for Bethelsdorp moved a motion for this committee be appointed to investigate the matter. How does one investigate something? One makes thorough enquiries. The committee knew that these false invoices had been submitted to the head of finance. [Interjections.] Hon members know that. Who is the person who can resolve the matter? Naturally it is the head of finance. He can say the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is talking nonsense; that no such invoices were ever submitted. [Interjections.] That is what I told him, and that would have resolved the whole matter.

I asked the head of finance this morning whether or not he had been called in, because he told me last week that he had the documentation and was prepared to give evidence. He must simply be called.

I ask those hon members whether the LP is interested in the truth or falsity of the allegations. Are they interested? There is no answer. [Interjections.] Once again I ask whether they are interested in hearing the truth from the head of finance. If so, why did they not invite him to give evidence? [Interjections.] The hon member for Haarlem probably does not know that when I had served on that committee for half an hour, I was voted out because they were afraid to hear the truth. Why did the LP not invite the head of finance to give evidence? He was prepared to do so, and he has the documentation. [Interjections.] Is the LP interested in the alleged false invoices? Why did they not request that the invoices serve as evidence before the committee?

†Why did they not ask for those invoices, allegedly false claims, dated 19 December which was a holiday? Why did they not ask that the invoices be submitted to their committee to ascertain the truth? Are they interested in hearing the truth?

Are the hon members of that committee interested in the person whose name was disclosed in the letter to Mr Speaker? [Interjections.] It is one of their members. We said that he was persuaded to submit a false claim for something like R2 000. Are they interested in him and his welfare? Why did they not call him to give evidence? Why did they not say: “Come along, Mr Dunn, and tell our committee that that is a blatant lie”?

*They merely succeeded in persuading an old and sickly man to sign a false claim. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member said that we had used someone to submit a false claim. The hon member is repeating things that this committee investigated, and once again is accusing us of them.

That was not investigated! [Interjections.] That is our complaint! [Interjections.] Why then was the hon member for Natal Interior not called and told that his name had appeared in a letter to Mr Speaker? He should have been told that this did not refer to him; that it referred to a certain other person. Why was this not done? [Interjections.] What they did was to bring the gratuity and pension of that old chap, who now wants to retire from Parliament, into question, but we are not going to leave matters at that. [Interjections.] We are going to carry on. [Interjections.] We are going to make sure that the voters and the whole of South Africa hear the truth!

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Haarlem, what do the farms have to do with this? [Interjections.] Order! Which hon member spoke about a farm? [Interjections.] Order! I would be grateful if the hon member would stand when addressing the Chair. [Interjections.]

I spoke about honesty, Sir. Those hon members came here through the LP. If they were honest, they would have resigned, and then they could have… [Interjections.]

Order! I merely said the hon member should stand when addressing the Chair. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Haarlem does not want to know the truth! [Interjections.]

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon member for Daljosaphat, but his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, in the first place certain allegations were made against me. I was in Parliament, but I received no notification or letter to say that there would be a meeting. [Interjections.] I did not receive anything. A letter is always sent to one in Parliament to say what is going to happen, but in this case I did not receive a letter. With reference to the fact that this was announced over the loudspeaker, I want to say that I was at the office. [Interjections.] I did not hear anything, however.

I want to go a little bit further. I think an important point that was raised was that certain names were mentioned, but the committee did not go so far as to set the matter straight with regard to these people whose names were mentioned in documents, letters or newspapers once all the evidence had been heard. No, the committee immediately took the short-cut to get out of the matter and stop asking for names. I should like to endorse that. At the end of the day, who is the accountant who has to look after the financial side of Parliament? Surely it would have been best to have called in that person to ask him whether he had any knowledge of any documentary proof that claims had been submitted to him.

†However, this committee did not see fit to do that. Let us call in the man who is actually responsible for these payments. However, the committee decided no, that must not be done—that must be left untouched.

*The committee decided that that should not be done, but then the committee did something else. If this committee had wanted to expose the matter completely, they would have called all the people whose names had been mentioned as witnesses. Only one witness was called, however, and they left it at that. The committee was quite satisfied to blazon abroad that the allegations that had been made were untrue. If this committee had wanted to do its work in a sincere and honest way, it should have said: “These are the people who stood accused and these were the people that we have summoned and this is the evidence that these people have given.”

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Border must stop making facetious remarks. The hon member for Bishop Lavis may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If I heard the hon member for Bishop Lavis correctly he reflected on the manner in which the committee operated by saying: “As die komitee korrek en eerlik wou optree…”. From that I gather that he tried to say that the committee did not do its work properly.

Order! Yes, that is correct, and that is why he is substantiating what he is trying to say.

Since allegations are being made—that is why I adhere to that—these people had to be called in and their names cleared. [Interjections.] Yes, Joubertina is also a piece of gossip. Nothing happens there. The hon member must go and work in his constituency for a change.

Order! The hon member for Matroosfontein must leave the hon member for Haarlem in peace. [Interjections.]

There is the other point about newspapers. Newspapers are admissible!… [Interjections.] In terms of the Evidence Act! How many times has it happened that that very newspaper reporter has touched on an issue and has scratched it open? We have seen it not only once, but even these people were called in.

If they really wanted to test the veracity of it, they could even have called in the newspapers, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has mentioned.

Therefore I feel that this committee could not have submitted a full and fair report at this stage, and the evidence given here is insufficient. Therefore we do not support this.

Mr Chairman, I wish to ask any reasonable man what one does in a situation when one receives a telephone call 10 minutes before the time to inform one that a committee of investigation would be sitting and taking evidence. It was also purely incidental that I was in my office when the call came, because I was on my way to take my wife to get medical attention. Is that fair? They must answer me: Is that fair and reasonable? [Interjections.] No.

The next thing that happened was that I asked the person who ’phoned me whether the whole committee was present. He told me that one member of the committee, the hon member for Bishop Lavis, was not present. [Interjections.] Obviously I was concerned about his absence from that committee, because the committee comprised almost exclusively—with the exception of one member—of hon members of the majority party against whom the allegations were being made. [Interjections.] That was not a court of law which is supposed to be objective… [Interjections.] Ah! Thank you for admitting that the LP is in charge here! The LP is in the majority.

I shall repeat my charge: This is the tyranny of the majority. [Interjections.] This is where power tends to corrupt, where people feel so confident that with a majority they can do anything, and they are prepared to do it.

I received a 10-minute notification of this meeting. We are now attacked, because the hon member for Bishop Lavis was not present. It was a fair question on my part, because I had to face a battery not of objective members, but members who are party to the situation insofar as the allegations are made against their party. One can never compare that to a court of law. There was no objectivity there. [Interjections.] I had a right to ask whether the hon member of Bishop Lavis would be present, as I would hesitate to give evidence if he were not there. [Interjections.]

I was then told by the secretary, that one could not do that. There was a quorum and I would have to appear. On those grounds I went and I gave evidence, but I registered a strong protest about the short notice I was given which was totally unfair.

The next thing that happened was that I was asked to take the oath. There are several oaths. I took an oath in this House some time ago, the oath of allegiance to the Republic of South Africa. That is one oath. There is also an oath in a court of law which one takes to promise to tell the truth. I had to remind the chairman of this and to ask him what oath he was talking about.

Order! Which chairman is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition talking about? Is it me he is talking about?

I beg your pardon, Sir. I was talking about the chairman of the committee. I am talking specifically about the committee which sat yesterday afternoon.

He finally stated what oath and I said that I was of course prepared to tell the truth and nothing else. However, within half an hour that committee had completed its business. [Interjections.] It had prepared the report and said that on the flimsy evidence that I had presented they had taken a decision. [Interjections.] However, let me read the essence of the Motion and here I want to thank the Chief Whip for formulating his motion so clearly that nobody could make any mistake about its intention. I quote from the Order Paper:

*It reads: “… om getuienis af te neem en stukke te vorder.”

†What other documents were before that committee besides what I took there? Important documents that would have proved my case to the hilt were deliberately, and I say this word deliberately, excluded from being presented before that committee. Let me remind the hon member for Wentworth, if he is not aware, that under the law of evidence newspapers are admissible. [Interjections.] This totally rebuts your idea that newspapers do not constitute evidence. To prove that, the hon member for Wentworth as the chairman of that committee refused to quote the paragraphs I especially highlighted for him and which I submitted this morning. He deliberately refused to do so… [Interjections.] No, he did not do that.

I am coming to that.

It is too late now. He should have done that when he opened my letter and noted my quote. The interesting thing is that I thought they were still busy with their proceedings—winning evidence and getting people to appear before them. That is why early this morning I prepared further evidence in writing. I asked my secretary quickly to present it to the chairman of that committee. However, lo and behold, the report was already out and in the cubby-holes. [Interjections.] The report was finished and completed. Hamlet talks about the “incestuous haste” of his uncle to jump into bed with his mother. [Interjections.] This is after murdering Hamlet’s father. However, I will not use the word incestuous but it is the most indecent haste with which this committee within half an hour investigated this case and then on the same day prepared a report and now expects us to vote on it. I am sorry, but this is totally unacceptable. I will wait to hear what this House decides and then we will decide what to do.

[Inaudible.]

Order! Does the hon member for Border realise that if he carries on like that I am entitled not to call upon him to speak in spite of what is written here. [Interjections.] Order! I am merely mentioning this and I now call upon the hon member to speak. The hon member may speak now, and when other hon members are speaking this hon member must keep quiet.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The hon member for Dysselsdorp must not make such a noise that it sounds as if I am making a noise. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, if we look at the lights above us we will see that there are nine of them that are not on. [Interjections.]

Order! What is the hon member implying?

Mr Chairman, there are two opposition parties, one of which has seven members and the other two members. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, here in my hand I have a piece of paper on which is written: “The deformed Democratic Party received R1 million towards the election and R120 000 towards the cost of newspaper adverts.” [Interjections.] Hon members must wait a moment. I have now read this: “The deformed Democratic Party received R1 million towards the election and R120 000 towards the cost of newspaper adverts.” If this matter is to be investigated to ascertain whether or not this is the truth, I must hand in this piece of paper. Because I am handing in this piece of paper it must be deduced that this is the truth because it is written on a piece of paper. [Interjections.]

†The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not know his law. He wants to bring the newspaper along as proof of the truth of the contents within the newspaper, in the article. That is not done. [Interjections.] Nobody brings along a newspaper to prove the contents thereof to be true. Here I have a piece of paper which says that those hon members received R1 million. [Interjections.]

But you wrote it!

Mr Chairman, precisely. I wrote it. [Interjections.] That is exactly the argument. Does this piece of paper prove that the hon member received the R1 million? It does not. Whatever is in the newspaper, is not proof of the truth thereof.

*You are falling into the trap! The hon members now want to imply that it is the truth if it is said in the newspaper that Nic Isaacs is a fool. [Interjections.]

That is true.

Surely that is not true.

Order! Will the hon the Deputy Minister withdraw that remark?

Mr Chairman, must I withdraw that the newspapers were wrong? Very well, the newspapers were wrong.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister said that this was true.

Mr Chairman, then it is not true.

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must keep quiet, because I am proving to him that he is wrong. I repeat that the existence of a document does not mean that its contents are the truth, or are hon members disputing this?

You never write the truth!

Are they disputing this? [Interjections.] This shows precisely… [Interjections.] They are now shouting and making such a fuss… [Interjections.] According to their argument we must accept that what is stated here is the truth.

Order!

Mr Chairman, what was the function of this committee? The committee had to ascertain what the truth was. Not so? The first witness, the chief witness, had absolutely nothing…

He was not the only witness.

It does not matter whether he was the only witness. He was the chief witness. He came to light with gossip-mongering tales, as I have just proved, and he wanted the committee members to waste their time investigating these tales. This means that they can now request a special committee to investigate the fact that I have insulted them by saying that they received R1 million, and a further R120 000 to cover the cost of newspaper adverts. They can therefore request an investigation! [Interjections.] We will then appear before the committee and I will say that I wrote it myself. What will the committee do then? The committee must then throw out the case, in the same way the committee threw out the case because the chief witness came to light with absolute nonsense. [Interjections.] Are the hon members so stupid? Must I state the question even more clearly? [Interjections.] Are they that stupid?

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Border cannot say that other hon members are stupid. The hon member must withdraw that remark.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it and say that the others are not that stupid.

Order! The hon member is now simply using a synonym. I think the hon member knows what a synonym is, not so?

Yes. I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I also withdraw my remark.

Order! I appreciate that.

Mr Chairman…

Order! Does the hon member for Daljosaphat want to withdraw a remark too? [Interjections.]

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

Any time!

Does the hon member for Border mean that his party’s hon Chief Whip is being stupid when he introduces a motion in this House that this matter must be investigated?

Mr Chairman, I do not mean that the hon the Chief Whip is being stupid when he introduces this motion; hon members who appear before the committee without the truth in their possession are stupid. In that sense the hon the Chief Whip is not stupid. [Interjections.] The hon members who put the question are answering it themselves!

There was a lot of whining here about short notice. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that this House is adjourning tomorrow and that I was prepared to give evidence at any time. However, he is not complaining about the evidence, but about the short notice he received. What is important is the evidence. In his own words he said that he gave “flimsy evidence”. [Interjections.] I am quoting him, hon members can look this up in Hansard. They will see the following: “… on the flimsy evidence I presented…”. Those were his own words. [Interjections.] Now he wants to dispute his own words!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is misleading this House. I was referring to the attitude of the committee members that I was presenting flimsy evidence. I did not say that I was presenting flimsy evidence.

Mr Chairman, I was using the hon the Leader’s words.

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition explained in what context he had said it.

I am referring to the same context. [Interjections.] I am referring to precisely the same context in which he said that he had presented “flimsy evidence”. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is now whining about his own “flimsy evidence”! [Interjections.] This just shows how good a member of the Labour Party is; he even helps the opposition.

I merely want to make the matter clear. We were dealing with a criminal case. This shows what false evidence…

Order! No, what we are dealing with now has nothing to do with that. The hon member for Border is very clever, but he must now come back to the report.

That is the third remark I want to make, namely that those hon members can rake up anything and misrepresent it as the truth. They said that a certain case had been won, because the person was found not guilty. This is of great importance to them. The hon member was merely a witness. Consequently he was not the one who won the case.

Order! The hon member must stop discussing that now and come back to the report.

I now come to the argument of these hon members. They are now complaining because the committee did its work so thoroughly. They allege that the committee acted like a court. However, when the chief witness was asked for his evidence, he had nothing. He said that he had heard this, that and the other. He wrote a letter based on what he had heard someone say over the telephone. Why did he not say that he did not know what was going on and that he was simply exploiting the situation and was insulting us in order to possibly win a few votes in the election. Thus far their entire campaign has been along these lines. [Interjections.] Surely that is true. They have more debts than principles and that is the truth. [Interjections.]

You are not going to succeed in getting nominated.

We are not going to see this hon member here at all next time. He is like one of those little lights up there that have fused. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must now confine himself to the report.

Sir, when I met this hon member he had a full head of hair and that is a fact. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In 1975 the LP cut this hon member’s political throat by refusing to nominate him.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Sir, in this election we are going to polish his political bald pate to an even more brilliant gloss. [Interjections.]

The only hon member on the opposition side who contributed to a reasonable argument here was the hon member for… [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, earlier this afternoon the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in his address spoke about being what he called fair and reasonable. He purported that the committee which investigated this matter was neither fair nor reasonable. As an example he referred to the fact, in his own words, “that he was called to give evidence ten minutes before the committee was due to sit”. That is a totally wrong statement. Firstly, the fact of the matter is that this committee started sitting at 15h30 yesterday afternoon. Secondly, it had gone through its brief and then, because it did not want to drag its feet, it decided that it was also going to take evidence that same day. It was going to take evidence because it did not want the Official Opposition or any other party to say that we were not trying to bring this matter to a head and that we were going to drag it out in such a way that a decision could not be reached. In other words we are accused of not being fair and reasonable when, in fact we set out to be fair and reasonable and to get a decision so that everybody can see what the position is.

Secondly, much was said this afternoon about documents and the fact that certain people were supposedly not called to present certain documents. The fact of the matter is that the committee sat and we gave the hon member for Southern Cape every opportunity to say whatever he had to say, but not once during that period did he ask the committee to call on certain people to present certain documents. On the contrary, unlike the attitude which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition adopts today, and despite the fact that we are being told that these documents are of the utmost importance to the investigation, they were surely not even once referred to by him to be brought to the committee for investigation?

He said so in his speech in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, it was said in the House this afternoon that it is a disgrace that the benefits of an elderly and sickly man are being jeopardised. If such a person’s name was mentioned, let us ask who mentioned it in the first place in a letter to an official of this Parliament. Was it not the Official Opposition? And did they not, as a result of that, jeopardise the benefits of this sickly old man? We must not point fingers if we suffer from the same illness.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member which party it was that persuaded that sickly old man to hand in a false invoice to the head of finance?

Mr Speaker, the committee’s report is there for everyone to read, and from this report it is quite obvious that it was mere gossip. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Daljosaphat also mentioned certain facts and he referred to certain reports which had to be presented. What is the situation? A document, which was supposed to be a letter, was presented to this committee. Certain statements were made in this letter. Do we have to say that those statements are facts? Let me also say that the hon member for Southern Cape was repeatedly asked as a witness whether or not he had any documents. He kept on saying, “I have no documents in my possession.”

What are the documents that are being referred to? It is a sorry state of affairs that this afternoon this House had to be treated to what I can only call a spectacle. When we remove the chaff from the allegation and the overheated emotion from the debate on this report, it cannot be denied that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who made the allegation, was given a fair chance to state his case.

Secondly, he told the investigating committee under oath that his allegations were based on hearsay. This question was asked pertinently. His allegations are mere gossip.

Thirdly, if the opposition has to blame anyone in connection with the way this investigation took place, it has no other alternative but to censure the hon member for Bishop Lavis, for he was not present when the committee met.

Fourthly, I want to point out that much has been said about hon members not receiving a notice of this meeting. However, on page 320 of the Order Paper there appears an item which reads as follows:

It is on the Order Paper of Wednesday, 24 May. It is there for everyone to see on the Order Paper of Wednesday, 24 May. Although this notice of the meeting was among the orders placed on the Order Paper, he was not present.

Fifthly, regardless as to how the hon members of the Official Opposition might protest, the fact is that they rested their case on hearsay and on—what we call in Afrikaans—“skinderstories”. This was all that this committee had in front of it.

Mr Speaker, since this whole matter has been dealt with so extensively and intensively by the hon colleagues there is not much for me to add to what they said. However, I would like to respond to a few statements that were made here.

Firstly, the hon member for Daljosaphat—I think that is the name of his constituency; I wonder whether he knows the name—has to understand something that can perhaps be put a bit more graphically to him. If somebody alleges that he heard from someone else, for example, that the hon member for Matroosfontein had been fiddling with his tax payments over the past 10 years—hon members must listen clearly to what I am saying—can that person then expect a committee to call in the tax officials and to bring forward all the tax papers of the person who is chosen as the victim in this case and then to investigate this fully? Can it be reasonably expected? On what grounds is such a committee expected to operate?

One cannot take serious action on trivial allegations. One has to be certain that the matter is worth investigating and that there are grounds for investigation before one starts taking it seriously.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis cannot get past the fact that he had ample opportunity to know about the meeting. If he says he did not receive his notice of the meeting on time, does it not look strange that all the remaining members received their notices? Who is he then blaming for that? Is he saying that the secretariat and officials are not efficient? I see the hon member prefers to walk out. I wish to aver that the integrity of officials and the secretariat is being questioned by that hon member. Every effort was made to bring him to the meeting. As the hon member for Diamant pointed out, the meeting was clear for all hon members of Parliament to see on the Order Paper.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition complains that he was given 10 minutes’ notice. I want to point out that every effort was made to find the hon member—not by us but by the efficient officials. They happened to find him. Hence they asked him to come and give evidence. Had the hon member not been able to come and give evidence, we would have sat this morning to hear his evidence instead of yesterday. He has to grant us that he happened to be available. Hence we took his evidence then. However, we would not have continued without his evidence since he is the principal witness in this case.

As far as the whole matter of the oath is concerned, the hon member made a rather snide remark about me as chairman having asked him whether he was prepared to take the oath. I regard that as normal procedure. One has to ask whether a witness is prepared to take the oath because he may not wish to take the oath. He may wish to take the affirmation. In fact, I believe, according to the rules, a member may even refuse to take the affirmation, but then of course he takes it upon himself to answer truthfully as he is then warned that he has to answer truthfully. There are, for example, religious grounds which may preclude someone from taking the oath and compel him rather to take the affirmation. It is normal procedure.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also spoke about an indecent haste and he even quoted Shakespeare. I did not like that, but never mind my likes and dislikes. He quoted Shakespeare in proving his point about the indecent haste. However, I say again that it was the very hon members of the Official Opposition who called upon us to conclude our work. They made the allegation that we were stalling for time and that we did not want to complete the work before Parliament suspended business. It was, however, in an effort to accommodate hon members of the Official Opposition that things were speeded up. We would have spread it over weeks if they liked, if time had allowed and if they had not been so insistent that the matter should be concluded. That, along with the fact that no evidence was produced and that the committee found that there were no grounds for investigation, makes nonsense of this Shakespearian analogy.

Finally, it is my pleasant duty to thank my hon colleagues who have made the time to serve on this committee and to study whatever there was to be studied—all the newspaper reports and later the letters. I would also like to thank the secretariat and the officials of Parliament for their tremendous efficiency and for having dealt with the printing and for having done all the work so promptly as requested by hon members of the Official Opposition.

Report adopted (Official Opposition dissenting).

Order! The following finding is reached in the last paragraph of the report:

The report is now a decision of the House. I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he is prepared to comply with the recommendation of the report.

Mr Speaker, may I say a few words or must I simply reply yes or no?

The hon member may say a few words, but he may not make a speech. I give him an opportunity to motivate his standpoint.

Mr Speaker, you made it quite clear that this is a decision of this House. It is therefore not a decision only of one particular party in this House. In order to preserve the good order of Parliament—I am not prepared to defy that—and in spite of all my objections by which I still stand and all my protests which I am not going to renounce, I am prepared to apologise to Parliament.

Hear, hear!

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has complied with the decision of this House, which in my opinion is a very honourable thing to do. That complies with the recommendation of the committee, which has become a ruling of the House, and disposes of the report as discussed by the House today.

Before the House adjourns, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to all hon members, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, the hon the Leader of the House, the hon the Chief Whip, all the Whips and all the parties in the House for their pleasant co-operation with the Chair and also with me as Speaker of Parliament during this session and during the lifetime of this Parliament.

The past five years have been a very interesting experience for all of us. It has been especially interesting to me because I worked with hon members of this House in two ways—in the executive and also from the Chair, and I found that in particular very interesting. Since we shall adjourn tomorrow, I may wish all hon members a safe return to their homes, and I also wish all hon members who have decided to retire a pleasant period of rest and many years of good health. I want to wish all members who will once again make themselves available for election to Parliament everything of the best. May they be elected as they wish. I wish all hon members everything of the best.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on the eve of the departure of hon members who have been here for five years, I think it is important that one now taxes this administration on its achievements or on its successes over the last five years. I had hoped that the hon the Minister of the Budget would start the proceedings this afternoon with some speech which would probably have indicated to us what direction that hon Minister’s party would be taking in the elections which lie ahead.

I want to point out that we have various questions which still lack answers. We have not had answers to a number of questions. Among these is the fact that we have had problems with regard to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture who misled this House with regard to certain answers that he had furnished in this House. That still hangs in the air and that party is going into the election with that cloud still hanging over it.

Furthermore we have other problems and they are that the voters outside want to know whether this party—which had professed to be working towards clean administration—is carrying out that promise to the electorate. To my mind and from the manner in which hon members of that party try to cover up for one another, it is apparent that that party has no intention of coming it clean with the electorate.

I do not blame them for it because one gets the impression more and more that that party was only interested in one thing and that was to try and get into power; not in order to administer as cleanly as possible, but to get into power for business associates to be able to get together within that party in the positions and in the corridors of power and to carry that to their commercial enterprises outside as well.

There are certain other questions I want to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and I want to appeal to hon members to understand that, when I ask these questions, I ask them in the name of clean administration and for the sake of clearing up whatever clouds there still may be.

We are told that some hon Minister or other received an expensive gold watch as a gift; that some hon Minister or other had some company or other which had contracts given to them by that hon Minister’s department; that he had some security fencing put up and some expensive burglar alarms installed at his home. I feel that the hon the Minister who is responsible for the financial purse of this particular administration owes this House some answers.

I also want to ask certain questions with regard to some alleged forex deals. I would like to know whether the hon the Minister is aware of this, and if he could perhaps tell us whether any hon members of the Ministers’ Council are in one way or another involved in some forex deals. We are made to understand that certain shipping companies in which some hon members on that side of the House are understood to have some interest are apparently involved in something of that nature.

Then we are told about some company—and I want to make it quite clear that I was told this by the hon member for Laudium some time ago—which manufactures edible household oil and of which the hon member for Laudium was aware, had apparently received some funds—in terms of the Government’s relocation scheme into decentralised areas—for the relocation of some industry or other which had to do with the edible oil industry. These funds were apparently used, but this particular company was never relocated. These are the things we hear. When we hear these things, I believe we are entitled to come to this House to question them. The actions of any hon member of this House outside Parliament with respect to such dealings is as questionable as what he does in his Ministry. We understand that hon members on that side are experts at guiding hon members here regarding the so-called quota system in the edible oil pressing industry. I believe that these are some of the questions that need to be answered.

We from this side of the House have argued over the last few weeks that we believe that that side of the House will make own affairs work and will entrench own affairs even further. It is one thing to cry loudly outside that we have come here to loosen the nuts and bolts of apartheid, and it is another to sit here and help to tighten them.

I want to tell this House that the hon member for Laudium apparently has a complete file on the forex matter, on the oil matter and on how moneys are changing hands between different territories. I believe that he owes it not only to clean administration, but also to the decency of public life in the country, to come forward with the facts he claims he has. He told me that he had a complete file on it. I hope that he will make this available. If he does not make it available… [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon members on that side that they—and particularly the hon member for Bayview—are now acting as though they have ants in their pants. Something is biting him already.

*It is biting him in the wrong place. That is the impression I get.

†If hon members in this House know that there is something amiss, I expect it of them to make it known. However, we do, of course, know the politics of patronage in this House. I do not blame the hon member for Laudium if he does not present that file…

Sour grapes to you!

As sour as your face! Your face is sour. [Interjections.]

*You are the sourpuss.

Order! The hon member Mr Abram must contain himself and not get involved in debate across the floor. I appeal to hon members please to refrain from making interjections which can disturb the speaker.

Mr Chairman, I want to tell this House that as far as funds are concerned, even in this tricameral system, based on the ratio of 4:2:1, we are being hopelessly short-changed.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

Mr Chairman, from the hon the Deputy Minister I will take one any time.

Mr Chairman, the hon member has made numerous allegations and accusations. For my personal benefit, will he give me some evidence to support all he has said up till now, so that I can deal with these matters, because they are of concern.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister has asked a very fair question and I want to tell him that I will furnish him with the information I have.

I want to go a step further. Even if one takes the ratio of 4:2:1 on which this whole tricameral system has been based, I must tell this House that we are being hopelessly short-changed. As long as those hon Ministers are prepared to make the system of own affairs work, they will help to entrench apartheid in this country.

I now want to ask the following: In the five years that we have been here, what—if any—meaningful role has this House played in helping to map out a future in this country which will include the Black people? [Interjections.] Shut up! I am not concerned with the hon member! I am better than the hon member and I can do better than him.

Order! The hon member Mr Abram must withdraw the words “shut up” as addressed to an hon member.

He should keep quiet. I withdraw the words “shut up”. I think he should keep quiet and leave me alone so that I can finish my speech. He will also get an opportunity, if he can make a decent speech.

†We have failed miserably in making the kind of input that could give hope to the people in South Africa. We have proved to the people—all people, Black, White, blue, pink and yellow—outside Parliament that we in this House were merely concerned with one thing—the quest for power.

Talk about yourself!

We have spent all our time here in pursuit of power. Do not ask me to talk about myself. The hon member must talk about himself. That is what he wanted. What has the hon member done with the power that he has? In the last few weeks the hon member could not even tell us what he was going to do in helping the Government to implement apartheid. [Interjections.] The hon member could not even tell us how he was going to implement the apartheid administration which we have control of. [Interjections.] Therefore I feel that we are now going to face an electorate which is fully aware that all that hon members wanted in this House was for some people to be in positions of power to help the apartheid train onto the rails. That is what they have done here. [Interjections.]

I want to make another statement. I want those hon members to know that under very suspicious circumstances, when very few people knew that I would be at home on 4 January, my home was damaged by a limpet mine. Prior to that there were the municipal elections in October 1988. I was a candidate in these municipal elections, and one of the people who stood against me decided to withdraw as a candidate. Hon members belonging to that hon Minister’s party misused the SAP by sending a policeman to this candidate and asking him to make a statement to the effect that he had been threatened or bribed to withdraw as a candidate. I want to tell those hon members what will happen in the forthcoming elections. That hon member’s party will be employing dirty tricks to fight the elections. I put on record here today that already that same policeman has been approaching certain people to lure me out to try and get me into some situation or other where he would have the opportunity of shooting me. Unfortunately that hon member’s party has elements within it that cannot fight clean. We have proved one fact here. I am not trying to hold any brief for the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, the hon member for Arena Park. However, it would appear that we spent approximately five years here merely to fight a single individual in this House.

Et tu Brute!

I believe that it was necessary to see to it that there is clean administration. It was necessary to clear away whatever clouds there have been. That was done a long time ago. However, what did they do? They wanted to go even further than that. What are they doing today, after taking over the administration? Absolutely sweet fanny adams!

I want to tell the voters of this country that with that party one can expect a further entrenchment of the group and own affairs concept. They are the supporters of the NP, because none other that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council stood up here and paid a glowing tribute to his political superior and mentor, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, a member of the NP. Furthermore, the current hon leader of the NP is on record as saying that the concept of own affairs will be further entrenched and developed. The party on that side of the House will be helping the Government to do precisely that!

I want to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a question. According to an article in The Star of Friday, 4 September 1987, he said that he supported a month-long boycott of Parliament if relief from the Group Areas Act was not forthcoming from the Government. I want him to know that no relief has been forthcoming. Whatever happened to that month-long boycott of Parliament? The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is in power in this House. He has been in power for quite some time now. Did he take any steps to have that month-long boycott of Parliament? I want to tell the voters outside… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the first instance I want to take this opportunity to respond to some of the comments which have been made by the hon member Mr Abram. His style of debating is usually very robust, as was evident a few seconds ago. He attempts to make a whole lot of impressions which are baseless, unfounded and unsubstantiated, and only bring disgrace to this House. [Interjections.]

I want to address the hon member on one statement that he made. He said that we need to ask ourselves what we have done over the past four and a half years. That is a good question. I want to tell him that we have been taking stock of what has happened over the past four and half years! There was the James Commission at the end of last year, but I do not wish to repeat the findings of that commission. The findings are on record and the record speaks for itself. The hon member can go and read up what has happened over the past four and half years. The hon member is also fully aware of the recommendations contained in the report of the James Commission. Who was responsible for bringing disgrace to this House? He is just being naïve. [Interjections.]

I also want to say to the hon member if he knew about gold watches, if he knew about forex deals, if he knew about various other allegations that he made, where was he when the James Commission sat in Durban? Where was he hiding? If he knows so much that is disgraceful where was he then?

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

No Sir, I am not taking any questions. The hon member and other other hon members are using this Chamber as a forum from where they can make unsubstantiated statements, knowing full well that they enjoy the privilege and protection of Parliament. That is what brings disgrace to our community. If they had an iota of evidence, they would have taken the rightful course. I think that far too much time has been spent in this Chamber by hon members who go around making wild statements. I want to appeal to hon members…

Tell us about Dello Oil!

If the hon member knows so much about Dello Oil, why does he not tell us? Why does he not go and tell Justice James? [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon members to contain themselves while the hon member for Stanger is speaking.

I will give the hon member Dello Oil to drink! [Interjections.]

I do not think that one should waste good Dello Oil. It would not agree with some hon members’ systems. Maybe castor oil would do the trick! [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member a question. He talks about shooting. He talks about politics of patronage. I want hon members to think back on the 1984 elections. In which constituency was there any shooting during the election time? Which constituency was marred by shooting incidents? The hon member now accuses my party and says…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member trying to implicate me?

I am not implicating anybody. I just want to know which constituency was marred by shooting incidents? I take it that the hon member understands simple English. Which hon members came to the office of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in 1987 and signed a document accusing the then Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of being a dictator, a person who engaged in politics of patronage, a person who was not taking the interests of the community into account? The same person now comes here without any good reason and turns the story the other way around!

Who has been indulging in opportunism? [Interjections.] I want to appeal to hon members not to be guided by this kind of display. We came here to participate in order to serve the community that we are supposed to represent here and to address the very problems that our community has highlighted over the years. We have not come here to entrench ourselves in positions of chairmanship or other positions.

[Inaudible.]

We did not canvass all over the countryside to become ambassadors or ask people to make us ambassadors. The hon member who is shouting there knows how he canvassed to become an ambassador. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Stanger must please resume his seat. I am appealing to hon members to please contain themselves. Interjections are allowed but they must be reasonable. I shall not allow this debate to continue in this manner. The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. There is a lot of double talk and hypocrisy here. I see a motion here which says…

You are teaching us hypocrisy!

Order!

It is absolutely clear to me that the hon member for Actonville has a loud voice and a very small brain. [Interjections.]

There is a motion on the Order Paper to the effect that the tricameral system of Government be abolished and that all the people of the country be represented in one Parliament elected on a basis of universal franchise. It is a very good motion. I want to know what hon members have done to contribute towards that. What have hon members done to address the housing problems in their own constituencies? What have they been doing in this House, in debate or otherwise, to address the welfare problems?

A little more than you.

What have they been doing in this House for the past four and a half years to address the education problems, other than making personality attacks and coming here and shouting like that hon member whose intellect borders on the fringe of lunacy. That is what we have been engaging in.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I heard the hon member for Stanger saying that the hon member for Actonville’s intellect bordered on the fringe of lunacy. I submit that it is unparliamentary.

Order! If the hon member for Stanger said that, I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. I appeal to other hon members—there are only two hon members making a lot of noise here and 1 take it that other hon members have some sense of responsibility in them—to appreciate that if we want to address ourselves to the problems that face the community, we need to be united in this House. We do not have to play opposition politics for the sake of it.

And it must be clean.

I stand for clean administration. I shall not even protect a member of my own party if he is guilty. However, guilt must be proved and I will stand on the side of truth and righteousness. [Interjections.]

I have made my comments in that regard but I want to appeal to hon members that we must stop this nonsense if we want to go into an election. We must address ourselves to the issues that the community want us to address. Hon members that think they will be able to go back to the community and talk about Dello Oil and forex will find that the people are not interested in that. They are interested in their socioeconomic upliftment. [Interjections.] They are interested in our participation in order to change the Government’s attitude and to dismantle apartheid. What are we doing in that direction? We are doing nothing.

For more than four years we had a dictatorship in this House. The man is ill and I wish him well and trust that he recovers. I do not want to attack him in his absence here but we have been subjected to that type of situation. Hon members sitting on that side of the House constantly brought that to the fore. The matter was resolved after the investigations of the James Commission and every hon member in this House had the opportunity to be present at the hearings of that commission. Why did hon members not present themselves to the James Commission? Where were they hiding then?

If we want to make progress here we should unite and forget our differences. We should look at a political agenda that addresses the needs of the community.

We should, in fact, learn to forgive and forget some of the impasses that we may have had between us. This is on the eve of the election which is around the corner.

What about the R40 000 scandal?

I can assure the hon member for Reservoir Hills that the question of the R40 000 scandal of which he accuses my hon colleagues on this side…

Let us have a commission of inquiry.

Yes, I support the idea of a commission of inquiry. I say so and I have no difficulty with that. [Interjections.] Let us put the evidence before a commission of inquiry and let such a commission of inquiry establish that which is right or wrong.

[Inaudible.]

I have no difficulty with that, and I want the hon member to know that. I do not think that any hon member on this side of the House has any difficulty with that. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, my first and foremost concern is the second draft resolution among the Notices of Motion on today’s Order Paper. I am disappointed that the hon Chief Whip and the hon the Leader of the House did not put this draft resolution on the Order Paper for discussion today. It has very important implications. I received a document yesterday which contains the accusations made before this House. I trust the hon member for Reservoir Hills; I do not think that his allegations are figments of his imagination.

On the other hand, the hon member for Southern Natal gave a counter-reply to them here. There are two sides to the story and I think a debate on the draft resolution would have resolved the matter. Therefore I appeal to the hon Chief Whip and the hon the Leader of the House to try to accommodate this draft resolution later this afternoon. It will mean that we can leave here with the matter cleared up and the dirt sieved out.

Having said that, I would now like to quote from a poem by Lewis Carroll:

Today is a day of summarising the activities, the achievements and the failures of the House of Delegates. Approximately this time last year I said in the Press that the tricameral Parliament was a farce, and today I reaffirm and reassert this statement.

Can the Administration of the House of Delegates come forward and tell us that they started any new housing projects to improve the backlog of 48 000? Nothing was done. They only continued with and completed projects initiated by the former Department of Community Development.

Business as usual!

Yes, business as usual. [Interjections.] They are concentrating on the allocation of trading sites etc, so that certain hon members’ pockets are being lined. That is a matter of public concern. Even as far as the allocation of religious sites to religious groups by the House of Delegates is concerned, this has been an utter failure. This division of our department is in a shambles. These are the direct results of the existence of the tricameral Parliament and the House of Delegates.

As far my constituency is concerned, I want to place on record the cooperation to a certain extent of the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, who assisted me. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare also rendered some services to the best of his abilities.

I am a business administrator, a qualified accountant and a good farmer. I did the work of the Department of Health Services and Welfare and the Department of Housing in carrying out a physical survey of the area called Welbedacht near Durban.

I spent fourteen weeks of hard footwork and produced a written report which I presented to the Ministers’ Council as early as 2 March hoping that they would take some form of action to improve the situation. It made my heart bleed to hear last night from a visitor to that area that the water supply of the people of Chatsworth had been cut off. That is not good for the reputation of the House of Delegates.

When Ministers treat urgent matters carelessly and concentrate on personal achievements and gains, I must place my strong objections on record. Imagine people, in this modern age, having to go without water, through no fault of their own! The Durban City Council has supplied water to three major landowners. However, people who are tenants on that land have to carry water on their heads. I have seen that with my own eyes. I saw a forty-year-old lady, a twenty-year-old girl and a fifty-year-old lady having to carry water on their heads and my heart bled for them. I shed tears when I saw such things happening in this modern age.

I brought this to the attention of the Ministers’ Council. What happened?

When was that?

On 2 March I sent them a four-page letter setting out in detail…

March of which year?

On 2 March of this year. It was three months ago.

You say there is no water there?

The only response was that the matter was receiving attention. It was probably receiving attention in the cubby hole of the Minister’s offices. [Interjections.]

It has been two months.

I do not know anything about that.

March, April and May—it has been three months! [Interjections.] That matter should have received urgent attention.

In the interim, subsequent to my writing a letter to the department of the hon the Minister of Housing, the Durban City Council cut off the water supply to those people. Apparently some private individuals, out of the virtue of human compassion, are carting water there with tankers to supply these people with water. I was shocked to hear about this. Only last night I was given information by a visitor from Durban to Cape Town.

Give me the information.

I will give it to the hon the Deputy Minister later.

All that precludes the Durban City Council from supplying water to these houses is the lack of a right of way, a servitude across those huge farms—and the landlords are refusing. My submission is that if the landlords are not prepared to alleviate the suffering of their tenants that land has to be bought by the House of Delegates and we must alleviate those people’s problems. That is what I suggested in my letter, but I received no response. I was not called in to motivate my case further and I was not questioned at all about the facts I mentioned. Therefore, I took it for granted that they accepted my survey. If not they should have told me that they doubted the survey work and they had their own researchers in the field and I would be prepared to assist them.

It is a huge area and that means hours of walking up hills and down dales for days. There are no roads. It also means having to live in a hut and using a pit-toilet. In this modern age, that area still has the old pit-toilet system.

I am able to address the Ministers’ Council and I agree that when I complain I complain generally. I am not doing this for political reasons or publicity. I receive enough publicity outside. This is a matter of great concern. I am concerned about the carelessness of the Ministers’ Council. They are not interested in the suffering of 3 000 people. Who are we interested in? Are we interested in ourselves and our pay-packets? What are we interested in? That is the question.

In 1979 a township was developed in Dalton and it was declared for Indian occupation in 1980. People took occupation, and trading, commercial and religious sites were provided. People immediately applied for these sites. Up to 1984, it was the responsibility of the Department of Community Development and we had no satisfaction as regards dealing with that problem. However, from 1985 onwards, I took this up.

After all channels had been exhausted, I approached the Deputy Minister about six weeks ago and I must admit—I thank him for his cooperation—that in respect of the first assignment I asked him to do for me, he gave me a definite reply yesterday afternoon. Now at last they have arrived at the price structure and now it is to go to the Housing Board. However, I do not know for how long the Housing Board will sit on the allocation of that site. Meanwhile, people are deprived of their birthright to worship God in the place where they want to worship Him.

It won’t be long now.

It has taken five years up to now; this started in 1985 and they still have not got it.

What worries me most is the relationship between the administration of the House of Delegates and the Teachers Association. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think it is important that I respond to the hon member for Camperdown by saying that I have made urgent representations in regard to the matter that he canvassed here this afternoon. It is to be hoped that something will be done for these people; we are trying our best. We have got the approval of the owners of the farm to allow for a servitude, and at our request the local authority has agreed to reticulate the water and we will provide the finances to pay for that work. We are looking at it very seriously to see what can be done. I want to give the hon member the assurance that I appreciate and understand his concern.

Accusations have been made here which have involved me, my colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture and the hon member for Southern Natal. A few minutes ago I signed a letter addressed to the hon the State President, and I want to inform this House that, at a meeting of the Ministers’ Council today, a resolution was taken to the effect that the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates resolved today:

That is a complete travesty of the motion. You are ducking the issue. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want the right to speak. If hon members want me to go and speak outside, I shall do so.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

Allegations have been made, and we have done the honourable thing in asking the hon the State President, as a matter of urgency, to appoint a commission and to examine this matter so that the kite-flying that has been done by bankrupt politicians will come to an end and we will leave this Chamber and face the elections without this kind of allegation hanging over our heads.

Secondly, I also want to say to the hon member Mr Abram that to make allegations here makes no sense; he had the opportunity to make his allegations before the James Commission. All the allegations levelled at hon members on this side of the House…

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister prepared to accept…

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not prepared to answer a question.

All I am saying is that the James Commission invited members of Parliament, or anybody else for that matter, to submit any allegations which they considered worthy of investigation. The opportunity was afforded to all, including those hon members who used to repeat allegations in this House annually. Now that the James Commission is over, I would have thought we would make a new beginning. However, insofar as this matter of Marburg Town Board is concerned, I sincerely trust that we will all co-operate to ensure that the commission is appointed and sits as soon as possible and this matter is cleared up once and for all.

We cannot be any fairer to those who are involved than to enhance and uphold the image of this House. I plead with hon members present here not to hurl allegations across the floor. If they have any information the machinery is available and they must submit it to the hon the State President or to the Advocate-General and let them proceed with the matter. Let us get some results.

And to the Police!

And to the Police, whatever it takes.

That has been done; it has already been taken to the Police.

In the process those who make the allegations must of course also be prepared to face the consequences when the outcome of the commission is made known. That is very important because if we want to find short cuts to obtaining votes then those short cuts will be even shorter when the truth is revealed and the public stand in judgement on the proof. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, many of us were of the opinion that with the conclusion of the James Commission many of the problems in this House would become a thing of the past. I think every hon member in this House must search his heart. Merely to dwell on the shortcomings and the weaknesses of individuals—I do not say that one must not point these things out; one should do so by all means—but to use this forum merely to magnify issues without substantial evidence in some cases, is actually abusing the opportunity members of Parliament have in this House and is giving the community the wrong impression.

The man in the street wants to know what we in the House of Delegates are doing. Do we really blame them? This is a question we have to ask ourselves. Any hon member who is seeking re-election…

They are covering up!

He is not covering up!

We are not asking anyone to cover up. To recall what the hon the State President said in this very House, he said that if one had any evidence the channels were open. There is the Advocate-General. We must give evidence to him and I think if things are done that way, we will congratulate those individuals who come up with those allegations. However, let me tell hon members this…

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member if he will concede that, despite having said that in this particular Chamber, it took more than two years for the hon the State President to appoint a commission of inquiry.

Secondly, will that hon member concede that as a result of the appointment of a commission of inquiry, many of the allegations which were made in this particular Chamber were in fact upheld by the James Commission and that the points of view of many of us in this Chamber were in fact vindicated?

Mr Chairman, what has happened is history and seeing it from that point of view, the question posed by the hon member for Springfield becomes utterly irrelevant. I spoke to hon members about the Advocate-General, but what has pained me is that here a commission appointed by the hon the State President was held and it allowed every hon member across the spectrum, every parliamentarian in the first instance—let alone people from the community at large—really to grab that opportunity and place before the commission information or evidence of bribery, corruption and so forth.

For hon members now to come and mention things which happened three, five or eight years ago, certainly leaves us with an impression of bitterness. What was this man doing yesterday; or the previous day; or last October; or last September? [Interjections.]

I did so. If I had had that information I would have told them. I submitted whatever I had. Unfortunately it was ruled out as those things did not affect the parliamentarian.

I wrote mainly about education. It did affect some of the officials in the department, but the officials were not actually investigated. For that reason I said in this House—and I still say—that there is a need for a commission of inquiry into education to investigate everything in order to clear up the shortcomings in education.

What I am asking is this: When will we really reach the point where we appreciate the fact that we have a community to serve rather than to spend so much of our time on personality assassination? This is what is happening in this House. Yesterday I sat in the Joint Chamber and listened to the hon member for Yeoville, a member of one of the opposition parties, paying glowing tribute to two members of the ruling party. I remarked to my colleague sitting next to me: “That is what our opposition parties have to learn.” They should not merely sling mud, but to debate issues. Each person can hold a different point of view, but when the decision is taken every hon member, irrespective of whether he belongs to the ruling party or an opposition party, must further that decision. He must support the decision.

Unfortunately, in the past there has been evidence of cases where areas were not serviced which did not fall within the constituencies of members of the ruling party. I want to say to the present Ministers’ Council that the party to which the hon member belongs should be of no concern. It should be purely a matter of merit. We are here to serve the people of South Africa. I know that, when it comes to own affairs, we are to serve members of the Indian community, but by and large it is the people of South Africa we should serve. If we do that, we should attend to the idiosyncrasies and shortcomings in a manner befitting responsible men, in a dignified manner, participating in this House rather than condemning it.

I want to vindicate this House. The moment I feel I am wasting time in this House, I must resign. I am not saying this House has done nothing over the last four and a half years. Hansard speaks for itself. I believe Hansard speaks loudly and boldly. We have tackled many general issues, apart from own affairs issues, to the benefit of the people of the country as a whole.

There might have been shortcomings. Hon members of this House are not all perfect, but—and I want to say this openly and frankly—there are many intelligent people here. However, let us not scrounge around base things and waste that energy and intelligence with stupidity and triviality. We should go ahead with our job and that is to serve the community. Once we reach that point, we have discovered our objective, namely that we are sent here by the electorate and we have to serve them. The other things can really take care of themselves.

The important thing is that we are not putting the community first. We want to get some joy out of attacking one another. Unfortunately we are so egotistical that that becomes the prominent, principal thing, and we lose sight of what is really important, namely to serve our community.

I want to appeal to hon members: The Indian community in this country is an abnormal community, in the sense that even overseas persons are stunned when they come to know that there are so many factions and fragmentations in the Indian community. Do hon members know that? There are members of the Indian community who belong to the NIC, the TIC, Azapo, Azania, Cosatu, the UDF and to this House. Even in this Flouse we have many different parties. New parties are born every day. Here we can learn a lesson from the House of Representatives.

They have made some progress. There are many issues on which we were not one iota behind the House of Representatives. I want to make bold to say that we gave the lead with regard to many issues. This House gave the lead on many issues. [Interjections.] However, I want to go further. This House gave a lead on many issues among all three Houses. I think we can underline those things and be proud of them. Every hon member in this House can be proud. He need not become as small-minded as a vulture, who only seeks after what stinks. [Time expired.]

Cry the beloved country!

Mr Chairman, I heard someone say “cry the beloved country”. I do hope that hon members in this House will have the wisdom of that book Cry the beloved country and adapt themselves in accordance with the wisdom and the needs of the people, and that behaviour patterns in this House will automatically be a mirror of and tie up with the philosophy of that book.

At the outset I want to thank the hon the Minister of the Budget for his co-operation and sympathetic approach towards the agricultural budget whilst I was his colleague. The figures that were reflected were the result of his cooperation. I thank him personally.

I want to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget this afternoon, being a responsible Minister in this House, about a statement he made, and I quote:

That was said by the Minister of the Budget, Mr Ismael Kathrada. At the end he added the following:

When there is a situation of this nature in South Africa—and more so in the House of Delegates—many hon members have asked what we have achieved in the past four and a half years. I know there have been birds of passage who have achieved nothing. However, amongst them there have been workers who understand what a constituency means and what their duties mean, and they travel far and wide to make their contribution in accordance with the requirements of their electorate and in respect of one fact—they are sent here by a constituency for a specific purpose.

The James Commission, however, was a long-playing record in this House. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was one of the people on this side of the House who agitated for the commission. I grant him that right as the Leader of the Official Opposition. He agitated until the James Commission was appointed. The commission completed its task. I am not speaking on behalf of anybody here. I hold no brief for anybody, with the exception of the interests of people of South Africa. How are we going to face South Africa today, when in this House there are exposures by the hon members for Springfield and Reservoir Hills with regard to the Marburg issue?

The hon the State President has been approached in that regard.

[Interjections.] I understand, but Mr Chairman…

Not like you, who blocked your commission.

Nobody blocked the commission. [Interjections.] In an article that was posted to us, I find—and this is something strange relating to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—it states, and I quote:

Who said that?

This is a letter that came to Parliament. [Interjections.]

[Interjections.]… There is no such thing. These are facts. This is documentation which has come into our hands. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member for Northern Natal a chance.

I am not interested in any elections.

I had respect for you, but you have destroyed that yourself!

The hon member for Southern Natal knows that I am not interested in his vision. [Interjections.] I am aware of what the hon member’s suggestions were. [Interjections.] He knows the suggestions he made.

You held Rajbansi’s hand for five years!

I will hold anybody’s hand if I believe in him. Why did those hon members not expose these things? Why did they hide them? This House belongs to the country. It does not belong to the hon member for Southern Natal.

It does not belong to the hon member for Northern Natal either! [Interjections.]

It does not belong to any province. [Interjections.]

It does not belong to Richards Bay, either!

What about the bus contracts? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I request the Chair’s protection for the hon member who is making his speech?

Order! What kind of protection is the hon member suggesting? [Interjections.]

The hon member has no intention of engaging in dialogue with any of these hon members.

Order! Will the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition resume his seat. I shall give the hon member sufficient protection.

Mr Chairman, when the hon member for Reservoir Hills made certain allegations against me in this House, I was open enough to say: “Go and call a commission at my expense.”

We do not have bus money! [Interjections.]

I respectfully want to request the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to advise hon members—irrespective of their party affiliation—when an hon Minister has to deal with any of their constituencies. Let us accept this. There have been certain recent developments…

They should be advised in time.

Yes. Let us see that the right thing is done at the right time. [Interjections.]

Some hon members have talked about Richards Bay. They do not even know where Richards Bay is. I mentioned previously that some hon members should go out and buy a map and see where South Africa is and where Natal is within South Africa. They should look at the problems.

Hon members have heard how the hon member for Camperdown cried his heart out. I am proud of the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. I know that he is a hard man, but he also has a heart. He immediately attended to this issue and showed sympathy.

I responded to him, too!

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also responded to him, but…

But what?

Many hon members have mentioned what has been achieved over the past four and a half years. I want to say that much has been achieved. The first five years have indeed been a trying period for the Indian community, because it is the first time that we have come to Parliament. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I was not supposed to speak, but since you have called my name, I will definitely speak. We have almost come to the end of this Parliamentary session and the election is in sight. I am proud to say that I will not be fighting in the election, because I have no desire to come back to this mess!

I sincerely believe in clean administration. If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is involved in the Marburg affair, he must face the consequences, like his predecessor.

Clean administration is very important if we want to run this administration properly. We do not want to face the question of why we are participating in this tricameral system and fragmenting ourselves more and more into apartheid. In my opinion we should consider having one Parliament in the RSA and giving the Black majority rights in Parliament.

The homelands are costing the taxpayer a lot of money. According to the reports in yesterday’s newspapers the price of food is twenty times higher than a few years ago and this whole thing is a burden to the taxpayer. I sincerely believe that we must go to the Indian people with a clean, respectable slate when we ask them to re-elect us to Parliament. The aspersions that have been cast here this afternoon are most uncalled for. We require a commission and it must be instituted immediately and not after the election.

I would like to express my appreciation to the parliamentary officials. I also want to express my gratitude for the fact that I have been able to spend these five very informative years in Parliament and I wish the person who will become MP after 6 September every success. Hopefully we shall have one good Parliament in years to come. This tricameral system is a complete failure.

Mr Speaker, I have no knowledge about the forex scandal or the edible oil activities referred to by the hon member Mr Abram and therefore I shall not make any comment thereon.

I think I owe an explanation to the hon members of this House. When, earlier this year, I strongly urged that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture should be allowed to remain as acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, that the other hon Ministers should be allowed to continue and that the hon leader of the majority party should remain merely as leader, it was simply because elections were in the offing and because I foresaw some of the problems that have since arisen. Some of those problems have in fact arisen as a result of my advice not having been taken.

On 10 February of this year it was alleged by the hon the Minister of the Budget that the hon member for Laudium had by virtue of having committed an irregularity cost the administration R300 000. That was a serious allegation for the hon the Minister of the Budget to have made against an hon member of this House.

Shortly thereafter the hon leader of the majority party made a statement to the newspapers in which he claimed that his party had my support and that of the hon member for Springfield in order to give his party the majority. I denied that and thereafter the problems began. The hon member for Laudium, the man who was accused of having cost the country R300 000, was enticed into joining Solidarity in order to give them the majority.

Notwithstanding that, when the new hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was appointed I made a speech in this House in which I praised him for all his good qualities. Some hon members of the House came to me afterwards and wanted to know what was happening. My simple answer was that I wanted tranquillity to prevail in this House.

However, it so happened that the chairman of the Marburg Town Board had been ferreting out certain details, often concerning the R40 000 which was, and I believe still is, owing and payable by the company called KGVK Pty (Ltd) to the Marburg Town Board. It was my duty as a public representative to raise that matter and this was the obvious forum in which to do so.

When the details relating to the problems of Mr De Pontes were raised in the House of Assembly nobody said that it was a personal attack. When the problems that are being investigated by the Harms Commission were raised in the House of Assembly nobody said that it was a personal attack. Those hon members of Parliament had a duty to raise them.

When I raised the matter here, I went out of my way to exonerate temporarily the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. I said that they were mere shareholders and probably did not know what was happening. I invited them to check the matter and to see to it that restitution was made. That was on 12 May 1988.

By 16 May 1988 they had done nothing. They had not even contacted me to ask me what evidence I had from the statements that I had made. Indeed, I have documentary evidence to prove the allegations that were made that the company concerned failed to pay the R40 000 which it owed to the Marburg Town Board and that the Marburg Town Board lumped that responsibility upon the ratepayers of Marburg.

That allegation was subsequently confirmed in an interview given to the newspapers. I was not present at the interview but the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon chairman of his party were quoted by the newspapers as having said that in fact it cost R80 000 for the sewerage services to be provided and because it cost R40 000 more than estimated, the whole of the R80 000 was lumped onto the shoulders of the ratepayers. My submission is that at least R40 000 should have been recovered, but that it was not.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether that report did not say that the town board had started to rate the town with a sewer rate to cover sewer charges, and that that is why the other proposal fell away?

The fact remains that the ratepayers have now been saddled with a liability of the private company which made—and I can say this categorically—a very substantial profit. Therefore the shareholders of that company have profited at the expense of the poor ratepayers. That is the burden of my complaint, and that has been denied.

My complaint is a serious one. That is why I composed a draft resolution that this House resolves that the hon the State President be asked to appoint a committee to inquire, among other things, into the relationship of the hon member for Southern Natal at relevant times to the Marburg Town Board, its members, its town clerk, Mr E Hoosen, and any other relevant matter. It should also inquire into the decision of the town board to institute legal proceedings for the recovery of the said amount, and the subsequent instruction to the attorney not to proceed with the action.

Now, the letter which has apparently been written to the hon the State President does not cover those issues at all. It begs the entire issue. [Interjections.] What carries more weight: A draft resolution of this House or just a letter by the Ministers’ Council? [Interjections.] I will be dealing with that later on.

On 16 May 1989 the hon member for Southern Natal went into a bizarre character assassination of a man who is not even a member of this Parliament, a man who at that time was at least 1 000 miles away. That man is Peter Govender. The hon member made the most atrocious allegations against that man and therefore the whole matter was rekindled.

It did not give me any pleasure to say something unkind about the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I still believe that on a personal level I would from my side like to give…

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

No, Sir, I do not have enough time.

I still believe that on a personal level our relationship ought to continue, although I definitely want this allegation to be absolutely fully investigated. [Interjections.] When from this side of the House we had previously made allegations, the hon member for Cavendish was one of those who said it was a personal attack. He was a member of the ruling party at the time. When the coalition was in progress, it was the hon member for Stanger, because he was a partner of the NPP at that time, who also said that these were personality attacks.

Mr Y MOOLLA [Inaudible.]

Eventually the proof of the pudding was in the eating thereof. It was the Thaver Committee which unearthed most of the facts and I have no doubt that the James Commission relied very substantially upon the evidence which was unearthed by the Thaver Committee. It was a committee of this House which was primarily responsible for getting the facts exposed.

I gave the facts!

I have in fact issued statements and I now issue a further four-page statement. It has been stated that the matter will be taken to another forum. Because of the nature of my occupation I am precluded from inviting litigation, but I shall certainly never run away from any kind of action which anyone wants to institute. If a judicial commission of inquiry is not appointed by the hon the State President, undoubtedly in due course the matter will be fully investigated judicially.

I also want to say that it saddened me to have to say something adverse of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. This has been the first occasion on which I have had to do such a thing. This deals with the remarking of a certain examination script and even at this stage I implore the hon the Minister to concede that when he first made a statement to this House, which I am completely satisfied was erroneous, he did so in good faith, believing that what he said was true. If he were to admit that, then of course he would go a long way towards clearing his own reputation, which quite frankly I still believe is good, notwithstanding that one lapse.

The question that now remains is why the co-operation which we from the side of the DP extended to Solidarity has been damaged. It has been damaged not through our doing, but through the action of one individual. Mr Peter Govender has been getting the information about what has been going on in the Marburg Town Board. He has actively been trying to canvass as a possible candidate for the coming elections.

Certain parties have tried to assassinate his character, misusing the privileges of this Parliament. Why is a statement made in this House privileged? It is made privileged so that, without abusing the system, an hon member can bring matters to light which may not otherwise be brought to light. That is the fundamental question and that is precisely why the privilege is written into the rules of Parliament. It is not there in order for hon members to assassinate the character of someone who is not present and who has never been a member of this House. It is not there for us to play cheap parochial politics using this institution.

What we need to do in this forthcoming period before the election is to play open cards. Anyone who says that he believes in clean administration must be prepared to subject himself to the most searching scrutiny of anything he did while he was a public representative.

At the time when this money was due, owing and payable by KGVK Properties (Pty) Ltd to the Marburg Town Board, one of these three hon gentlemen was closely associated with the Marburg Town Board and he held a position of trust. Another man was a member of the executive of the SAIC and at that time he held the responsibility for housing—I am not sure whether it was for local government as well—and township development is included in housing. He was a public representative paid for by the public. The present hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was the executive chairman of the SAIC for a substantial period of that time. He was also a public representative paid for by the public. That is why I take this view.

I am not criticising other shareholders who had no public representation. I understand there had been more than 40 shareholders who benefited financially from the transaction, part of which was at the expense of the ratepayers of Marburg. However, if they did not hold any public office and they held no position of trust then they are not answerable to this Parliament. They may be answerable to their Maker one day. However, those who held positions of public responsibility are answerable to this Parliament and to the public. The only way in which this matter can be cleared completely is by means of a full-scale judicial commission of inquiry, not the attenuated form by means of which the Solidarity party or its Ministers’ Council tries to evade the issue. [Interjections.]

If the letter asked for a commission of inquiry on the basis of this notice of motion… [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I wish to clear up some uncertainty that has existed in this House from time to time with regard to the Odeon Cinema Complex. This House appointed a House Committee on Public Accounts to investigate so-called unauthorised expenditure on the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema Complex. The committee investigated the matter. It received a report from the Director-General of the administration. I do not want to read the entire letter, but in summary I shall quote one brief paragraph:

The Finance Committee on Public Accounts of the House of Delegates has resolved as follows:

That, I believe, clears all doubt and suspicion as far as the Odeon Cinema Complex is concerned.

Maybe the method was in order.

We on this side of the House understand a little bit about politics, and that is why we will be voting against this Appropriation Bill. If we had taken our cue from the Joint Meeting and voted against the Constitutional Development and Planning Vote, we would have understood that that particular Vote would still be passed by the President’s Council, which as we all know has a built-in NP majority. However, if we vote against an own affairs budget, then that will cause serious problems for the governing party, especially in these times when there is an election, since in terms of the Constitution the President’s Council is not permitted to pass an own affairs Bill.

Quote the relevant section of the Constitution.

I do not want to refer to that hon Minister, but he makes a good argument for birth control!

Just quote the Constitution.

Mr Speaker, I do not want to quote the Constitution. That hon Minister can look at it himself. [Interjections.] I want to quote what Steven Friedman said in the Weekly Mail:

That hon Minister is a member of the ruling party and part and parcel of the Government. He ought to know which section of the Constitution that comes from.

I am asking you.

During the sitting of the extended public committees in the provinces, I raised certain questions in the Transvaal with regard to the squatters. The MEC in charge of local government in Transvaal, Mr Olaus Van Zyl, has written to me with regard to questions which I raised. The letter is dated 23 May 1989.I quote:

I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether any provision has been made to render the rudiments of service to those people. If not, why not?

The hon member for Stanger referred to a certain shooting incident and he wanted to know in which constituency that shooting incident took place. I just want to say to that hon member that if a shooting incident takes place in my constituency, it does not necessarily have to implicate me. There are several shooting incidents which have taken place in my constituency and I am sure in 1984 shooting incidents took place in several other constituencies as well. It does not implicate a particular member. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, I would rather not comment on that.

I then want to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—who is not present here—what has been done with regard to the price of the religious sites in Lenasia South and the allocation of those religious sites of which the hon the Minister is aware. What kind of action is he taking to resolve this issue, in which assurances which were given where a religious site was allocated to a particular organisation and then, by some kind of alleged unilateral decision, taken back and given to somebody else? Can some answers be found to that?

Then I also want to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council why he does not acknowledge or reply to questions which are posed to him by certain individuals, organisations and newspapers. In this particular case I am referring to the publication called The Indicator. Why is it that the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has never acknowledged or replied to the questions posed to the administration of which he is the head, with regard to the Lenasia Hospital?

We then come back to the hon the Minister’s Budget and an amount which the administration has paid, by the hon the Minister’s own admission, for Claudius in Pretoria, an issue which the hon member for Reservoir Hills has already raised. However, I do not want to go into that any further.

Mr Speaker, I rise merely to rectify two erroneous impressions which were created by the hon member Mr S Abram and the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

Both of them said on other occasions and today that I had misled the House in connection with the re-mark of the examination papers of a certain student. I want to say very categorically that I have at no time misled Parliament. I have given a full and fair report and, as I said in Parliament previously, if it were necessary I would refer it back to the Ministers’ Council to have another look at it. That I have done. It is for the Ministers’ Council to decide.

However, in addition to that I also gave the ample explanation that this was discussed fully and the matter was closed under the chairmanship of the former hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It was thereafter referred to the James Commission which threw it out as not being substantial enough to be considered for full investigation.

Furthermore, I explained earlier that that student would have passed in any case even if the external moderator had been the only person moderating those papers. I also want to draw the hon member for Reservoir Hills’ attention to the fact that he gave the newspapers the wrong facts. I do not know if he can compute properly, but I want to rectify this and the papers must rectify it as well.

The increase from 72 to 101 constitutes an increase of 29 marks. The total marks were 320. The increase of 29 marks represents a 9% increase in the marks and not 40%, because it must be calculated over 320. Therefore the hon member for Reservoir Hills is absolutely wrong.

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

I only have a few minutes, Sir.

Do not be shy. Answer the question.

I have only four minutes, Mr Speaker, so the hon member will understand.

It seems to me that some hon members have the impression that if they harp on and repeat untruths several times, the untruths will become the truth. I think anyone who thinks that is living in a fool’s paradise. I want this matter to be laid to rest once and for all, because an innocent child’s name is being besmirched. I hope that I have answered adequately for this matter to be closed for all time.

There must not be a distortion of facts at any time. I regard it as an unpardonable sin to distort facts, and I hope hon members will bear that in mind.

Mr Speaker, I would like to deal with the Marburg issue. This matter has been blown up out of all proportion here by the hon members for Reservoir Hills and Springfield. Unfortunately, a mountain has been made out of a molehill. That is a good proverb to use. Both these hon members are like moles. Moles are partially blind, partially deaf and dig beneath the ground. All that these hon members have said here is based on assumption and information they received from somebody who has no credibility, who is the chairman of a town board, but in whom a motion of no confidence was passed.

I will put the whole matter in perspective. There were two brothers who acquired a large tract of land in Marburg, farming land of about 50 acres in extent. That land was later developed into a residential township. Then the Marburg Town Board agreed to provide sewerage reticulation and was given a guarantee of R40 000 by the company whose directors were V K and K G Naidoo. The point is that, while development took place, the son of the late Mr K G Naidoo also died under tragic circumstances and the property had to be sold. What really happened was that the Marburg Town Board did not provide sanitation. Therefore there was no need for the company to pay the R40 000 to the town board. Therefore no money was payable by the company to the Marburg Town Board. All the hon member for Reservoir Hills said is based on fiction. It is information which he got from the chairman of the Marburg Town Board, in whom a vote of no confidence has now been passed. He cannot be kicked out as chairman, but in due course, some time in September, his position will naturally be taken over. This is the truth, because I know the whole story.

Secondly, there is the question of a certain letter which was read to this House by the former Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, the hon member for Northern Natal.

He was asked by an hon member where he got the information and he said he did not know. He is most untruthful, because this is a letter written by the hon member for Reservoir Hills—it is a press statement by him. The hon member quoted certain extracts from this letter. It is not nice for an hon member to be untruthful in this House. Not only was he untruthful, he is a former Minister as well. This casts a very bad reflection upon such an hon member.

Certain questions were raised when he levelled certain accusations against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. We are proud to have a person of his calibre as the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He is a man of high calibre and he commands respect. However, if the hon member for Reservoir Hills and the hon member for Northern Natal say that he is not that type of man, I want to say that unfortunately these hon members do not enjoy the credibility which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council does.

Mr Speaker, on a point of correction: I did not mention that he was not the right man to be in that position.

Order! This is not the opportune time to give such an explanation. The hon member Mr Thaver may proceed.

I want to state emphatically to all the hon members of this House that, if they do not know that Dr J N Reddy is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, they must take a leaf out of his book and learn from him, a man who possesses not only… [Interjections.]

How to get land from the Government.

Will the hon member keep quiet please. I will ask that hon member’s opinion when I want it. Therefore, he is a man of credibility and intelligence. He has given credibility to this side of the House.

Allegations have been made with regard to forex, Dello Oil as well as his shipping business. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had certain interests prior to accepting this position. These are some of the companies that enjoy credibility in Durban. There have been all sorts of dealings, therefore I do not think they must be able to class the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council with other people who did not enjoy credibility in this House. I tell hon members in no uncertain terms that this is the type of man that enjoys credibility with the entire South African community.

I think the former Minister of Local Government and Agriculture owes the House an explanation. He must not get away with certain allegations which he made. I think he was responsible for making certain deals in Northern Natal for which he was given a TV set. The hon member must be in the position to say sooner or later by whom the TV set was given and why he accepted it. At the time when the James Commission sat these allegations were not mentioned. They have been made known now, but unfortunately the commission is not sitting now. However, he must be honest and tell the hon members of the House from whom he received it and why he accepted a bribe or something which is relative to corruption.

Order! The hon member is not entitled to say that any other hon member accepted a bribe. The hon member must withdraw that allegation.

Yes, Sir. I withdraw that unconditionally. However, I must say that the hon member for Northern Natal accepted a present for work that he has done. Therefore I think the hon member is answerable to this House in respect of the receipt of this present for a certain land deal within the Northern Natal area. People must not say in this House: My hands are very clean. The hon member for Reservoir Hills made certain allegations, which were made available to a newspaper.

These allegations concerned the Marburg issue and were grossly untrue.

Mr Speaker, would the hon member be prepared to recommend the extension of this Parliamentary session for an explanation, as requested by him?

I have no time for that. [Interjections.] The hon member for Reservoir Hills and the hon member for Springfield both know that the allegations made in this House regarding the Marburg issue are grossly untrue. They are using that as a platform for their election. I can certainly tell them…

Order! The hon member cannot allege that other hon members have said something that is grossly untrue about a certain matter, because it implies that they know what they say is untrue. The hon member is not entitled to allege or say that. He must therefore withdraw the word “grossly”.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word “grossly”. Instead I will say that untruthful information was brought before this House. This untruthful information was furnished to most of the newspapers. The hon member for Northern Natal got hold of one of these newspapers. He then went to a meeting and said to the people, “Did you know that Dr Reddy’s hands are not clean?”

The postman!

The postman, yes. The hon member for Northern Natal knows in his heart of hearts that whatever was presented to that meeting was untruthful. This untruthful information was furnished to this House by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. They are trying to make an election issue out of this thinking that they will come back into office on 6 September. They are just like Laurel and Hardy. The hon members for Reservoir Hills and Springfield both know that they will never see this House of Delegates again. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I was not surprised to see that, while the hon member Mr Thaver was trying to defend the whole Marburg saga, it created a great deal of unease on the part of the hon member for Southern Natal.

That is not true!

I think that there is much more to the Marburg saga than meets the eye. The hon member for Southern Natal was shaking his head in disapproval at some of the explanations that were put forward by the hon member Mr Thaver. With that type of hodge-podge arrangement, I think a judicial commission will really clear up this matter. I do not think that any hon member on that side should try and give any explanations now.

I want to remind the hon member Mr Thaver that there is one thing that one can say about the hon member for Northern Natal, the former Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, and that is that he has proved to everybody what loyalty really means. He stood by somebody. He was prepared to stand by him. He was prepared to take the consequences. He was not prepared to throw himself at the highest bidder. That is a quality anybody can be proud of. [Interjections.]

However, I want to remind the hon member Mr Thaver that the hon member for Northern Natal did not, in the administration of an estate, do a widow out of R30 000. He is an upright man and one has respect for him.

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

Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to answer a question from that hon member, because he cannot ask intelligent questions.

Order!

Speak English so that I can reply to what you are saying about me!

Order! When the Chair asks an hon member whether he is prepared to take a question or not, hon members must give the Chair an opportunity to inform the hon member who asked for the privilege of asking a question whether or not the question is to be taken. Only then is an hon member to proceed.

Mr Speaker, there are a few other questions that I would like to put to the hon the Minister of the Budget. We understand that land in the Verulam area was offered to the House of Delegates some time ago, land that was sorely required for housing purposes. I want to know whether such land was offered to the House of Delegates and whether the House of Delegates bought it. If not, why did the House of Delegates not take up that offer of purchasing land which is sorely required for development? I want to know whether the hon the Minister is aware as to whom the land was subsequently sold. Does he know the name of the company to whom it was sold?

I am sorry to see that the hon member for Stanger is not in the House. I want to speak to the hon member with regard to the work we do for the regions where we come from. I want him to know that the RSC area where I come from is 3 000km2 in extent. It is a vibrant area of the East Rand which is a very important metropolis in this country and provides work opportunities for thousands of our young people who come from other parts of the country seeking a better future and a better life. In that region we worked very hard towards getting an area of some 900 hectares proclaimed for residential occupation by our people. Although we were sent from pillar to post by certain hon Ministers, at least we succeeded in the end.

I am also very proud to tell the hon member that my home town is the first town in the RSA where as a result of our negotiations with the local authorities and the Government we succeeded in getting the entire CBD of the town open to people of all races. We also worked very hard to get the Department of Health Services and Welfare to see the wisdom of putting up a community health centre in that area and I understand that tenders are going to be called for very soon.

On 6 June.

The hon the Minister says it is going to happen on 6 June. We have done work for the regions from which we come. However, we have failed miserably in making a viable input into helping to get the whole debate on a future acceptable constitution going. This constitution must provide representation at all levels of government to each and every citizen of this beloved country of ours.

The House of Delegates has failed miserably in playing a role in that. Instead of becoming pro-active we have merely been reactive. We merely reacted to the statements made by Government Ministers. We did not take the trouble to work out our own plans and to tell the Government how we saw a future South Africa being ruled.

I want to tell hon members in this House that the vision that we see for a future South Africa is a geographic federation where a federal region will have absolute say over all those matters that are near and dear and closest to that region and where there will be a federal government which will govern issues such as law and order, defence, finance and posts and telecommunications. [Time expired.]

Order! I ask hon members to give me the opportunity to say something. This is probably the last opportunity that I will have, today or tomorrow, to take the Chair in this House. It has once again been a privilege for me to take the Chair in this House from time to time. I thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, hon Ministers, the Whips, senior hon members and all the other hon members for their co-operation.

I wish all hon members a safe journey home and may all of us who are involved in elections have as enjoyable an election as possible. May those of us who are standing again all have the privilege to be returned to Parliament again. The Chairman will now take the Chair.

Mr Chairman, a few minutes ago the hon member Mr Abram wanted to know whether a tract of land adjacent to Verulam had been offered to the House of Delegates. I would also like to refer to this land. My information is that this land in Hazelmere which was owned by the Padiachy brothers was, in fact, offered to this administration.

The venerable Mr Vyas Chinsamy recommended that this tract of land be purchased by this Administration for the provision of low-cost Indian housing. My information is that at that time the hon member for Red Hill was the Minister of Housing. Now for some strange reason this Administration did not take up the offer. For some strange reason Vista Homes, a White-owned public company, was instrumental in exercising that offer. [Interjections.] Vista Homes, I am told, is now also going to provide homes for the Indian community.

The question that arises is simply: Why did this Administration not buy that piece of ground from the original sellers? Why was the middleman, to wit Vista Homes, allowed to take this land and to develop it for the Indian community at a profit? [Interjections.] I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether the facts that I have just mentioned are true or not, and for what reasons that land was not acquired by this Administration. The hon member for Isipingo is quite right. The hon the Minister of the Budget is the sitting member for Verulam and this affects him most directly.

We are talking about land, and before I refer to the Cato Crest issue, I also want to say a few words about the Marburg saga that we have had in this Chamber. My benchmate, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, raised this issue and he afforded the Administration and particularly the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council the opportunity to allay whatever fears might have been aroused in our minds.

I wish to submit that, if a satisfactory explanation was given, or if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was unable to do this but indicated to the House that in the interest of clean administration he was amenable to having a full-scale inquiry into this affair, the matter would have rested there. It is therefore my submission that all the heat that has been generated here has been generated because of the fact that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council failed to give such an undertaking in this House.

I referred just now to the Indian-owned land which is now known as Cato Crest and which is now being offered for sale to the White community. As I understand the situation, this Administration has been in effective control of housing since the previous Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was deposed and since the portfolio of housing was taken over by the hon member for Clare Estate.

It shocked me, as indeed it shocked members of the Indian community, that here we had a Ministers’ Council that was unaware of what was happening on land which they were of the opinion had been earmarked for Indian housing. The only time that this Administration awoke to the fact that this land was now going to be earmarked for White housing was when the notice for the sale of that land was made public.

I want to ask this Administration why were they so fast asleep. Surely they should have had some indication that this was afoot? Surely they had ample opportunity of knowing what was going on at their back door? Surely, if they had the interest of the Indian community at heart, they would have been wide awake to what was happening in Cato Crest? That is the first issue.

The hon the Minister of Housing may well reply that, because this falls in a White area and therefore falls under the White Administration of housing, they were unaware of this. That, however, is no answer, simply because this formed part of a whole contentious and a controversial problem, namely the problem of Cato Manor and the problem of giving back this land to the Indian people.

I want to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council what the fate of this area will be. I understand from press reports that he has had a meeting with his colleague the Minister responsible for housing in the House of Assembly. I want to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to tell us what the outcome will be, as we are indeed now told that the sale is taking place. The Indian community would like to know what is happening.

Sure!

We welcome that. I would also like to take this opportunity of asking the hon the Minister of the Budget about a very serious allegation that has been made in the corridors of this Place. That allegation concerns the drivers who drive hon Ministers to and from work. These are normal human beings and, as we do, they need the comforts of a family life.

Our safety depends on them!

They need to spend some time with their families. I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether it is true that the hours these humble servants of the hon Ministers work are far in excess of the hours that those hon Ministers work. [Interjections.] I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether there is any truth in these allegations that these drivers are being overworked.

And underpaid!

I would like to remind the hon the Minister that this issue was raised previously in this Chamber, during the time of a former hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Allegations were then made that, because these hon gentlemen had never before in their lives had drivers, they did not know how to treat drivers. [Interjections.] I would like to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council whether these allegations are in fact true.

They like to work overtime because they get paid for it!

The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture says that those drivers like to work overtime so as to earn more money. [Interjections.] That is what the hon the Minister said!

Is that what the hon the Minister thinks of his fellow humans?

That is exactly what those hon Ministers think of them. [Interjections.]

It is in poor taste!

Order! Will hon members please allow the hon member to continue with his speech. The hon member for Springfield may proceed.

Of all the hon Ministers sitting opposite me it is the hon Minister of Local Government and Agriculture who objects to what I am saying.

Do you have the facts?

He says to me that I do not have the facts, but I would like to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget what the situation is. Perhaps he is aware of the facts, but I am not sure.

I would now like to refer to the activities of the M L Sultan Technikon. As I understand it, sometime in December 1987, as per the Government Gazette No 2876 in terms of the Technikons (National Education) Act, 1967 as amended, a dispensation was granted whereby the language barrier was waived in respect of all people employed at technikons. I have been told that at the Natal Technikon this proclamation was in fact effected. I have also been told that, despite this fact, some 14 months later this Administration, which in fact has final control over the M L Sultan Technikon… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon nominated member Mr S Abram entered the field of constitution-making and he said the one thing that rarely happened in a federal system was that a federal unit had its own army, postal services and police services. Those were the things that were usually controlled by the centre and most other matters were devolved to the federal units.

That is precisely what I said!

No, Sir!

[Inaudible.]

I listened very carefully. When we talk here merely for the sake of talking, we often confuse facts when we are making a speech. Then, however, at the end of the day there is nothing that I or anyone else can find in it that could be of assistance to us. I listen very carefully since it is the matters the hon member mentioned that are normally excluded in a federal set-up; they are the responsibility of the central Government. Can one imagine having to pay five cents in Benoni and 15 cents in Boksburg to post the same letter? Can one imagine a policeman having to wear a hat in one place and a cap in another, or walking barefoot in another place? [Interjections.]

You are misquoting again.

Imagine an army in each and every federal unit! I do not know what kind of equipment they will have.

Read my Hansard.

No, that hon member must read his Hansard. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council please sit down. I must appeal to the hon member Mr Abram to allow the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to continue with his speech without interruption.

Mr Chairman, must I allow him to misquote me all the time?

Order! I appeal to the hon member to abide by the Chair’s ruling. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, all I want to say is that we have all been pleading for a new constitutional dispensation, but if one does not know anything about constitution-making, it is best left alone. The hon member should not open his mouth and put his foot in it, since it embarrasses not only the speaker, but the people listening to him.

The hon member for Springfield asked me to respond in regard to the question of Randgebied. As the hon member knows, when portions of Cato Manor were deproclaimed for Indian occupation and ownership, Randgebied was excluded. That was well known. Anybody had the right to make representations in that regard. However, when I heard that this property, in this day and age, was going to be auctioned as a White group area for Whites, I intervened, since we have just passed legislation on free settlement areas, and the representation that I made was to the effect that the least they could do would be to proclaim this a free settlement area and afford anybody, irrespective of colour, the opportunity to purchase a piece of land. This is what I did. With the time at my disposal I made urgent representations, as hon members will see from reports in the paper. I intervened in a matter of a couple of days, as I intervened in regard to the need for water in Welbedacht. I can tell hon members that my Ministry is making R140 000 available for water reticulation at Welbedacht.

We do not make newspaper stories. [Interjections.] I try my best; I work hard, and that is why I am in this House. I start working from between half past six and seven o’clock handling all these matters and trying to catch up on a backlog of five years. I am proud, and I pray to God for the opportunity that I have to offer that money to provide water which will be metered. We have spoken to the owners to negotiate the rights to cross that property. It is now a matter for the local authority to resolve. We all derive satisfaction from this, since it was not political point-scoring but responding to a human need. [Interjections.]

In regard to housing in particular. I was speaking to the hon member Mr Abram at lunchtime. I know that there is a demand for housing, but there are also problems associated with the provision of housing. The price of land is one, the cost of providing services is another; and then there is the nature of the land on which we have to operate and the cost of servicing that land. All one has to do is go to Phoenix West to see at what price the land has been serviced. These are the difficulties and there are problems.

Secondly, to work within a narrow limit of R30 000 for land and low-cost housing is an impossible task; the hon member for Northern Natal knows that. However, we are offered land, as in Richards Bay, at ridiculously high prices. The land has been lying there for ages but it is sold to us at totally unreasonable prices. Whoever was responsible for acquiring that land, whether it was the former Department of Community Development as was the case in regard to Pelikan Park, is at fault. It is not the fault of this Administration or even of the former hon Minister, since these properties were purchased by the former Department of Community Development. We are the recipients of that land, and the prices are there. If we go out to subsidise very heavily, to reduce these costs, then the amount of money available for housing is going to become less and less.

I made that point the other day, but what I am saying is that as long as there are group areas and as long as we are a captive community insofar as land is concerned, people will demand high prices from us. The only way to bring down prices is to scrap the Group Areas Act and I think all hon members on that side share the credit for demanding that with all of us on this side, because it has been the swan song of the past five years. If we have been unanimous on nothing else, this is one matter on which we have been unanimous. Therefore there is no argument on that score.

Insofar as Randgebied is concerned I want to make it absolutely clear that the reason why we claimed to have the right to have a say in the disposal of that land is that it is land which was taken away from our people. There are many here who actually know the families who lived there. Some of their names appeared in the paper over the weekend. If land has been taken away from the Indian community and made a White group area and if that land has been standing idle for 30 years, surely somebody has committed a serious crime.

I could not care what the attitude of any hon Minister in any of the Houses is. As far as I am concerned I am claiming the right to a reasonable solution for that property. I say it in this House and I will say it to anybody. I do not owe anybody any apologies because unfortunately the least that can now be done is for that land to be transformed into a free settlement area so that Black, Coloured, Indian and White people can buy it. At least that will in a way soften the pain which our community has suffered.

I sincerely trust that the hon the Minister in the House of Assembly and his colleagues will see the wisdom of the suggestions I have made and that good sense will prevail instead of our becoming upset because of agitation from certain quarters, and that we will find a solution which will be equitable and acceptable.

Here in the Cape too we are pressing on with a view to getting the restrictions lifted which are impeding the disposal of sites in Pelikan Park. We have been asked about it and as I said before we have traversed this land for five years and sought a solution. However, these things are not of our making. In fact, I attended a meeting of housing Ministers and financial organisations the other day and I asked them collectively if they could not find a basis to speed up the proclamation of townships and to remove these restrictions which prevent us from issuing deeds to purchasers. They said they also experienced the same problems and it could only be done if the authorities and everybody else co-operated.

I understand that my hon Deputy Minister is working on this problem to get together a group of people who are involved in this exercise with a view to setting up some kind of machinery which will facilitate the proclamation of townships as speedily as possible. Every day that it is delayed adds to the cost when one considers that interest rates are pitched at something like 20% per annum at the moment.

I therefore want to say today that, as far as the people of Welbedacht are concerned, my Administration has made money available to the Durban Municipality who, working with the owners of the land, will be able to provide these services and the water will be billed to the occupants.

I also want to tell hon members that I have given instructions and that the machinery has been set in motion and an application has been lodged with the relevant Ministry for examining Randgebied as a free settlement area. I want hon members to know that I have taken the initiative on that matter because the kind of answers we have been getting have not satisfied the public and have not satisfied our community and we have had pressure building up against us. Therefore the relevant application is on its way to the relevant department for consideration. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, since this is the last opportunity we will have to clear up some of the matters, I want to take this opportunity—for the information of those who have construed and concocted this story—to place on record the facts as they are about the R40 000 for Marburg. One of them is missing at the moment and I hope he will be here to sit and listen.

During 1970 two brothers, K G Naidoo and V K Naidoo, decided to develop a township on the farm known as Orange Grove in Marburg. They registered a company called KGVK Properties (Pty) Limited. Their application to develop the township was approved by the province of Natal sometime in 1971. One of the conditions was that, there being no sewerage system in operation in the whole area of Marburg and Port Shepstone, the developers would have to erect a treatment plant to service the township.

The company requested the then Marburg Town Board, which was run by Whites, to erect the treatment planet which was estimated to cost approximately R40 000 and they would pay back the said amount from the sale of plots in the township. We are now talking about the original owners of the township at the time when Whites were running the Marburg Town Board. The Marburg Town Board agreed to their request, but wanted an undertaking for the repayment.

During 1973 or 1974 the two brothers who were directors of that company decided to sell the company. They approached some of the present shareholders and an agreement was entered into.

I was one of the original buyers of the township. I approached a number of my friends in the business and professional field to get together and purchase the company so that we could complete the development of the township. The response to my request was very favourable. There are 50 of us in that company and each one of us holds one share. After the take-over of the company, a Mr Hastings, who was the town clerk of the then Marburg Town Board, informed us that there was an arrangement that the board would provide the sewerage treatment plant and the company would undertake to pay back to the town board an amount of R40 000.

Arising from this information, Mr V S Rajah who was the attorney and shareholder in the company, and Mr K Moodley—that is me—signed an undertaking to the old Marburg Town Board to pay the sum of R40 000 to provide the necessary sewerage treatment plant. Subsequently the White Marburg Town Board was dissolved and the new Indian Marburg Town Board was established in 1976. During the take-over all the files relating to the Indian area were transferred to the new Marburg Town Board from the old board. The undertaking was also in the files.

At about this time the Department of Community Development came to Marburg to develop a township for the Coloured and Indian community in Merlewood and Marburg. They had plans for a major sewerage scheme to be established to take care of the whole of Marburg, including some sections of Port Shepstone. The Marburg Town Board entered into an agreement with the Department of Community Development to share in the scheme.

On 11 July 1979, according to the minutes of the Marburg Town Board, the following is recorded. Firstly, the company undertakes to pay a sum of R40 000, representing the cost of the provision of the sewer in zone 1 of the township. Secondly, the estimated cost of reticulation for the township is R80 000. Thirdly, if the board accepts the R40 000, it is highly unlikely that the property owners in this zone could be called upon to pay for the capital cost of the reticulation. Fourthly, on the other hand, if the board does not accept the R40 000, every lot in the township that is sold could be rated to recover the capital cost involved in providing the reticulation. The concluding remark in the record of the board of 11 July 1979 is as follows, and I quote:

This is a fully constituted local authority. It is not an LAC or a management committee. This is a fully fledged local authority in terms of Ordinance No 24 of 1975 of the Natal Provincial Ordinances.

On 25 July 1979 the full board resolved as follows, and I quote:

It is important that it be noted that during the period 1 February 1979 to 30 August 1980 Mr K Moodley was not a member of the Marburg Town Board and therefore had no influence or any say in the decision taken by the board during that time.

Will you repeat that for the information of some hon members?

It is important that it be noted during the period 1 February 1979 to 30 August 1980 Mr K Moodley was not a member of the Marburg Town Board and therefore had no influence or any say in the decision taken by the board during that time. Also noteworthy is that, if the company paid the R40 000, it would have simply increased the selling price of the plots by a few hundred rands to recover the outlay. The lot owners in Orange Grove are all paying a sewer rate to the Marburg Town Board besides the land and building rates which they have to pay.

In view of the above facts I urgently request the Marburg Town Board either to accept the decision of their predecessors as mentioned in this report which is recorded in the Board’s records, which was approved by the auditors at that time, or take the matter to a court of law, alternatively call on the Administrator of Natal to have a commission of inquiry into this matter so that it could be put to rest for once and for all.

I make this request in the name of honesty to which I always subscribed. I am also honour bound to protect the credibility…

[Inaudible.]

Shut up!… and dignity of professionals and businessmen many of whom are from Port Shepstone and others from Durban who rallied to my call…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member told me to shut up.

Order! The hon member may continue.

I ask for your protection. Let the hon member withdraw the words “shut up”.

Order! Did the hon member tell the hon member for North Western Transvaal to shut up?

Mr Chairman, I did.

Order! The hon member will withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, and do not disturb me! I was referring to those who came in to join me to rescue the township from being abandoned and cause loss to many prospective home owners who had already paid a deposit on plots in the township.

I am honour bound to protect those people.

This was the time, for the benefit of those who do not know, that Glen Anil, the mighty township development company in South Africa, crashed from a share market price of R23 a share to 20c a share. That was the time when many companies which were engaged in property development went under. That was the time when 50 of these people, who could not care two hoots about joining any company, by taking one share, assisted me to make sure that the people of Marburg did not lose out.

Not a single house was provided by the Department of Community Development or any Government organisation in Marburg at that time.

These are the facts of the matter. Irresponsible statements by persons who are out to character assassinate others for their own gains do not serve the interests of the people of Marburg.

I do not wish to enter into a mud-slinging contest with certain persons who are blaming others for their own shortcomings.

I thank the Chair for this opportunity.

I now want to continue to the other matters that I want to put on record in this House. One of the characters is not present. I would have loved that hon member to be here. I would have liked to see his face.

Did you say carrots?

He said characters.

During January 1985…

What did you mean by characters?

… the hon member for Reservoir Hills and the hon member for Springfield approached me and some of my colleagues to invest a sum of R3 000 each in a trust account to be called the Graphic Trust. [Interjections.] The hon member for Reservoir Hills and the hon member for Springfield undertook that this amount would be invested in a trust account to be known as the Graphic Trust, and we would receive dividends on it. They did not tell us what kind of dividend we would receive. They also undertook that the R3 000 each…

[Inaudible.]

Will the hon member please keep quiet. I want to put this on record properly. [Interjections.]. Do not disturb me.

Order!

We all—there were eight or nine of us—gave the sum of R3 000 each to these two hon members.

You are lying.

That is not true!

You are a liar.

We were supposed to put that amount down?… [Interjections.]

You are a liar!

When it hurts, it is a lie, but when it is the truth… [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I submit that the hon member for Reservoir Hills called the hon member a liar.

I withdraw the word “liar”. He is not telling the truth, that is all.

Order! The hon member for Southern Natal may continue.

From January 1985 these two hon members received those cheques. I will say under oath that I handed these cheques to them. What happened then? They put the cheques wherever they put them.

Two days ago I wrote them a letter and asked them whether they could please tell us what had happened to those amounts of R3 000 each.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, I ask for your protection. That hon member is disturbing me. Kick him out of the House!

Order! Will the hon member for North Western Transvaal please allow the hon member for Southern Natal to continue with his speech.

Sit down!

Shut up yourself!

Order! Will the hon member for North Western Transvaal withdraw the words “shut up”.

I did not say “shut up”. The hon member for Southern Natal said that.

Order! I have asked the hon member for North Western Transvaal to withdraw that. I will come back to the hon member for Southern Natal. Will the hon member withdraw that, please.

Mr Chairman, I did not tell him to shut up. He told me to shut up.

Order! Is that correct?

No, sir.

Order! I understood it, the hon member for North Western Transvaal did say: “You said ‘shut up’, so please shut up!” Will the hon member for North Western Transvaal please accede to the request of the Chair and withdraw the words “shut up”.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that, but then the Chair should also ask the hon member for Southern Natal to withdraw what he said.

Order! Can the hon member for Southern Natal tell me whether he used the expression “shut up” with reference to the hon member for North Western Transvaal? If the hon member did use those words, I ask the hon member to withdraw them.

I am very clear on that point, sir. I asked the hon member to sit down. I did not tell him to shut up.

Order! I accept the hon member’s word.

Sir, you can read it in the Hansard records! [Interjections.]

You are pathetic.

Order! I will not allow hon members to talk across the floor. I ask hon members to obey my ruling and allow the hon member to continue with his speech.

Sir, two days ago I wrote to these two hon members, asking them what the fate of my R3 000 was. There are about eight or nine of my colleagues who gave these two gentlemen money that was put into trust accounts. Now, they are supposed to be attorneys. They are supposed to be lawyers. They are supposed to be everything, and yet the hon members did not respond to my letter.

[Inaudible.]

I have nothing to do with what the hon member did with that money. He must account to me. Sir, since they are now arguing about it, I will produce the evidence. Here I have three cheques, for the information of this House. Each cheque is made out to an amount of R1 000, in other words, R3 000 altogether. These cheques were all made out to Graphic Trust and given to these two gentlemen. [Interjections.] This is my hard-earned money.

[Inaudible ]

That was even right to you! Here are the cheques. There are nine other people who can produce their cheques. For the information of the Press and the public, I am showing hon members these cheques. They were made out to Graphic Trust and given to the hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Reservoir Hills. They influenced us and said that we should give them the money.

Solidarity newspaper!

Listen, my friend, what is this about Solidarity newspaper? [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member please resume his seat. I wish to make an appeal to hon members. Interjections are allowed while an hon member is speaking, but hon members should not interject so loudly as to disturb the hon member who is speaking. This is a final appeal to all hon members. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I excuse them. Not once in the past five years have these two hon members squirmed as they are squirming today. They have never been hit with the truth by anybody. If anyone says something to them, the first thing they do is to sue that person. How much easy money have they made by suing people? [Interjections.] How much? Look at the records! How many people have they sued? What is more, how many widows have they robbed? [Interjections.] How many widows have they robbed?

Shame!

Mr Chairman, the hon member asked how many people had been robbed.

Order! Is that a point of order?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Southern Natal is free to imitate Mr Rajbansi, but is he entitled to tell an untruth in the form of a question?

Order! That is not a point of order.

Well sir, any man who says that I robbed any widow, is a filthy liar!

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member may continue.

Rumours abound that this attorney said, “I am the most expensive and experienced attorney in Durban. My fees are R200 per hour or part thereof.” This man used to do these things to certain widows. I have always told people, “No, this cannot be so.”

However, seeing that he as an hon member of this House has denied taking my money, I fully believe that this character must have been robbing widows.

[Inaudible.]

What is more, during the whole duration of Solidarity and the information man’s case—the hon member as a professional man denies this—a letter came from the Transvaal saying that the information man was prepared to settle. The hon member looked at the letter and put it away. What did the hon member do then? I have proof of the dates. A few days later he wrote to Solidarity and asked them to pay R12 000 because the matter was going to the Supreme Court. Did he not do that?

Another lie!

I shall put you before the Law Society and tear you up. [Interjections.] Nobody had the guts to challenge you, my friend. You have met your match today. I shall tear you up. You can go and ask the newspapers to defend you if you want to, but I shall come out with the truth. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Southern Natal must please contain himself and not address another hon member over the floor of the House.

And stop telling lies.

Mr Chairman, they must not disturb me. There is some more where that came from.

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills said that the hon member for Southern Natal was telling lies.

No, Sir, I said he must stop telling lies.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I merely said that he should stop telling lies.

Order! Is the hon member implying that he is telling lies?

Yes, Mr Chairman, I was definitely implying that he was telling lies.

Order! If the hon member implied that, I must ask him to withdraw those words.

Then I have to obey, Mr Chairman.

For four years the hon member for Reservoir Hills did a first-class job calling for a commission of inquiry and he had a tremendous amount of information. However, when the James Commission sat he vanished from the surface of the earth. There was no sign of him. He did not go there for one minute to give evidence. What happened to the hon member? [Interjections.] Look at that pathetic look on his face!

I now come to the hon member for Springfield who is not such a sophisticated operator. He operates differently. He is a cheque-sucker. He took Solidarity’s donations. He was the chief secretary and treasurer of Solidarity. When donations were given the small cheques went to Solidarity, but I want to know where the big cheques went. [Interjections.] The hon member must tell us about it.

Order! I appeal to hon members to restore order in the House. I am not going to allow hon members to stand up and talk to one another. I am referring in particular to the hon member for Springfield. If he wants to ask something he has the right to ask it through the Chair.

Mr Chairman, I apologise to you for that behaviour.

The hon member for Springfield was the one who was operating Solidarity’s accounts and who received the cheques. He knows what he did.

When we asked for the records to be sent from two streets away, everything got lost. He said that he had sent it across and asked if it had not arrived. It did not arrive because the hon member did not send it! [Interjections.] How could it have arrived?

Why did you not call the police?

He is a good operator but not as sophisticated as the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

Now I want to tell hon members what kind of people these two hon members associate with. Mr Peter Govender, who they want to put up as a candidate for the DP…

You are trying to cover your guilt by other attacks.

No, the hon member must not worry. I am going to ask for a commission of inquiry. We are going to the highest level.

It is very sad.

Will you agree to appear before a commission of inquiry on these matters?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for one hon member to talk directly to another hon member over the floor of the House?

Order! I have already given a ruling in that regard. The hon member for Southern Natal may continue with his speech.

Mr Peter Govender, who is going to stand as the DP candidate in the Southern Natal area, is none other than the man who takes a five-rand bet from a bookmaker and when the horse wins puts a nought behind the five to make it R50. [Interjections.] I can prove this.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it proper for an hon member of this House to show such tremendous courage as to attack someone who is not here?

Order! The hon member may continue.

This is the truth, and everything that I am saying in the House today I will repeat outside. I am not afraid of saying it, because I am telling the truth. [Interjections.] I told the public that I was going to the Marburg Town Board to serve their interests. Just for the record I want to say here that I served on the Marburg Town Board for nine years without pay. I also served six years on the old board without pay. All the other members who worked with me also worked without pay.

Then, when we passed the remuneration legislation in Parliament, the hon member came and asked me whether we were going to be paid. I answered that it was indeed true. Then he stood for election and was elected to the board. I have here in my records that he put forward a case for R1 320 per month, after saving on roads and bridges, and he took that and went to Mr Peter Miller—Mr Peter Miller was the one who told me this—and asked him please to approve it for his wages. Mr Peter Miller told him to go and tell the people of Marburg that this was what he was doing behind his back. He told him to get out of his office. [Interjections.] Those hon members are birds of a feather that flock together. [Interjections.]

Before my time runs out, I want to say something else. I do not want to waste any more time on this matter. I want to thank the hon the Minister of the Budget very much for all he has done. He has tried his best in the circumstances under which we operate. Unfortunately we cannot all be happy with what we have received, but it is not for lack of trying. The hon the Minister tried very hard, and we all want to thank him for that. Others may have castigated him, but I am sure it will be agreed that he has done his best. I support the Budget.

Mr Chairman, it is not my intention to give an educational lesson to the hon member for Lenasia Central but it is always wise that any hon member who speaks in this House should remember that what one says goes down in Hansard and that posterity will read about one’s sayings and doings in the House.

I did not say anything wrong.

The hon member referred to my Budget and said that if it was rejected, it would not go to the President’s Council. I asked the hon member to quote me the provision in the Constitution which allows or does not allow for the Budget to go to the President’s Council. That hon member was so very sure that it would not go to the President’s Council. Did he forget that two days ago he passed the national Budget, and in doing so, he automatically passed the Budget of this House?

We are talking about the national Budget and the own affairs Budget.

I beg your pardon. The hon member for Lenasia Central said that if they did not pass my Vote, then it did not go to the President’s Council. Only two days ago we passed the Second Reading of the national Budget.

That is right—without opposition.

If there was opposition it would have gone to the President’s Council. In terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act we would have functioned on the orders of the hon the State President until such time as the President’s Council met and dealt with the Budget. [Interjections.] If the President’s Council did not pass it, we would have had to wait until next year when we returned to Parliament to pass the Bill again.

The hon member played with words and implied that if the Budget was not passed this afternoon the House would collapse.

I did not say that.

That was the intention. I have read what the hon member said. [Interjections.] I do not think it was quite fair to have said that to me.

I want to refer very briefly to some of the points that were made. I want to say to the hon member Mr Abram that when a Minister is appointed by the State President the first thing he is expected to do is to provide the State President with a list of assets and liabilities. [Interjections.] Yes, balance sheets, as it were. Each year at the end of the financial year that hon Minister has to repeat that statement to the State President. Therefore, it is of no avail to infer that the hon Ministers have perhaps received favours, because it would very soon have been discovered by the hon the State President after having compared the statements of assets and liabilities of previous years against that of the other years in question.

It is not my intention to get inveigled into arguments or counter-arguments in relation to the issues raised. However, I do want to say that the former hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House made the allegation against the hon member for Red Hill, who then sat in the Opposition benches, that he had noticed a fairly expensive watch in the possession of the hon member for Red Hill. However, was there ever a direct accusation as to how or where this watch had been received—if there had been such a watch? [Interjections.]

In any case, this matter was mentioned in the evidence before the James Commission of Inquiry.

And nothing was proved!

I agree with the hon member for Camperdown that there has been a tremendous backlog in housing. We have been fighting all along against the fact that there has not been enough force behind the Administration to see to it that there is expediting of the provision of housing.

I have repeatedly explained the issue of the R300 000 in relation to the hon member for Laudium. I said, and I want to repeat it, that the R300 000 was an agreement between attorneys to avoid a long-drawn-out Supreme Court action. Such an action would have cost the House of Delegates a far greater sum than the R300 000, if the case went against us. The House of Delegates had inherited the former Department of Community Development’s allocation of sites in Claudius. Not only the hon member for Laudium was involved, but also the Pretoria City Council as such. It was in the best interest of the Administration: House of Delegates and, for the information of the hon members of this House, the former hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council at the time agreed that that should have been the basis of agreement between the applicants to court who were aggrieved because they did not receive any sites.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. The Press has done an injustice to the hon member for Reservoir Hills, because they quoted the vitriolic, sharp and hard language that he used when he called the hon member for Southern Natal and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council “robbers and thieves”. You, Mr Chairman, asked the hon member for Reservoir Hills from the Chair to withdraw those words. However, the Press did not respect this ruling and therefore I believe…

Order! I must remind the hon the Minister that he must not refer in his speech to matters that have been withdrawn in this House. These words were withdrawn by the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

Yes, Mr Chairman, but the Press did not report it as such.

Order! That is a matter that has been taken up with the Press.

Thank you for the elucidation, Mr Chairman. Coming back to the member for Lenasia Central, it was not the question of the purchase of the Odeon Cinema that the Public Accounts Committee dealt with, but the question of unauthorised expenditure. A reasonable explanation was given by the Director-General to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts as to why it had to be authorised as an expenditure.

However, the manner in which the Odeon Cinema was bought is a different matter as far as authorised and unauthorised expenditure is concerned.

I refer again to the hon member for Springfield and the hon nominated member Mr Abram. It is true that at Hazlemere there was a beautiful piece of ground which was offered to the then hon Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture of the House of Delegates by me as a member of Parliament for the Verulam constituency. The same request was made by the hon member for Northern Natal and by Mr Y Chinsamy to the hon the Minister in respect of this land. In our opinion it was a beautiful piece of land going at a reasonable price at the time. If today one compares the price of agricultural land that is required for housing purposes, the price is ten times more than what was offered by the Padiachy brothers. Therefore the reasons for not buying the land at the time would have been—I am only assuming this, since I have not discussed this with my colleague—that the House of Delegates is there to provide homes for those people who cannot afford expensive or economic homes. The intention here is to give and provide affordable homes to people.

Coming back to the matter of drivers raised by the hon member for Springfield, this is left entirely to…

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

Mr Chairman, unfortunately my time is limited.

As regards the matter of drivers, this matter should be the concern of the Ministers. I want to state categorically that on a Friday at 5 or 6 o’clock, or when I get away from my office, my driver is at home. He does not accompany me to social or religious functions or weddings. I appreciate him as a human being.

Hear, hear!

Therefore, any government driver who drives me home from the airport to my home is free for the whole weekend. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but their morality also should dictate to them as to how they should treat the drivers.

I now want to turn very briefly to my prepared speech for this afternoon. Much has been said in this House about the Budget. Some of it, I must confess, seemed to be trivial, but valuable contributions have also been made. I do not wish to cover all the areas mentioned, nor do I wish to answer all the queries raised. I would prefer to address myself to a few major ideas. Before doing so, since this will be my last budget speech, hon members will allow me to reflect on the House of Delegates.

We in this House are the sharp end of own affairs. True, it is still a remnant of the apartheid era which we all hope will soon draw to an end, after which we can participate in government as members of a single nation. On the other hand, this flawed vehicle has afforded us the opportunity to contribute to the development and upliftment of the community in a way never before possible. Bound together by our culture, but certainly with a variety of motives, we have tried and succeeded in advancing our views and requirements to the level at which cognisance must be taken of the contribution we are making to peaceful evolution and public administration.

This notwithstanding, disclosures of serious lapses on the part of certain politicians and officials were revealed during the proceedings of the Thaver Committee and the James Commission. This is more than can be said for the critics who throw stones from the sidelines.

I am aware that the expectations of hon members have not always been fulfilled. The hon members of the DP have been at pains, during the past few sittings and days, to rub that in. However, the House should realise that the Ministers’ Council has at times also had to swallow some bitter pills, politically and otherwise. All hon members of this House by their very presence confirm that we have set a course with the tricameral system which will inevitably unravel the web of discrimination in which people of colour have been caught up since 1652.

During the debates on the several Votes of our Administration, a variety of complaints have been aired and demands have been made which my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council have taken note of and which, I am sure, were justifiable and feasible when translated into policy adjustments.

However, allow me to touch on a few subjects—some to educate those hon members who seem unable to grasp the realities of financial administration, and others to clarify the tension about aspects of the budget before this House.

It is a reality that the amount available to cover our proposed expenditure is influenced by factors beyond the control of the hon the Minister of Finance or the hon the Minister of the Budget. The political trust in the governing of our country has only very recently been given a more truly reformistic appearance. The snail’s pace which characterised the earlier policy has made South Africa an international pariah and has contributed largely to the economic stagnation. These things constitute a reality which cannot be wished away but must be worked at. Trade boycotts, disinvestment, high inflation rates plus a multitude of other factors all influence the carrying capacity of the Exchequer.

True, fiscal drag has raised the inflow of revenue to record heights and the Government could raise taxes even higher but as hon members are surely aware the stage has already been reached where the goose which lays the golden eggs is near to strangulation. The situation is not likely to improve dramatically in the foreseeable future.

Tardy real economic growth as reflected in the gross domestic product is the impenetrable barrier within which public and private sectors compete for shares of the financial and other resources. If the fiscus takes more, the citizenry and the private sector produce less and pay proportionately less tax. This is a classic catch-22 situation.

Mr Chairman, my time is going to run out fairly quickly and I want to thank the hon members in this House for their confidence and trust in me. I assure you, Mr Chairman, and the hon members in this House that I have always upheld my Ministry and my responsibility with dignity and with honesty and with your support.

Until such time as the new Ministers’ Council was constituted, I had the pleasure of serving with the hon member for Northern Natal as my colleague in the Ministers’ Council. I want to pay tribute to him for the hard work he put in in the Ministers’ Council. He and I together motivated the Jacobs Committee and we found relief for our farmers—especially the R13 million which we were able to put away for assistance and relief to our farmers.

I have had the pleasure of working with public sector personnel before, but in the case of our Director-General, Mr Wronsley, we have had an excellent administrator with a tremendous knowledge of public administration. I am happy that the hon Ministers and I have had the opportunity to have him serve us. I must also congratulate him on his appointment as the Auditor-General for the RSA.

I also want to say that I am happy that I have had Mr J Kruger as my Chief Director in the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services. To him I owe much of my success. I thank him for his help and assistance. I also need to express my appreciation to my fellow hon members in the Ministers’ Council for their understanding.

I do want to say that participation politics does pay, but it will only pay if hon members apply their minds to the issues before them and not indulge in bickering and finding fault with one another. In the history of Indian politics in South Africa we, the Indian people, have always shown the way politics should be conducted. However, during the last four and a half years we have dented the image of our community. We need not see a repetition of this in the coming Parliament. I would not want to see it. In any event, I will not be here to see the fights that go on, but I plead that whoever stands for election and returns, will come back dedicated and committed to do the best for our country and our people.

I again want to say in all humility to all hon members that they have been my colleagues. They have made me what I am. Had it not been for their confidence, I would not be where I am. Therefore I appreciate their assistance. I want to say that it has always been my policy that, while serving in the highest level of Government, to remember the quote from the book Black Narcissus: “The head is the servant of all.” I believe in that philosophy.

I want to say that if someone serves in Parliament, it is not for that person to serve in the Provincial Council. If someone serves in the Provincial Council, it is not for that person to serve at local authority level. One cannot be legislator and administrator at the same time. Therefore I appeal to hon members here: As much as they would like to serve their people at the bottom level, if they want to do that they must not be here; they must be there.

With these words, I again want to say that I appreciate all that has been said during the debate on my Budget. I hope and pray that all of us, when we go home tomorrow, will have a restful period before we start actively canvassing for support. My best wishes for success go to everyone.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the combined opposition parties I wish to record our dissent.

Bill read a second time (Official Opposition, People’s Party of South Africa, Democratic Party and Progressive Independent Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, before we call for a division, will hon members have the opportunity of explaining why they want to move that precedence be given to Notice of Motion No 2?

Order! No provision is made in the rules for an explanation.

Question put.

The House divided:

AYES—16: Abram, S; Dasoo, I C; Govender, M; Hurbans, A G; Khan, A; Khan, F M; Lambat, A E; Manikkam, E J; Naicker, S V; Nowbath, R S; Pillay, C; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Rampersadh, H.

Tellers: Baig, M Y; Shah, M S.

NOES—21: Akoob, A S; Bhana, R; Chetty, K; Collakoppen, S; Devan, P I; Dookie, B; Kathrada, I; Khan, N E; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Moolla, Y; Pachai, S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Ramduth, K; Razak, A S; Reddy, J N; Seedat, Y I; Thaver, M.

Tellers: Bandulalla, M; Jumuna, N.

Question negatived.

During division:

Mr Chairman, may I, respectfully, ask a question?

Order! No, no questions can be asked.

It is a question about the Chair’s ruling.

Order! The hon member may do so after the bells have stopped ringing.

Do hon members not have the right to ask about the reason for the Chair’s calling for a division?

Order! No. According to the Standing Rules hon members can ask for precedence to be given to a motion, but they do not have to give reasons for asking for precedence to be given.

That is a new rule.

Order! The question is whether enough hon members have asked for a division. If the division is carried in favour of the motion being called, it is sufficient to say that precedence is given to the question.

Mr Chairman, I move:

I trust that after the acrimonious debate that preceded this motion, we will now have a calmer situation. I also trust that we will have unanimity in respect of this particular motion. When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke just now, I believe that he spoke on behalf… [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon members who are standing around please give the hon member for Stanger an opportunity to deliver his speech.

I claim casualty time, sir. When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition earlier recorded his vote, he made one very significant point. He spoke about unity and there appeared to be some sort of unanimity on that point. The appeal for unity therefore does not seem to have fallen on deaf ears. I believe that this process should be allowed to develop. I also trust that hon members will take up this opportunity that has been presented itself to stand united in their support of this particular motion.

Yesterday when I gave notice that I was going to move the motion, I remember the hon member for Reservoir Hills saying, “Hear, hear!”. I trust that he will today give meaning and content to that support and that we will have unanimity.

Furthermore, I have heard many speeches in this House on the question of own and general affairs. It was evident to me—and I make common cause with all hon members—that they were all opposed to a division between own and general affairs. Our participation must not be seen as an entrenchment of the own affairs concept.

That is precisely what you are doing!

Our participation is not aimed at further entrenching the own affairs concept.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member who has just interjected will have an opportunity of stating his case.

Yes, I will!

Yes, you must!

Sir, the intention of this motion is absolutely clear. We do not want to see hospital services divided between own and general affairs. I submit that this motion establishes the bona fides of the ruling party in this Chamber. I move this motion as the Chief Whip of my party, with the support of hon members and the caucus of my party.

In support of the motion I want to suggest that it is absurd to have hospital services divided on ethnic or racial lines. We cannot divide diseases on the basis of ethnic or racial lines. Indians, Coloureds, Whites and the other race groups in South Africa do not experience influenza or the common cold differently. People are people. We all are human beings. The bodies and anatomy of all human beings under the sun are the same. There are only two “nations” in this world, really. They are boys and girls. It is only in that respect where our anatomies differ.

Which are you?

I see that the hon member for Reservoir Hills has lost his sight. I do not know if his eyes have been bothering him lately.

In support of this motion, I wish to draw hon members’ attention to what the professional people are saying. Superintendents of hospitals have opposed this particular concept of own and general affairs for hospital services. I think that they are the most competent and qualified people to advise us on this aspect, regardless of the fact that the governing party in this country is hell-bent on dividing communities on ethnic lines, even as far as social services are concerned. We are going to resist this particular intention of the Government.

Furthermore, there are many advantages in having hospital services as a general affair. Take the brain-scan machine as an example. This is an expensive, sophisticated piece of equipment that is required and in this country these machines are few and far between.

I believe that such equipment could be used more effectively and could be rationalised if it were made available to all people, regardless of race. It should not be attached to a particular hospital purely on an ethnic basis. That would apply to all the regional clinics and all the sophisticated and expensive equipment that is required to provide a good health service.

Hospital services are essentially social services. Government hospitals are intended to help the poor people and those in our society who are less fortunate. Hence they have to be subsidised in order to provide health services for the poor people of South Africa. Therefore the duplication of this service is a burden on the already overburdened taxpayers of South Africa. To have subsidies designated to hospitals on an ethnic basis is a further burden on the taxpayers of this country. Good economic common sense says that we cannot afford this. We already have problems with regard to the attempted implementation of the own affairs concept in other fields.

Earlier on in the debate we heard hon members complaining about the lack of services because of the lack of funds. Here I refer to the demand for housing and the inability of the State to provide sufficient housing to cater for the need of the people. Financial problems and constraints already exist. How can we, within the constraints of an own affairs budget, even attempt to take funds from the budget which is already under stress and strain to provide hospital services within that particular budget?

If we accepted hospitals as an own affair there would be a decline in services, there would be a lack of personnel, there would be inability to provide good services for the people that require the services and the standard of the services would drop much lower. We would then be much closer to the Third World situation that prevails in the lesser developed countries of Africa.

When the services decline the blame will be put neither on the shoulders of the central Government nor on the shoulders of the Cabinet, but transferred to the own affairs Administration. We shall then stand accused of being incapable of providing efficient services. The stigma will be attached to the Indian community that its participation in the House of Delegates has been retrospective.

I would therefore like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister. Other hon members from across the floor have also criticised the concept of own affairs. I agree with many things that were said in their criticism. Here is an opportunity for the hon the Minister to react effectively.

When the hon member for Reservoir Hills was still a member of the party we spoke about a possible association with another group of people. One of the things that worried him very much was the question whether health services would become an own affair and he wanted a categorical undertaking from the then hon member and subsequent Minister of Health Services and Welfare that it would not be an own affair and that it would not be fragmented on that basis. I remember those words and I agreed with him that we could not allow health services to be fragmented on an own affairs basis.

I think we are unanimous in our thinking in this particular regard. We must not play with words. [Interjections.] We must not call for a division just for the sake of some technical argument or for the sake of changing a word or two in this particular motion. In spite of what happened earlier on in the debate I appeal to hon members on the eve of the rising of Parliament to leave this Chamber on a note of unanimity. I hope the hon the Minister will respond to this motion and accept the contents of it.

Mr Chairman, there is a saying that goes: “Hit your hand on a stone and expect to get hurt.” I want to remind the hon member for Stanger that, although it is a nice motion, one cannot expect the hand and the foot to clap together. One can dye one’s hair, certainly, but one cannot do anything about one’s face.

It is a good motion—I want to admit that. In fact, it is a very good motion. We believe that health services should be a general affair, but the draft resolution should not be confined to only that. Why is it that the hon member for Stanger finds it convenient to apply this particular motion only to health services and nothing else? If he has a political axe to grind with the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, that is his problem. He should have asked in this motion that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare resign forthwith and his entire department be scrapped. The same should have applied to the Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture.

And housing.

And housing. This motion, however, falls flat. It is a good motion and we have no problem with its concept, but why the selectiveness as far as health services and welfare are concerned?

One thing at a time!

Does that hon member have an axe to grind with the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare? [Interjections.] I have already called for this. If the hon member would recall it, I have already called for this in my speech on the local government budget. I said very clearly that health and illness never come in racial doses. I agreed on that.

This motion, however, does not do enough. It does not go far enough. That hon member, being a member of the majority party, should have taken the initiative at this late stage to scratch the entire concept of own affairs. [Interjections.]

One should just take a look at the fourth draft resolution on the Order Paper by the hon member for Umzinto, Mr M Govender. This is what we wanted to see. The hon member should not have come here and tried some window-dressing and some cosmetic surgery. He should not have come here and tried to get sympathy and unanimity from all hon members of this House.

He should have have gone straight ahead and called upon the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare and his entire Ministry to resign forthwith. This is what he should have done, and he should have included a call for the abolition of the own affairs departments of education, housing, local government and agriculture in their totality. Then we would have supported him.

However, he came here in a rather strange manner. I know the thinking behind it. On 1 April 1989 the Administration: House of Assembly took over health services in the Transvaal. That is the wool which the hon member is trying to pull over our eyes. It is purely an election vote-gaining gimmick, and nothing else. [Interjections.]

Earlier on the hon member Mr Thaver accused the noble hon member for Northern Natal of accepting a certain gift or package. That was an election gimmick too. They want to gain some political mileage but they do not realise that their election vehicle has already run out of fuel and it is stuck on the road. [Interjections.] The hon the leader of that particular party is sewing so many pairs of pants of so many persons. I thought hon members chased only skirts but the hon leader of that party is chasing pants.

The hon member for Stanger mentioned that there is only a distinction between boys and girls, but it would appear that the hon leader of his party is only chasing pants! [Interjections.] I do not chase pants.

Before my time expires…

Mr Chairman, I again appeal to the Chair not to display tolerance…

That is no point of order!

It is a reflection on the dignity of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to say that he is chasing pants. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I say that to suggest that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council…

Order! I am following the hon member for Lenasia Central closely and if he overdoes it I will call him to order.

Mr Chairman, that is the level of his debating.

Mr Chairman, I hereby move the following amendment:

Mr Chairman, the object behind this motion is an excellent one. I happen to know that the initiator of the motion was the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare himself and I have no doubt that his intentions are of the best. Not only is this motion a good one—it has been improved by the amendment which has been suggested—but it regards a very important matter.

It is therefore a sad reflection upon the ruling party in this House that three of its hon Ministers are not present and something like 12 of its hon members are not present in their benches. It just shows how little interest the hon Ministers and members of the Solidarity party who are absent really have in the matter. It also shows that they do not really have the interest of the community at heart. No committee in which this House is represented is sitting. There is no other legitimate work which they could be doing at this hour. Their duty is here and they failed miserably in their respective duties. [Interjections.]

Although the hon the Minister of the Budget is not present—I am sorry that he is not present and I criticise him for not being present during this important debate…

The hon Minister in charge 13 present!

The hon member must just be quiet for a minute. The hon the Minister of the Budget has given us an intimation that he does not intend to stand for re-election and that we would probably not be seeing him in this House again. This is an own affair and I want to take the opportunity of paying tribute to the hon member for Verulam, who is also the hon the Minister of the Budget, Mr Ismail Kathrada, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing for a long time.

I had the pleasure of knowing him when he was the mayor of Verulam and I can put my hand on my heart and say that when he was a member of the town board of Verulam and the mayor of Verulam he did not allow any company to swindle the ratepayers of Verulam. He would not have tolerated it. [Interjections.] He did not permit any kind of “verneukery” in the functions of the affairs of that town board, which later became a council. I honour that individual for that.

I have had disagreements with him in this House, but that does not detract from the truth of what I am saying about that hon member. Even in this House, although we have had differences of opinion, he comported himself well and within the terrible limitations of the tricameral system he has done his best to try and serve this House and the community. On behalf of the DP I would like to place on record our recognition of his services, not only to this House but to the community at large. I trust his hon Chief Whip will convey those sentiments to him.

The disgust with which members of the medical profession reacted to the concept of own affairs in hospital services was expressed eloquently by the actions of the 12 doctors who resigned from the staff of the J G Strijdom Hospital. These are all White doctors, and if one looks at their names, most of them have Afrikaans names. Here were people who put the interests of health first, who sublimated whatever possible political affiliations they might have had in order to see to it that health was not devastated by this ridiculous system of own affairs.

When it comes to a matter of health, to suggest that health services could be an own affair and that the hospitalisation services could be an own affair, is a prostitution of the language. One’s personal health could be an own affair, but certainly health services to a community could never ever be an own affair. That is a disgusting aspect of this tricameral system. Quite apart from the objection in principle to that kind of action, let us deal with the practical effect of it.

For any community to enjoy good health, the prevention of disease is the most important first step. Generally, that is regarded as the execution of preventive medicine. There is no point in waiting until a person succumbs to a disease and thereafter spending a large amount of money in curative services. Therefore preventive health services necessarily have to be a general affair. Let me give one example: If I suffer from tuberculosis and I sit next to a White person in an aeroplane, there is every possibility that if I cough, I could transmit the tuberculosis from me to the White person. If he breathes in the tubercle bacilli, he runs a great risk of being afflicted by that disease. The tubercle bacilli do not know that there is an artificial division in terms of either the Constitution or a presidential decree. They do not know the difference between a Brown person or a Black person or a White person. Similarly, the malarial mosquito does not know the difference. Therefore, to say that these can be own affairs is absolute nonsense.

Let us talk about community medicine. Certainly community medicine means the practice of medicine, be it curative or preventive, in a community. Let us take the community of Cape Town. One cannot properly divide the medical services that would be rendered to the White residents of Wynberg in contradistinction to the Coloured residents of Hazendal, which is close by. Therefore there cannot possibly be an own affair in respect of community medicine.

I also want to deal with domiciliary treatment of patients. There are a large number of sick people who could in fact be treated very effectively in their own homes by attending outpatient clinics at which all the modern facilities should be available. Obviously, if one has a single outpatient department at a hospital, as we have at Groote Schuur, the patients could come there, receive the medical advice, be given their medication, and actually go back to their families. In many instances they could actually continue at their jobs. That kind of domiciliary treatment of ambulant patients will have many beneficial consequences. It enables the man or woman to keep his or her job, and it enables the employer to benefit from the services of that person. It enables the Receiver of Revenue to collect PAYE, because that person is in employment. If the hon the Minister of Finance then collects extra money, it enables him to apply that money for the betterment of all people and of all races as a whole.

We again come back to this which is without any doubt a general affair. It is also better for the family of that patient because instead of that patient having to be hospitalised as a result of a disease getting too much of a hold, that man or woman can actually be with his family, with his wife and his children. It is better for the whole community.

However, I also want to deal with the concept of mental health. It is very important that mental health should occupy a prime place. In the concept of mental health it is necessary to see to it that persons who hold public office are answerable to the public for the good mental health of both the public and of the persons concerned.

I want to deal for a moment with the aberration of that concept which occurred in relation to the R40 000 which has not been paid to Marburg. That is an own affair and I said it was the ratepayers who were wronged as a result of that. Unfortunately the hon member for Southern Natal, instead of answering for those facts, went into a tirade of false allegations against other people.

Order! Will the hon member for Reservoir Hills please confine himself to the motion which is under discussion and not diverge from the subject.

Mr Chairman, with respect, I was hoping that I was dealing with the mental health of an hon member of this House who seems to have suffered very badly. He made allegations about the Graphic Trust but what he forgot was that Dr D S Raja and Mr Ismael Omar wrote articles boosting Solidarity which were published in The Graphic newspaper and for which that money was used. Solidarity benefited directly from that money and the hon member has forgotten all that.

It has got nothing to do with the present debate!

Well, it has to do with the truth and I also want to say for the sake of the mental health of the people of Marburg that I will pursue that matter until justice is done to the ratepayers of Marburg, otherwise the mental health of all the people might be adversely affected.

I now want to deal with the consequences of this motion. As I said it is an excellent one and it has been vastly improved by the proposed amendment. If this motion is carried, then certain things must logically follow. This House, including the Ministers’ Council, must refuse to besmirch itself by putting the concept of own affairs into practice. This House, including the Ministers’ Council and every hon Minister, must refuse to become a handmaiden of apartheid which is what the own affairs concept is. One cannot on the one hand say one does not want own affairs and on the other hand go and practise own affairs. One cannot do what it is alleged that some people do, which is to say no, but still to hold out their hands on the quiet.

One has to maintain one’s convictions and I respect the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare for having these convictions. He spelt out his convictions very clearly in the address which he delivered to this House and I respect him for that.

However, I want to repeat that one cannot escape the logical consequences of what one believes and of what one says. I have said before that any man or woman who gives his or her word or undertaking to another person and then dishonours that undertaking, is dishonourable and untrustworthy. No person should ever give his word and then go back on it as no-one can ever trust that kind of person again. Unfortunately I have had that very sad experience at the hands of certain people who gave me their solemn word not once but twice, and then went back on their word. One of course immediately realises that one cannot trust that person any longer, because that person is thoroughly dishonourable in respect of giving his word.

Another thing is that we, for purposes of better health, need a better system of education as well. In respect of education I want to repeat that I have no doubt that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture did not intend to mislead this House. Unfortunately, he did. I am also satisfied that the child concerned was not involved in any wrongdoing. She applied for remarking and there is no evidence that the child’s father was directly implicated at all. However, there was wrongdoing by the person who conducted the remarking. I want to make that clear. We do not make allegations against anyone without clear evidence and there is no clear evidence involving Mr A K Singh directly. There is no clear evidence which suggests that the child, Dipeka Singh, in any way got round Mr Kadharoo. However, it is Mr Kadharoo who conducted a rather strange system of marking. What the hon the Minister does not know is that the child had 79 marks in Biology and this was increased by 40% to 101.

Mr Chairman…

I will move on to another subject, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: These matters have nothing to do with the motion.

Order! I take the point of the hon member for Stanger. I have previously appealed to the hon member please to confine himself to the subject under discussion.

I anticipated that, Sir, and I did say that I would move on to another subject.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can the hon member speak on an amendment which embraces the question of education?

Order! The hon member is not speaking to the amendment. He has made it clear that he will abide by the ruling of the Chair.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful for any suggestion that is made, but I do not particularly take kindly to it when an hon member of another party gets up and suggests that I should speak on an amendment proposed by his party. I do not take kindly to that, because I never take instructions from anyone. I think the hon NPP leader must understand that.

I have already spelled out the logical and inevitable consequences of the motion as proposed by Solidarity, which—I repeat—I am satisfied the hon the Minister himself initiated. The motion then—and the proposed amendment, which enhances the motion—definitely have the support of the DP.

Since this is probably the last sitting of this House, I would like to say a word on behalf of the DP—and I trust it will also be on behalf of every hon member of this House—to record our appreciation, first of all, to the parliamentary staff. The secretaries go to a great deal of trouble, and put up with a great deal of trouble given to them by hon members of this House, and do their work efficiently and without taking sides.

Secondly, we record our appreciation to the Hansard staff, all of them, including the two beautiful ones sitting on top there and the lovely young man sitting there as well. The entire Hansard staff not only is tolerant and patient, but they have to put up with the spelling of various names and so on, and they do a very efficient job. For that too, we must record our appreciation.

I will not say a word of appreciation to the Press, in case somebody says that I am sucking up to them, but I want to say that the Press, particularly those members of the Press who sit in this House, must be extremely tolerant, patient and charitable to put up with a great deal of what comes out of this House. While I do not want to say that I thank them, I salute them.

Mr Chairman, in support of this motion, I wish to add that hospital services are not services in isolation. Many other aspects go with them which, when fragmented, will cause tremendous problems for our community.

Hospital services comprise the institution itself, the building with its mortar and bricks, and the staff. The staff—specialised staff in particular—include doctors, dental practitioners, qualified nurses, training nurses and nurse aids as well as the administrative staff.

The polarisation of hospital services will lead to added costs. Therefore this motion elucidates very clearly that the House of Delegates should not take over hospital services. Why do we say this? We say this because this is the House of Delegates, and these are our own affairs. We talk about our own affairs as, for instance, we are doing in this Chamber right now. I would very readily advocate this anywhere else. All other hospital services should not come under own affairs.

The motion, as amended by the hon member for Lenasia Central, which calls for the resignation of the hon the Minister, does not augur well in this regard. We only ask that hospital services should not come under own affairs, because of various disruptions that would be caused by hospital services coming under own affairs. This would not only polarise the services, but would add to administrative difficulties.

I would like to give hon members an example of the difficulties that may be experienced. In Durban’s Addington Hospital there is a renal unit. Patients admitted to the R K Khan Hospital who suffer renal defects have to be transferred from the R K Khan Hospital to the Addington Hospital to receive treatment. If this comes under own affairs it will pose administrative difficulties. The patient has to be put on record on admission to the R K Khan Hospital, but, when he is admitted to the Addington Hospital, new documents have to be made out. This includes all other clerical duties, which have to be executed to ensure that the account is charged to the House of Delegates or the House of Assembly. The time factor and the staff involved in this regard will add to the burden of the taxpayer. Therefore, my party is obsessed with the thought that hospital services should not come under own affairs; likewise all the other services.

We are now concentrating on hospital services as this is a matter which concerns the health of everyone. As the hon member for Springfield mentioned, there is no discrimination in health. Therefore, all the services for the protection of good health should not be discriminated against and should not come under own affairs.

Furthermore, I wish to mention the training of staff. To train a nurse costs a lot of money. To train nurses for separate units of hospital services is also an added burden to the taxpayer. At the moment there are a number of White hospitals that are understaffed with regard to qualified nurses. On the other hand, the R K Khan Hospital turns out nurses year after year. However, the hospital cannot employ them because there are no posts for these nurses. This is a difficulty. If hospital services come under general affairs, and not under own affairs, these nurses could very easily be accommodated in other hospitals. The situation is similar in the case of doctors. There are problems in Addington Hospital, where there are specialist doctors. Yet with regard to other hospitals, like the R K Khan Hospital, it is very difficult to get specialist doctors.

If hospital services therefore become general affairs, patients can go to any hospital of their choice where they will receive the best treatment available. The taxpayer will not be burdened with the added cost of getting specialised treatment in each own affairs hospital.

There are specialised units at all hospitals. For example, there are units where people who are hard of hearing are tested and examined. Such specialised services cannot be duplicated at all the other hospitals if hospital services come under general affairs. However, under the own affairs system the House of Delegates, the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly each needs specialised units at its hospitals. Again it is the taxpayer who has to carry this burden. For as long as hospital services are under own affairs, the taxpayer will have to carry this heavy burden. Under this system the patient will also not receive sufficient care. I therefore support the motion as moved by the hon member for Stanger, that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Delegates should not accept that Indian hospital services come under his jurisdiction.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bayview has highlighted the major anomaly which faces hon members on that side of the House. I agree with the hon member for Stanger that the intention of his motion is clear. To me it is absolutely crystal clear.

I want to tell hon members the story of the Catholic priest who went into the farming areas to convert people to Catholicism. It is better understood in Afrikaans, but for the sake of these hon members I shall try and tell it in English.

*It is difficult to think up something in Afrikaans and dish it up in English.

†In any case, the priest got hold of old Jonas and converted him to Catholicism. He told him, “Jonas, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, you are now henceforth a Catholic. You must remember that Catholics do not eat meat on Fridays. They eat fish.” One day the priest walked past the neighbourhood shop and saw old Jonas eating chicken on a Friday. He immediately stopped and asked Jonas, “Jonas, what the hang are you doing now?” Jonas said, “Well, Father, what must I do? I came to the shop to buy fish. There was no fish and I was hungry. I then bought some chicken and did to the chicken what you did to me, Father”.

Sir, I have also adopted the motion as fish, and I shall pretend that it is fish I am eating. Whenever it suits the hon member for Stanger, he comes along and does what Jonas did to that chicken. He knows that the own affairs system is bad. It is absolutely rotten and this duplication of services is costing the taxpayer millions of rands. On the one hand the hon member says that we must keep the hon the Minister and his department, and on the other hand he says that the hon the Minister must not accept own affairs hospital services under his control.

Unfortunately the hon member for Stanger is not here at the moment, but I want to know from him where he draws the line. If he is opposed to the principle of own affairs, he must be opposed to the entire concept. The fact that there are 14 or 18 Ministers who deal with health services in this country is costing the taxpayer millions of rands. The other day I read in the newspaper of our poor pensioners of all races in this country.

They are the mothers and fathers of the nation who cannot make ends meet on those paltry pensions. They cannot get rudimentary and basic health services because they do not have the money to pay for them. They just pray to God that they must not become ill. Yet that hon member is willing to perpetuate the system of own affairs while at the same time asking that part of it must not be implemented. I do not see any logic in it. If the system is bad, the whole system is bad and it should go.

The majority of right-thinking South Africans today believe that this whole system of own affairs is still going to be the death knell of this country. Economically, while personal taxation was approximately R2 billion about ten years ago, it is in the region of R17 billion today. We are being driven into the poor-house by the system in this country and still that hon member wants to claim that we should not have own affairs hospitals but that we should have an own affairs administration.

If the hon member for Stanger and other hon members on that side of the House are consistent and true to their beliefs, they will support the amendment proposed by the hon member for Lenasia Central because that amendment makes it quite clear to the hon the State President that we do not believe in fragmented health services and that the whole system should go.

What we need in this country is a national contributory health scheme where health services will be open to all the citizens of this country, particularly the aged.

We are all aware of the sudden illness of the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I understand that he has had a very extensive operation at the St Augustine’s Hospital which is a multiracial hospital. I am certain that he is being given the best treatment with the best available equipment. We want to wish him a speedy recovery from his current illness.

I remember a speech that the hon member for Umzinto made in this House in which he referred inter alia to the birth of babies. He said that all babies were born in the same way. Whether it was a Black, a pink or a yellow woman giving birth, a Caesarean section was performed in the same way. There were no differences. Why should there then be separate hospitals for people of different colours?

The hon member for Bayview said here that we were speaking on own affairs in the House of Delegates and therefore he addressed himself to the question of own affairs health services. However, if we truly believe that there ought not to be fragmentation of hospital services—that is what we on this side of the House believe—the time has come to go to the hon the State President and to tell him that all these own affairs departments ought to be abolished forthwith.

Perhaps the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare will be able to answer the following question. At the meeting of the Extended Public Committee on Provincial Affairs in Natal we were told by the MEC in charge of hospital services that negotiations were underway with the hon the Minister’s department for the transfer of the Northdale and R K Khan Hospitals to his department. To my mind the very thought of that kind of transfer in itself is a very dangerous omen because once this happens similar situations will arise at places like the J G Strijdom Hospital where one will find some of the best qualified people in our country coming out in protest or being compelled to leave this country because they are not able to live up in own affairs hospitals to the oath that they have taken.

The hon member for Bayview said that the amendment moved by the hon member for Lenasia Central would create problems for us.

Yes, it will create problems for that side of the House because they will have to face up to the reality of calling upon the hon the State President to dispense with a Ministry and we know that on that side of the House these jobs are used and utilised for other purposes. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, while we are opposed to the fragmentation of health services, I want to say that in the interim the constituency which I represent needs a hospital very urgently. I am talking about the proposed Phoenix Hospital. Since 1984—the time when we entered this august Chamber—various hon members of this House have made appeals to the hon the Minister to consider the building of the Phoenix Hospital. The latest news that I have is that the need norms have been completed and the planning is almost completed too. It is hoped that the Phoenix Hospital will be a reality in 1990.

Let me explain the position of a patient in Phoenix. The nearest hospital is the R K Khan Hospital in Chatsworth. It costs a patient R4 to get to that hospital and back home again. Not only that, but he has to rise very early in the morning because there are a number of queues in the outpatient section and this involves a great deal of time. Often the patient returns home only late at night. Therefore the need for a hospital in Phoenix is very, very urgent and I want to impress upon the House…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I would like to know whether the construction of a new hospital is relevant to this debate.

Order! The hon member may continue.

While we are clamouring and debating here that we want a general administration for hospitals and health services, people still get sick. While we are aiming to reach our ideal, we must still see to the health services for our people. Therefore I appeal to the hon the Minister that he must consider, until such a time when there will be only general affairs, this matter as one of urgency. [Interjections.]

I agree that the fragmentation of hospital services is undesirable and I support the motion that highly qualified medical personnel, equipment, health services, mental services and all auxiliary services should be general affairs. The costs of duplicating and triplicating these run into millions.

Before I conclude I want to say that this has been my first experience of Parliament. I came here and I saw and learnt quite a lot about human behaviour and human characters. Being a schoolmaster, I was able to do more listening and observing. There are people here who are afflicted with arthritis—a disease which falls under general affairs—and they are so badly afflicted that they cannot write cheques properly. The result is that it affects their general ability as professional men. [Interjections.]

Lastly, I came here and I found it a wonderful experience. It was my first time in Parliament and the first time that I knew something about Parliament and parliamentary debates. I want to thank all those people associated with parliamentary work, for example the Hansard people and the Press. The Press are wonderful people, but they did not give me good coverage in the newspapers. [Interjections.] However, I want to thank them very sincerely.

I came here to learn and to assist my hon colleagues in whichever way I could. I was disappointed though, because there are so many character assassinations here and so many persons afflicted with arthritis. I can only pray that after the election those who are re-elected to this august Chamber will come back with renewed energy and clear-thinking minds. Thank you and God bless you all.

Mr Chairman, I want to confine myself particularly to the Notice of Motion with regard to the question of the take-over of hospitals by the own affairs administration.

I think hon members probably might have read too deep a meaning into this. The reason why I fully support this particular motion is—I think very few hon members are aware of the fact—that some time ago on 24 June 1986 the former hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council requested the Cabinet to allow own affairs hospitals to be taken over by this particular Administration. Acting on that request, the Commission for Administration then obviously put the wheels into motion and, as stated correctly by the hon member Mr Abram, the department in fact started negotiating. I want to say quite openly this afternoon that I had given them instructions to stop everything and put a halt to it.

We admire you for that!

The purpose of this having come about is not that one wanted to sidestep the question of own affairs, or rather this particular department being taken over by general affairs, but because of the immediate action required by the Ministry in the light of a decision taken on an instruction given by the former hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It has now resulted in our having to take cognisance of exactly what the present situation is.

We are now talking about the three hospitals and the Lenasia Clinic. I just want to give an indication of what the present situation is as far as the hospitals are concerned. One of the hospitals in question is the Laudium Hospital. I think most of the council members are aware of the present position there. At this stage that hospital is in the position that the board members want to resign, because that hospital is being run by a hospital secretary and not by a medical superintendent.

Hon members from the Transvaal will understand if I tell them that we have a superintendent who visits the hospital only twice a week and no hospital can be run effectively in such a way. The result is that there is a very low occupancy rate. The doctors are reluctant to do sessions there and the members of the community are suffering. That is one of the hospitals we are expected to take over.

As far as that hospital is concerned, Mr Chairman, seeing that you were part of the discussions very recently with Mr Daan Kirstein, the MEC, I think you are aware of the fact that in order to make this a viable proposition—even if Blacks are allowed to come in—we would fully support it, but unfortunately we did not get any positive response.

As far as the Northdale Hospital is concerned—I say this for the benefit of my hon colleagues from that part of the country—we understand from the authorities that the hospital is hopelessly understaffed. They require almost 15 medical officers.

[Inaudible.]

The superintendent has taken a week off and I understand that at the moment he is canvassing somewhere in the constituency of my good friend the hon member for Camperdown.

At the moment the hospital has an average number of between 300 and 700 patients per day. They have only one consultant surgeon there—that is for both the Grey’s and Northdale Hospitals. I want to give hon members an indication of the present situation in these hospitals that we are expected to take over. As far as the equipment is concerned, it is in a shocking condition. I have been to those hospitals and I think most of the hon members from Natal are also aware of the condition of that equipment. As far as the buildings are concerned, these are also in a very poor condition, let alone the other problems we have with those hospitals in that part of Natal.

With regard to the R K Khan Hospital, I think hon members are aware that the hospital is having its 20th anniversary and the unveiling of the R K Khan bust and plaque on Saturday. That particular hospital is one of those that we are also expected to take over. A report appeared in The Post Natal of 24 to 27 May 1989 and I just want to highlight one or two aspects of the present conditions in this particular hospital as set out in this report:

The report continues to say:

Over and above that I think hon members who are in the Chatsworth area should be aware that there is a total of 63 existing designated posts in the medical field in that area. I am not going to go into too much detail but they require an additional 32 medical men there. In a nursing fraternity they presently have 96 posts and they require an additional 221.

We have a list concerning the upgrading of facilities which runs into pages. They see on average about 1700 patients per day and as far as the general condition of the existing facility is concerned, it is completely and hopelessly inadequate.

My colleague the hon Leader of the Official Opposition would be very interested in this particular figure somebody gave us, that in order to upgrade that particular hospital, one would require 32 posts for additional medical personnel and 221 for nursing personnel in order to make it at least workable or functionable. It would then result in something like R13 million and the upgrading of the existing facility—including new facilities—is going to cost anything over R20 million.

What I am trying to convey to hon members is the position concerning the hospitals we are expected to take over in terms of the Constitution. That is really the reason why this particular Notice of Motion—which I fully support—was submitted.

My colleague the hon member for Reservoir Hills made the following statement on 16 May 1989—that was last week Tuesday. He said:

Mr Chairman, I would like to confirm that I stand by what I said.

Hear, hear! We respect you for that! You honour your word.

Despite the shortfall of staff to get the new hospitals going which we are expected to take over, we presently have an institution known as Hazelmere House. There are 90 posts which we cannot obtain from the Commission for Administration and at the Phoenix Assessment Therapy Centre we require 17 posts. At the Durban Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Centre there are 51 posts and we require an additional 87 posts.

We cannot find the posts needed to make our own Administration work effectively. We find ourselves taking over hospitals and inheriting problems which are inconveniencing the community tremendously and for that reason I would like to issue a policy statement on behalf of the Ministers’ Council:

It is true that we have assumed responsibility for the Lenasia South Hospital but any further moves in this direction in respect of existing hospitals and clinics will not provide a better service and will contribute to further ethnic demarcation of the people of the Republic of South Africa which we reject. We believe that all citizens must be able to avail themselves of the same health care at the same institutions. The Council also opposes the duplication of existing facilities at astronomical costs in certain areas whilst in others people are deprived of the most basic care facilities.

It is the Ministers’ Council’s fervent wish that amenities as prioritized by the Health Matters Advisory Council, be introduced to effect an urgently required improved health care system, namely personal services: self-care; personal primary health care; personal secondary health care and personal tertiary health care followed by non-personal health services and auxiliary services.

It is important to take cognisance of the fact that it is not only the service-rendering components that are duplicated, but also the administrative functions.

This indirect medical expenditure is, in its own right, enough to finance urgently required medical amenities. It is also a fact that, should any institution to be taken over not be in a first-class condition, with a satisfactory staff, the take-over would almost certainly be a prelude to unavoidable renovations and place a new burden on already strained financial and personnel resources.

Our health care view is aimed at improvement and expansion in order to reach as many of our people as possible. To promote fragmentation and triplication will, we believe, be contrary to this objective. The following health care facilities will become operative within this year, to prove our commitment to improvement and expansion: Hazelmere House, Phoenix Assessment and Therapy Centre, Durban Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Centre, and the Oral and Dental Hospital of the University of Durban-Westville.

The emphasis is on providing a network of peripheral clinics and community health centres with self-care and primary health care for all. The Ministers’ Council…

Order! Will hon members please converse more softly, so that the hon the Minister can be heard.

The Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates has therefore today agreed unanimously to request the Cabinet to rescind the 1986 Cabinet decision relating to the own affairs take-over of hospitals and clinics largely serving identified population groups. The facilities in question are: R K Khan Hospital, Northdale Hospital, Laudium Hospital and the Lenasia Clinic.

I sincerely hope that in the light of what I have said, hon members will appreciate the reason why this particular motion was in fact drawn, because of the immediate problems.

The hon member for Lenasia Central will withdraw his amendment.

Yes, he should.

Yes, I am sure he will. He is a colleague of mine.

I just want to impress on my colleague, the hon member for Lenasia Central, that he knows that as far as I am concerned—and I believe this goes for my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council as well—this is no election gimmick. I have nothing personally to gain and I am not looking for more work. I believe that, in the light of what has already transpired, I should receive the blessings of this House. We would hate to find that the Ministers’ Council took a decision in their own wisdom for some other purposes.

I have decided that, since this motion was proposed, it would be in the best interest of South Africa. I do realise that we will probably encounter problems, because it is a constitutional problem. It is a Cabinet decision, but, as I said to my colleague the other day, if I as the Minister have to put my head on the block, I am prepared to do it.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, as far as I am concerned, I believe I am not here further to entrench the fragmentation of health services. We have something like 67 500 pensioners and grantees, and meeting the commitments to them costs our Administration something like R171 million per year. We have a duty to our community. I am not here further to entrench apartheid, but wherever it is possible, we have to use our means to do this. I do not know whether it has ever happened before. I do know that my hon colleagues in the House of Representatives are in fact waiting to take over hospitals. This is their right. The House of Assembly has done this as well. However, I think we are acting in a very honest way in trying to tell the Government in no uncertain terms: Enough is enough!

Mr Chairman, I think the points of my amendment have already been made. Therefore, I want to withdraw that amendment. I want to demonstrate that we on this side of the House are pretty easy people to get along with.

On behalf of my party, I therefore also want to pay tribute to the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon member for Isipingo. They are a chip off the old block. We have had good associations and we want to wish them well in their endeavours.

Just to demonstrate to Solidarity that we have solidarity, we will support their motion.

Order! The hon member for Lenasia Central must formally move for the withdrawal of his amendment.

Mr Chairman, with the leave of the House, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr Chairman, in supporting the motion for the withdrawal of the amendment, I would like to take the opportunity of paying tribute to the hon member for Isipingo, who is apparently not coming back again. I ask him to change his mind.

Mr Chairman, as the mover of the motion, I take this opportunity to thank hon members for showing solidarity, to quote the words of the previous speaker. This is a demonstration of the fact that when we think objectively, and not subjectively, we can agree.

I want to respond very briefly to some of the comments that were made. The first point regards health services and the amendment. Without going into detail, I would like to say that health services are linked with social welfare and pensions. Therefore one cannot isolate hospital services. The department is not just one department, but caters to other functions as well.

I thank the hon member for Bayview for his support. I also thank the hon member Mr Abram. He is a bit critical at times, but I have no difficulty with that. In this Chamber we have exchanges on points of view and so forth. Blame it on politics, if one may. On the other hand I want to tell the hon member that in principle he agrees that we do not want to entrench the own affairs system. However, when he made the strong statement that we should not play games here, I am glad that the withdrawal of the amendment to the motion answers his question in this regard.

I want to tell him that if we are very serious about our abhorrence of the own affairs concept, and the fact that we feel this must not be entrenched, then we must stand up and say that we will have nothing to do with the tricameral system. That will be an effective demonstration of our abhorrence of the system. However, some people take the luxury of coming here and saying that they abhor the tricameral system, but as critics on the other side of the House they enjoy the benefits of the system. I think that is patronage.

Don’t spoil everything.

May I say to the hon member, with regard to all the problems he referred to, that we need a new constitution for South Africa, which will hopefully be free of the own affairs concept. This is what we should all work towards.

I want to place on record my thanks to the hon the Minister for his positive response and to the hon members of the Ministers’ Council for the resolution they adopted in this regard. I trust that the Cabinet will take cognisance of what has been said in this House.

Debate concluded.

Question agreed to.