laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Water Amendment Bill [B 61—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs).
2. (2) Patents Amendment Bill [B 62—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Trade and Industry).
3. (3) Sugar Amendment Bill [B 63—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Trade and Industry).
4. (4) Mental Health Amendment Bill [B 64—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Health and Welfare).
5. (5) Nursing Amendment Bill [B 65—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Health and Welfare).

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Transport and Communications, dated 26 May 1987, as follows:

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

The general approval that this motion met with, as well as the fact that it enjoyed precedence on the Order Paper—it is the first private motion to be introduced this year—is proof that the Population Development Programme—the PDP—is regarded as a matter of the utmost importance in South Africa, especially as far as the rural areas are concerned.

We are confronted here with three basic concepts, viz “population development”, “the rural areas” or “platteland”, and “the further promotion of a high priority”. For the sake of a sensible discussion, I think we should define a few concepts first.

†Firstly, there is the definition of “population development programme”. I think a population development programme is probably best defined as “a co-ordinated multidisciplinary plan aimed at maintaining the balance between population numbers, resources and economic growth, thus improving the quality of life and,” I might add, “preventing catastrophe and chaos.”

*The second definition we should perhaps consider is that of “the platteland”. The CPs must not be silly now and try to tell me that the word “platteland” can be defined as “CP territory”. That is not the case, of course, since the CP did not, in fact, win any seats in the rural areas of the Cape, the Orange Free State or Natal; and I see that of the 22 seats they won in the Transvaal, 12 were won with majorities of less than 1 000. [Interjections.]

Order! Perhaps the hon member should leave it at that and turn to the discussion of his motion.

In a more serious vein, I want to say that in many respects non-Whites inhabit 80% to 90% of the rural areas we are talking about. [Interjections.] However, I shall come back to that later.

In the PDP, the population development programme, “platteland” is actually defined as that which is not urban. The English word “urban” is perhaps more descriptive than the Afrikaans word “stedelik”, for it means that all the towns and cities that have local authorities and so on—even the rural towns— can be regarded as “urban”. For the purposes of the PDP, “platteland” therefore means that which is not urban.

And on the sea front? Are we also …

Sir, perhaps I can give that hon member the same advice somebody has already given him before: It would perhaps be better for him to shut up so that people can think he is stupid, rather than for him to talk, thereby proving them right. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must please lower the tone of his voice. The hon member Dr Vilonel may proceed.

We can also refer to the further subdivision of the metropolitan areas, viz Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth and the PWV area. Secondly, there are the semi-rural areas; and, thirdly, the platteland itself. This division also makes sense and is quite practicable.

To begin with I want to offer some demographic data in support of my motion. Then I want to highlight certain factual situations and problems and finally, I want to point out why we are referring specifically to the rural areas in this motion. Other speakers on this side of the House will deal more comprehensively with other specific aspects—as, I am sure, certain speakers from the opposition benches will also do.

Why have I chosen to talk about the rural areas in particular? You know, Sir, there is this mischievous little imp who sometimes perches on my shoulder and whispers that I should tell people a thing or two. This little chap is not always an angel; sometimes he is a little devil! He is sitting on my shoulder now—he is not a devil, just a mischievous little imp—and what he says actually makes sense, as our slogan in the election went. He is telling me to tell all the members of Parliament—of all three Houses—especially those from the rural areas, to spend much more time and energy on what is happening in the rural areas. I would even go so far as to say hon members should forget about what is going on in Hillbrow, Mayfair and Woodstock. I am talking about patterns of habitation, literacy, population growth and economic aspects, and not about security, crime and the drug problem.

I say this because the situation in Mayfair, Hillbrow and Woodstock is not of vital importance to South Africa’s destiny. On the other hand, what is going on in the rural areas is really of vital importance to our future. We have to contend with rural areas in which the total fertility rate on the farms is 6,2, as opposed to a rate of 2,8 in the metropolitan areas. I say it is a matter of absolutely vital importance. It is vital to the future of everyone in South Africa, regardless of their colour, population group or culture, and regardless of where they are living.

Far too much emphasis is being placed on the urban areas these days, and far too little emphasis on the rural areas. Yet, in a certain sense, the rural areas are literally and figuratively the breeding ground for many of our urban problems.

With regard not only to Hillbrow, Mayfair and the Group Areas Act, but also to what has been and still is happening in the rural areas, this naughty fellow on my shoulder is also telling me to ask the people why, if it is so simple and so easy to negate natural tendencies and the laws of nature and replace them with man-made laws such as the Group Areas Act, we were not able to keep the Whites in the rural areas. He wants to know why we have permitted the urbanization of nearly 90% of the White population in the rural areas. Why, he asks, have the Whites depopulated the rural areas to such an extent that these areas have now become populated almost entirely by Blacks?

I realize what has happened, and I can quite understand it—just as I can quite understand everything that is happening with regard to urbanization and the depopulation of the rural areas.

It might perhaps be a good idea, before I go any further, to supply some important demographic data. These statistics have been extracted mainly from the President’s Council’s report on demographic trends, as well as from documents prepared by the Department of National Education, the reports of the Department of Community Development and the HSRC, and so on. My time is limited so I cannot specify each source.

I want to make an earnest appeal for a movie projector or a slide projector or even an overhead projector to be made available for use in this House. It is almost impossible to deliver a speech on a subject of this nature where statistics, maps and graphs are of the utmost importance, without making use of that kind of equipment. It could be especially useful, for instance, when one wants to put up a sketch of a tortoise to show how slow the CP sometimes are and how long it takes for something to get through to them. Surely that would be much more effective.

No one is even laughing at your jokes.

The hon member did not heed my advice.

According to the 1980 census the following were the figures for the non-urban areas: 10 444 000 Blacks in the non-urban areas, of whom 5,2 million were resident in the RSA and 5,2 million in the self-governing national states. There were 610 000 Coloureds, 77 000 Asians and 536 000 Whites in these non-urban areas. In other words, there were 500 000 Whites as opposed to 10,5 million Blacks. The total non-urban population of the various development regions—(a) to (h) in the population development programme— consists of 0,5 million Whites, 7,5 million Blacks and 0,61 million Coloureds—a total of 8,61 million.

As far as the rural areas are concerned, it is interesting and quite important to note that there were approximately 65 000 farmers who owned approximately 70 000 farm units; and it is the farmers, after all, who are the heart and the backbone of the rural areas. They had an estimated 5 million to 6 million workers on their farms. What is also interesting is the assertion that 20% of these farmers generated 80% of the income. One may say, therefore, that approximately 20% of these farmers provided work for about 80% of that population.

The aim of this population development programme can be outlined briefly in terms of figures, and once again I wish I had that slide projector. Statistics show that the population will have reached 80 million by the year 2100, and this total must not be allowed to increase any further after that. Our total fertility rate—this can be defined briefly as the number of children a woman will have during her fertile life—should be about 2,1 by the year 2010. In addition, 75% of all fertile women should be making use of some method of family planning by that time. That is our ultimate goal. Just now I dealt with the question of the improvement of the quality of life.

Another question to which I want to refer just very briefly, is the so-called “demographic trap”. Lester Brown is an eminent American scientist and demographer. He pointed out this dangerous situation that is afflicting Africa.

Briefly, the demographers divide the countries’ phases of development into five categories. For the purposes of our argument we can perhaps divide it up into only three phases, viz the traditional phase, the pre-modern phase and the modern phase. We have a unique situation in South Africa in that we have various peoples and population groups in various phases.

We are part of Africa, and unfortunately we are going the same way as Africa. Africa has a population growth of 3% per annum, and our population is currently growing at the rate of 2,8% per annum. In the case of the Black peoples the population growth is 3,1% per annum, and that is putting us on a dangerous, catastrophic course.

If the population development programme does not succeed we shall literally become just another “banana republic”. Lester Brown warns that if a country becomes caught up in this pre-modern phase for too long a period, as is currently the case in Africa, it will fall back into the traditional phase, a phase characterized by absolute poverty, starvation and misery. Ethiopia is a good example of a country caught in this demographic trap. Ethiopia is a living or at least a dying example of this. This is why we must work so much harder at this population development programme; we must ensure that we don’t get caught in this demographic trap.

I can refer briefly in passing to the question of demographic projections, which are actually determined according to reasonably constant determinants; and, especially in the short term, these determinants are quite correct. There are, however, certain horrible, gruesome factors that could completely upset out projected figures. A nuclear war is an example of this. Aids is a more modern example.

Last Sunday’s Rapport referred to an article in the latest Reader’s Digest. The heading in Rapport read: “Vrot van Vigs—’n doodsmars deur Afrika en die wêreld”. The article reads:

The article in Reader’s Digest, as quoted by Rapport, continues:

While we are busy with certain projections, some people might say that a deviation like this could present a solution in that so many people would die. As has been said before, however, this is a solution that would be too ghastly to contemplate.

I must make haste and so I just want to say that there are 12 indicators—for lack of time I cannot go into them now—in terms of which we can determine whether the population development programme is succeeding or not. An examination or intensive study of these produces findings that are short and to the point: Attention must be given to three basic things, viz economic development, primary health care—naturally, this includes family planning—and education. This study has shown that this is so much more true of the rural areas than of the urban areas. So far the results of the PDP have proven, practically, that much more money will have to be spent—I want to emphasize this—on job creation, education and primary health care, including family planning. We must market this PDP to everybody and also make them aware that it will require much more money. There is no point in saying the Blacks are being given everything. There is no point at all in talking that kind of nonsense, because we shall have to spend much more, for our own sakes and for the sake of all the people of this country.

If Africa is beginning to realize this to a greater extent every day, we have far more reason to do so. A conference about this population problem was held in Harare on 16 May 1985. President Habib Bourguiba, President of the Republic of Tunisia, said at the conference:

I can quote to hon members various similar statements that people made. The Speaker of Zimbabwe said, for example:

While I agree with him, I do not actually agree with the statement, “We can rest assured”, because as far as this problem is concerned, he can do anything but rest. The point I want to make is that the Black people of Africa are gaining a greater understanding of this problem all the time.

The Speaker of Zimbabwe spoke about a “vicious circle”. By means of the population development programme we have to turn this “vicious circle” or “hellish circle” into a “heavenly” one. This means that, if the quality of life is improved by means of improved socio-economic conditions, a higher level of education and greater literacy, it will automatically lead to better family planning and a lower total fertility rate— TFR. To put it another way, the better the quality of life, the lower the TFR, the better the family planning, and the better the socio-economic conditions. In this way the vicious circle becomes a “heavenly” one.

In conclusion, I merely want to say that we have already had positive results from the population development programme. I do not want to mention too many figures, Sir, but allow me to mention the following: In 1984 the infant mortality rate for Asians was 24 per 1 000, while in 1986 it was only 16 per 1 000—an improvement of 33%. An improvement of 47% was achieved in the case of Coloureds and 10% in the case of Whites. Whereas the rate for Blacks was 90 per 1 000 in 1984, it is 67 now. We are achieving success, but there is still a gap between what we are achieving and what we should be achieving. Dr Mostert of the HSRC has some very interesting data—it will be published shortly—which indicates that the figures are worse than we thought they were. This merely means that we all have to put our shoulders to the wheel; we shall all simply have to work very hard to obviate this problem. We have the right Minister—he is a very capable man who has proved himself. We have a Director-General who was dean of a faculty and rector of a university. Then we have someone like Dr Boet Schoeman, a brilliant young scientist who is doing outstanding and even unique work here in our country. Still, the department’s efforts are not enough. We shall have to spend much more money and devote much more of our energy and attention to this problem.

Mr Chairman, I regret the hon member for Langlaagte did not have his slide projector here. I believe what he really wanted to tell us in this House did not come across very clearly. [Interjections.] Perhaps, if he had given that imp on his shoulder sufficient opportunity to speak, the message may have been conveyed to us more clearly. [Interjections.] Nevertheless this is a very important subject; it is and will remain of the utmost importance with a view to the future of this subcontinent of Africa.

The entire question of a population development plan, however, is closely concerned with our national view of the future. Because such a radical difference in viewpoint exists between us on this side and hon members on the opposite side of the House regarding a future vision for the population of South Africa, there is also a fundamental difference in our standpoints and views concerning this vital subject. The quality of life and the actual survival of the various peoples of Southern Africa is exceptionally closely related to the successful implementation of a population development programme.

The diversity of peoples and communities in South Africa, where the population growth rate differs from people to people—as also emerged from the statistics furnished by the hon member for Langlaagte—and even between geographic areas within the same ethnic context, creates the need for an investigation to be instituted into a differentiated handling of this problem as well. In fact it also appears clearly from the hon member for Langlaagte’s motion that the problem is even more acute in rural areas of South Africa. Although a population development programme is of a comprehensive nature and includes spheres such as social and economic development, primary health care, education and training, development of rural areas and so on, a family planning programme as part of promotive health care forms a very important component of the question now under discussion.

For purposes of this discussion I shall therefore place greater emphasis on the family planning component itself. As I have already said, one may approach this problem from various angles, these being two basic contrasting constitutional circumstances in the compass of which this programme has to operate successfully.

Let us first examine the Government party’s recipe for South Africa, which is that of a unitary state under a single central control— in this case the Department of National Health and Population Development—which has to inform, guide and motivate 13 separate peoples to react positively in order to have this programme succeed. So what are the realities of such a situation in a unitary state? The population of this unitary state will increase from 28 million to 47 million by the end of the century—a mere 13 years ahead, Mr Chairman. The total population of South Africa will be 80 million in the year 2020 and 138 million in the year 2040 at the present average growth rate of 2,3%.

Experts now inform us that we in this country do not have the necessary resources at our disposal to maintain life—especially not essential water resources—to be able to accommodate more than 80 million people in human dignity. The purpose of this programme therefore has to be the attainment of the goal of 2,1 children per family by at least the year 2010 to ensure success in this vital project. Our problem is the following. The total fertility rate—that is the number of children to whom a woman will give birth during her fertile years at the prevailing fertility rate—differs dramatically among population groups and even from area to area. The total White fertility rate has already dropped below the figure of 2,1—therefore as of now below the replacement figure to maintain a constant population figure. Consequently we are dealing with a dying people here which will become extinct if the present situation were to continue.

In the same state structure, however, we are dealing on the other hand with a total fertility rate of 2,8 in metropolitan areas, of 4,2 in semi-rural areas and one of 5,7 in country districts—the hon member for Langlaagte even cited a figure of 6,2 in this respect—as far as Black people are concerned. It therefore comes down to a total population explosion, especially in the rural areas of our country. This state of affairs is very closely related to the quality of life of a people which may be monitored by a number of indicators such as those the hon member for Langlaagte indicated. Among these indicators for instance are the number of children per woman, the child mortality rate of a population group, teenage pregnancies, personal per capita income, the percentage of literacy of a people, educational qualifications, the teacher-pupil ratio and so on.

I now want to say this and I do so with great emphasis. In spite of the degree of success, thanks to the enthusiasm and work of officials of the department, thanks for instance to the Foundation for Rural Community Development of the SA Agricultural Union, the situation is one of great progress already having been made.

As an example the Asian population growth has decreased by 42% as of now, that of the Coloured population by 30% and that of the Black population by only 21%. The hon member indicated that there had even been an improvement of 10% in the White population growth—that is a decrease of 10%. This is no improvement; that 10% represents a deteriorating situation as regards the White population.

According to my judgment this situation means that we shall not attain the desired objective by the end of the century or by the year 2010, however we view the situation. The reason for this is simply that a predominantly White government will not succeed in applying such sensitive measures effectively to other peoples. Ethnic traditions, customs and differences in systems of values will simply not allow it.

In the second case let us therefore examine the recipe of this side of the House for South Africa, which is a division of rights and responsibilities in the juristic areas (regsgebiede) of the peoples of South Africa.

A new vision for the future of self-determination and freedom for a White people in its own fatherland should also exert a positive effect on its growth statistics in such a situation. Numerous young people—we are addressing them—no longer see fit to have children in the current situation and in the light of the vision presented for the future of this people in Southern Africa under the present dispensation, and to subject them to the situation facing us.

There are other factors, too, but we cannot go into them all this afternoon. There are factors such as the cost of living and the inflation rate. It is becoming simply impossible for the White population in particular to have children and to raise and care for them properly.

As regards the other peoples in South Africa, the responsibility for a population development programme should be placed on the only authority which has a hope of achieving success, that is the own authority. That is why there has to be liaison with the authorities of self-governing states as well as independent states. I believe that liaison is actually taking place but I should like to enquire of the hon the Minister concerned as to the standpoint and opinion of these governments on this question.

I consider this important because in the situation we foresee for South Africa we state categorically that no people in the whole world has ever been able to lay claim for instance to increased territory merely on the grounds of population numbers. Consequently there are examples of peoples in the world among whom very much lower socioeconomic conditions prevail than here, lower literacy and so on, who were simply forced to curb and contain their population growth. They were compelled by prevailing conditions.

The secret of success lies in not begrudging each people its own; its own government but, in conjunction with that, its own responsibilities and in this case an own population development programme in the interests of the people to be served.

Mr Chairman, initially I was a little apprehensive that the hon member for Pietersburg wished to venture into the party-political sphere, especially when he embarked on his ethnic vision. He said each people should be on its own according to the partition syndrome. Nevertheless the hon member interspersed this with sound arguments on which I wish to congratulate him, in particular regarding the growth rate which is actually the crux of the matter.

I think one’s anxiety need not be so extreme, however. I gain the impression that the hon member is afraid of his own shadow and wants to arrange everything in such a way that everyone has to be placed in his own component and care for himself under the policy of partition. We shall never solve the problem on that basis. Whether we have an own authority, a joint authority or whatever authority, in dealing with the growth of a population we are still involved with it regardless of a river forming a boundary between us and that population.

The hon member referred to the Rural Foundation and I should like to associate myself with that. As a farmer the population development of country districts is a matter of great concern to me. It is beyond my comprehension how the hon member for Pietersburg intends removing the Black population from country districts according to his partition policy so that one need not take care of them.

One could discuss many aspects in this regard but, if one has observed events occurring around one over the years, one will realise that the most vital factor, the starting point of everything, lies in family planning in the short term and initially one ought to place family planning even above education and training on the list of priorities because that is the starting point of literacy and ultimate education. No family can do justice to its children’s upbringing and education if they have to grow up in houses where a swarm of children have to compete for every crumb of bread.

The late Dr Nak van der Merwe, the Minister of Health and Welfare at the time, said in this regard—his words have proved so true—that we could negotiate and draw up as many constitutions as we liked in South Africa but all would fail if we were unable to snatch this unsophisticated part of our population out of their culture of poverty.

I personally derive most pleasure from the fact that family planning in South Africa today has been kept completely out of the political arena. It is fortunate for the entire country that a great change in attitude has taken place, especially among Black people. Today we all realise that one cannot maintain a fitting standard of living for oneself and one’s family if there are too many mouths to feed.

A change of attitude has taken place among us as Whites and specifically the farmers in rural areas too. Farmers discuss this with their workers. Farmers’ wives discuss it with their domestic servants and the wives of their workers. According to my observations it is actually starting to become an entirely relaxed matter in which the worker’s wife is realising increasingly that this really involves the salvation of herself and her family.

On 23 December 1982, after prolonged spadework, we founded an organisation—as part of this enormous upliftment effort— which we named the Foundation for Rural Community Development or the Rural Foundation in brief. This foundation was established as a non-profitmaking utility company on a non-political and non-racial basis. It limits itself specifically to the agricultural sector and started here in the Boland. At that time the Western Cape Agricultural Union took the initiative and remains closely involved in it.

There are three partners to this entire action: The farmer himself, the private sector and the department. I venture to state that the private sector has not always done its share but as a farmer I find it exceptionally gratifying to thank the hon the Minister and the department on behalf of farmers and the Rural Foundation for what they have done over almost five years up to now and for what I believe they will do in future. In less than five years this Rural Foundation has gone from strength to strength. At the moment it has 1 604 farmer members; 22 000 families and 160 000 individuals are involved in it. There are 1 206 liaison committees between employers and employees. There are 240 crèches to which 105 members of staff are attached. At the moment our distribution is throughout all four provinces and 17 areas, or 60 districts, are on the waiting list.

Participation in sport is extensive. There are 283 rugby clubs and 420 soccer clubs.

Notwithstanding initial setbacks and disappointments on a personal and farm level, the Foundation continues to expand.

Perhaps the greatest value of the Rural Foundation is that it educates the farmer to see his worker as a person with total needs and the worker to see his employer as someone genuinely interested in him. To me this encapsulates the essence of the envisaged achievement, which is the total education of the individual in rural areas. If we are able to accomplish this, many matters will right themselves. These include improved schools, greater productivity, fewer children and greater religious belief. This will ultimately lead to a better South Africa.

I wish to refer to one of the partners in this action—the private sector. Excluding a few co-operatives, the private sector does not do its share in this enormous activity. It is conspicuous by its absence.

It is a fact that the entire activity of the Rural Foundation is a quiet, vigorous one occurring behind the scenes. It does not make the front page because it does not involve murder, killing, rape or bombs; nor does it take the form of rugby or other sporting events such as golf tournaments sponsored with a million rands. Here, where the weal and woe of people are involved, the private sector is conspicuous by its absence. Where are our huge insurance companies with their moral obligation toward the individual? Never in history have more time, effort and money been required than in this total effort to educate huge masses. Permit me to ask whimsically what has happened to the companies making such a fuss over the so-called Sullivan Code when this human action is at issue? They are conspicuous by their absence.

Nevertheless we do not merely wish to utter reproaches. Perhaps some of these companies are not even aware of the problem of this particular enterprise. Consequently we prefer to request politely and appeal to the private sector on behalf of tens of thousands of farmers with their millions of workers and dependants to join us and assist us. We ask companies to extend the hand of friendship, not to the farmer but to his people on the farm; this will enable us to make more rapid progress.

We require the assistance of companies in educating people, in adding a touch more civilisation to someone here and there, in plucking people from their poverty and providing them with improved education and a better upbringing. They should also be taught to apply birth control and therefore have fewer children and an improved chance of becoming complete persons. May our hon Minister and his department never deviate from this splendid ideal they have set themselves and may the moral assistance and support be evidenced in increasing monetary assistance.

If we all stand together and venture everything in the struggle, we will be able to extinguish the backlog referred to by the hon member for Pietersburg among others.

If the farmer, the businessman and the department join hands, we can render South Africa one of the greatest services ever. My plea is that we do this for the people of rural areas and for country districts because we will then actually be doing it for ourselves and for South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Wellington. In my short speech I would like to come back to some of his statements. I agree with some of them, but unfortunately there is one of the statements with which I can definitely not agree. I would also like to answer the hon members for Pietersburg and Langlaagte.

†Two years ago the previous member for Brits moved a motion congratulating the Government on its Population Development Programme, and one of the speakers that day who was very enthusiastic was the current hon member for Langlaagte. I would like to quote him because I do not think his performance today was perhaps as good as on that occasion. He said (Hansard: Assembly, 1985, col 2238):

Today, two years later, I have the feeling that his motion was not presented with the same amount of enthusiasm and in the same positive way. However, I still want to thank him for this motion.

I believe that the world today is threatened by two very major powers, both totally destructive. I refer first of all to nuclear power which can destroy and decimate the human race and our resources. The second power is the power to increase the numbers of the human race to such an extent that the human race itself will destroy its resources. Both these powers are equally dangerous.

Firstly then I want to refer to nuclear power. The increasing proliferation of nuclear missiles—short, medium and long range—aimed at industrialised countries which are densely populated such as North America, Western Europe and the Warsaw Pact nations, is a well recognized threat to our future survival. However, there are daily reports of various countries in the world that are trying to reduce this destructive force. We hear about world leaders like Reagan and Gorbachev meeting to discuss disarmament. There are arms control talks and massive anti-nuclear demonstrations. The world is therefore fully aware of this unbelievably destructive power and is making every effort possible to reduce this threat. Billions if not trillions of dollars are spent on efforts to neutralise the dangers of nuclear power.

I want to come now to the second threat which I want to call “uterus power”. The explosion of the world population in especially the poor, developing nations, is as dangerous, if not more so, as that of the atomic bomb. We hear about population explosions all over the world and about resources which are failing with resultant malnutrition, famine and high death rates. Although South Africa is not a nuclear power and we are not immediately threatened by nuclear destruction, we are certainly—we have heard the figures today—a major “uterus power”. We are in fact one of the biggest “uterus powers” in the world. The inability of our water resources to withstand this assault of millions of human beings in our water-starved nation is well recorded and there are only a few decades left for urgent preventive action to save us from the destructive misery of our population explosion.

There is a quick solution. Efforts are now being made to control nuclear power by a “star wars” campaign. The medical profession in its development has for a long time now waged a very successful “sperm war”. This control over the fertilisation of the female ovum has long been successfully maintained. This is basically what we mean by family planning. I would like to say briefly that fertilisation of the female ovum can be prevented by prophylactics—we know about the condom and the diaphragm. Intra-uterine devices can also be used, which cause the lining of the uterus no longer to be receptive to the ovum. This is one form of birth control.

The second form, of course, is by what is now well known as the pill, which is the hormonal sterilisation of the patient. Since the development of the contraceptive tablet there have been increased numbers of couples who can be termed “safe” during the time they use this form of contraception.

A third method of birth control is by sterilisation. First of all, the ovarian tubes of the female can be tied, the male spermatic cord can be cut, or a hysterectomy can be performed as a way of sterilising the female.

A fourth important method of birth control is by removing the contents of gestation when the ovum has already been fertilised.

These four methods are totally effective in preventing reproduction. If it were possible to give every male or female in the world this form of contraception, sterilisation, or taking away pregnancy, the birth rate would of course be nil. What is the problem then? This is where the hon member’s motion becomes very important.

Firstly, when one looks at Western Europe, North America and other countries of the world, one sees that the birth rate is either zero or negative. There are no major population programmes in these countries. They have been able to control their birth rates without these population programmes because the countries have developed a society in which couples—male and females—are aware of the problems of large families and therefore voluntarily ensure that they are protected against pregnancy. For this reason we are told that in countries such as Sweden, if they continue as they are at present, the population will die out completely in a 100 years time. In Germany, too, there is a negative growth rate. Even in South Africa we have been very successful in controlling the birth rate among a certain group of our population, i.e. the Whites.

In spite of the fact that there is no major family-planning programme for Whites today, they are educated and sophisticated enough to seek protection against pregnancy. They are therefore in control of the White birth rate in South Africa today and have voluntarily kept it at zero.

Why is it that in the developed, First World countries there is a zero birth rate, although there is no basic family planning, but in the developing countries birth control is such a problem? We have heard from the hon members for Langlaagte, Brits and Wellington all about the problems in South Africa resulting from the very high birth rate among our Black people.

It is very easy to say that Blacks ought to use some form of prevention because it is available. However, one can provide people with as many contraceptive pills or any other form of prophylactic as one wishes, but if they do not know how to use them, or do not want to use them, it will be no good. This is our problem. It is no good telling a woman to take contraceptive pills if she cannot read. It is simply a question of being able to educate and convince them that this form of birth control is of the utmost importance for their future. This is why we in South Africa need, and we on this side of the House support, the Population Development Programme.

We must try to bring family planning to the underdeveloped people of South Africa among whom there is an unacceptably high birth rate. We must do it in such a way that they may understand and feel the need to make use of it. That is the situation we are in today, and that is why this motion has been moved.

The motion refers specifically to the rural areas. I would like to quote some figures from an excellent report of the Committee for Economic Affairs of the President’s Council, on A Strategy for Employment Creation and Labour Intensive Development. In this report one finds a very interesting paragraph dealing with the percentage of urbanized South Africans in 1985. They found that 90% of the Whites in South Africa, the fully developed group, are urbanized. Among Coloureds the figure is 77,8%, among Asians 93,4% and among the Blacks 39,1%. When therefore we speak about population development among the rural people we are really talking about one group specifically. If 39,1% of Blacks are urbanized, it means that 60,9% of South Africa’s Blacks are not urbanized. The same applies to 6,6% of the Asians, 22,2% of the Coloureds and 10% of our Whites—people who are not living in urban areas.

If one follows this report, one will find it interesting to note that the potential for urbanization is best in the areas where there is the highest birth rate and where the largest numbers of Blacks are living. This applies specifically to the Orange Free State where 37,6% of the Blacks live. Next is Natal and KwaZulu with 24,7%, Eastern Transvaal and KaNgwane with 22,1% and Northern Transvaal, Lebowa and KwaNdebele with 7% of the Black population. It was also found that, if one looked at the growth rate and the population projection for these areas, the highest weighted growth rate in population figures appeared in the areas where the smallest percentage of Blacks were urbanised.

To my mind, therefore, one of the most important things that have happened since we debated the same kind of motion two years ago, was the scrapping of influx control. If one wants to talk about rural development— this report makes it very clear—one must also talk about urbanization. One cannot achieve the one without the other. The success of South Africa’s rural development programme will depend on the success achieved in the area of the urbanization of most of the Blacks in this country. Once the highly fertile group moves into the urban area, they come into contact with the things that made it possible for the Whites of Europe and South Africa to reduce their fertility rate. Therefore I cannot agree with the hon member for Wellington when he says that he believes that family planning is even more important than education. Yes, family planning is vitally important, but it can only be successful if the target population is amenable to family planning. Therefore, the more one can urbanize and westernize the rural population, the lower the fertility rate will be. For that reason we on this side of the House would like to support bodies like the Rural Foundation because they go about things the right way. Reducing the fertility rate in the rural areas is exactly the same as reducing it in the urban areas. I am sure the hon the Minister will agree with me that there is no difference.

What are we talking about? Firstly, we are talking about improving the quality of life of the people in the rural areas. We know that in South Africa this is an area in which there are very serious shortcomings. As in the cities we aim at improving the quality of their lives by providing education, health services and housing. Housing is very important, but when we talk about housing, we must talk about sanitation and the provision of potable water as well.

I want to ask the hon member for Langlaagte something. Four years since the population development programme was introduced, and two years since we last debated this topic, I want to know whether the Government is not already treating this matter as a priority.

Why must the Government still be reminded today that this is a priority? I am pleading now for the scrapping of yet another Act. After all, Sir, this Act will have to be scrapped before that hon Minister will achieve success with his Population Development Programme.

Which Act?

I am referring to the Group Areas Act. One cannot achieve successful rural development and successful urbanisation while the Group Areas Act remains in force. [Interjections.] It has been two years since we last debated this issue, and I should just like to refer the hon the Minister to this report—I hope he saw it—that appeared in Weekend Argus. [Interjections.] It reads:

This illustrates the need for Black housing. The report states further:

Further on the report reads:

The hon the Minister’s department and the scientific committee must take this into account in their projections of the growth rate over the next 13 years. As many as 3 million homes must be built within the next 13 years, which is a very short time.

When we try to improve the quality of life of the people, we must not forget and dare not neglect the need for a family to have shelter, a roof over its head, to have water that it can safely drink and to have sanitation that it is not ashamed of.

When we debated this issue last time, we insisted that influx control had to be abolished and that migrant labour had to be done away with. We were right. This report stated that the successful implementation of this programme would depend on the scrapping of influx control.

We would like to appeal today for the scrapping of the Group Areas Act as well. People need houses. I do not think the hon the Minister would like to share a room with 20 other people; and so I do not think he should allow a situation to prevail in which other people have to put up with that. We need housing desperately.

In these same areas we need the community to become involved in these efforts to improve the quality of life. Then we need family planning and, after that, means to motivate the people into trying to find out what is going on and becoming involved.

In the short time left to me I should like to tell the hon the Minister—perhaps he can help me with this—that I have been experiencing great difficulty in finding out about the establishment of this Rural Foundation, especially as far as educating the people in respect of health and community development is concerned. Four years ago I asked the then responsible Minister how many community centres had been built in the rural areas. At that stage there were seven, I think, one in Transvaal, three in the Orange Free State, two in Natal and two in the Cape Province. I feel that now, four years later, this programme has to be seen to be implemented if it is to be successful. I should like to ask the hon the Minister, therefore, how many community centres have now been developed in the rural areas for the introduction of this essential plan that has been developed by his department.

I should also like to ask him how successful he has been in attracting doctors and other members of the medical profession with their medical knowledge—I will not ask him about teachers just yet—to the platteland. You see, Sir, this is what worries me about the motion of the hon member for Langlaagte: We seem just to be going through this process of debating this issue every year. What is actually happening? We have heard from the hon member for Wellington about the Rural Foundation and I have said that I am impressed by it. The previous Minister remarked two years ago that there had been growth. There has to be development. What are we doing about farming? What is the development of the wages on farms like?

I would have liked to have answers to all these questions from the hon the Minister but I will be grateful if he can just provide me with answers insofar as the medical or community development in the rural areas is concerned.

Mr Chairman, we have just listened to a very good medical exposition by the hon member for Parktown of all forms of birth control. I get the impression that the hon member regards it as the cardinal aspect of a population development programme. He also said our population development programme had been a priority two years ago and we were now raising the matter again. The hon member is well aware that every priority consists of certain segments. We on this side of the House felt that this single segment of our priority—the population development programme in rural areas—had suffered a minor setback; for this reason the hon member will concede to us that it is important. We know what has happened in urban areas; our programme has achieved great success there but we have a problem in rural areas which is our priority now.

There is a further very important reason why it is becoming a priority. It is becoming a priority in order to counteract the flow from country districts to urban complexes to a certain degree and avert the depopulation of rural areas. This is very important.

It is an accepted fact that the most important objective of every population development programme is the improvement of the standard of living of all the people of a country. Over the past few years millions of rands have been spent to achieve this goal but we find that a great deficiency remains. This is especially applicable to country districts.

Every person has three basic requirements: A roof over his head, permanent employment and a reasonable income for himself and his family. He therefore needs an income adequate for providing that family with basic food and other items it requires. An appreciable number of factors which may play an important role in the attainment of such an acceptable standard of living have obviously to be added. There is the size of the family for instance, as referred to by the hon member for Parktown and other hon members, and this is significant.

The family therefore has to be planned within certain parameters. Secondly, a start should be made on scholastic as well as occupational training programmes. Thirdly, there should be provision for basic family and health services as well.

The scope of a population development programme is very wide. If one were to attempt to cover the entire field within a few seconds, I think one would ramble and lose oneself a little. Consequently within the limit of the few minutes at my disposal I wish to illustrate only a few facets and place them in a slightly less abstract light. I want to examine school and occupational training, housing, levels of income and view country districts more pertinently because that is where our priority lies at present.

Firstly, I wish to confine my attention to school and occupational training. According to the World Bank in its World Development Report of 1980, countries with a higher rate of literacy have a higher rate of investment which in turn can stimulate a trend to more rapid economic growth. It is interesting to note that the most recent report of the President’s Council on a strategy for the creation of employment also mentions specifically that countries like Japan and South Korea would probably not have had such an outstanding history of growth if their people had not attained such high levels of mass literacy and numerical skills.

As a contrast the poor economic performance of countries in Africa south of the Sahara are at least partially ascribed to the exceptionally low levels of literacy existing there as well as to a dearth of highly trained and experienced manpower. The seriousness of this situation in our own country is reflected by an indication in a report of a committee for economic affairs of the previous President’s Council that on average more than 70% of Asians, Coloureds and Blacks had lower educational qualifications than Standard 8. More than 80% of Blacks had had no training or training below Standard 5.

If one examines information at our disposal, it appears that we have an estimated population of workers of between five million and six million people in country districts. If we accept that 80% of them have had practically no schooling or very little, it means that our agricultural sector in particular is saddled with approximately four million to 4,8 million people who have not had the necessary scholastic training to use their potential to the full.

The consequences of scholastic training in a population development programme are therefore obvious. The better a person’s formal training, the better the use to which his production potential can be put. Nevertheless we shall not get very far with formal school education alone; occupational training goes hand in hand with this, which includes formal as well as informal training in the broadest sense of the word.

There are splendid occupational training programmes for all population groups, especially in our urban areas. As regards rural areas and agriculture in particular, however, very little such formal training exists. Institutions for training people in the agricultural sector form a drop in the bucket; not even that. A segment of our population is therefore caught up in a vicious cycle of illiteracy, underdevelopment and lack of training. This applies especially to country districts.

The President’s Council Committee for Economic Affairs came up inter alia with this comment in its latest report (PC 1/1987, page 103):

In consequence, it is clear that we have no other way out than to proceed toward the objectives set by our Government regarding education and training for all population groups—equal educational opportunities and training. Again this is particularly applicable to rural areas.

The second factor is housing. What exactly do we mean when we say that every person should have a roof over his head? To my mind this means a structure providing the occupant with adequate protection against natural elements and a reasonable degree of privacy for members of the family. Of course, it is quite impossible to supply such housing to everyone at this stage. We are unable to do so; it is impracticable. Nevertheless it is desirable that we examine the objectives of the population development programme in this respect.

Professor E Budson, previously attached to the University of Cape Town, gave an indication of the number of people which should occupy a living unit. He referred to an adult as an “equivalent” person and to children under ten as “semi-equivalent” persons. According to this, 2,5 equivalent persons should occupy a one-bedroomed unit, 3,5 a two-bedroomed unit, etc. He referred to these statistics as an occupation figure of 100% and everything in excess of that could be undesirable according to him. The actual occupation figure for the four population groups was as follows in 1980: White 68, Coloured 154, Asian 118 and Black 170 so it may be seen that this occupation figure is far above the norms he set.

The objective of the population development programme is to attain the following occupation figure by the year 2000: White 65; Coloured 100—that is to decrease their occupation figure per housing unit from 154 to 100; Asian 85—in other words to reduce their figure from 118 to 85; Black 114, so their figure has to drop from 170. The amounts to be spent on this are startlingly high. We are aware of this but there is financial provision for it in our country. The State has provided particularly to assist these people, especially in rural areas, to be able to reach this figure. All that has to be done is to use the aids available in an attempt to satisfy these housing needs.

It remains as plain as a pikestaff that better housing will result in improved standards of living. Lacking these, we cannot apply a population development programme. If it were possible, we would all still be cavedwellers. We therefore have to appeal to country districts to use available means in solving the housing problem too and enhancing the standard of life of country people.

The third factor to which I wish to refer briefly is a reasonable income. Yet again it is a fact that poverty is the greatest enemy of any population development programme. Poverty gives rise to larger families; these in turn create poverty and so the cycle is perpetuated. Surely it is common knowledge that fertility begins to decline as soon as a population group reaches a certain personal per capita income.

Researchers have indicated that this personal per capita income is approximately R80 per month. The first goal is therefore to have a population with a minimum per capita income of R80 per month. The actual figure expressed in 1980 monetary values was as follows: Whites—R319: Coloureds—R55: Asians—R88 and Blacks—R28.

The goal envisaged by the population development programme is to reach the following by the year 2000: Coloureds—R146; Asians—R185 and Blacks—R99. I know additional wages to be paid by rural employers will most probably have to be higher as their wages are lower than those paid by urban employers.

The great responsibility to be borne by rural areas in implementing our PDP successfully is obvious. It would be fruitless to single out one facet of the population development programme; all facets will have to receive attention. We shall only be able to succeed by means of training, housing and a viable income. It will be of no avail merely to throw up our hands in horror and say that the problem is beyond us. It will not benefit us one whit to leave the entire population development programme solely to the State; the State will not be able to succeed on its own. Each of us will have to contribute. This will demand certain sacrifices from each of us whether we like it or not. We could become a second Japan provided the potential of each were developed properly. Poverty should be eradicated and unplanned population developments discarded to succeed in this.

Our realisation in future that the abbreviation PDP should stand for a population development programme is very important. The swing of the pendulum is slow but, if we do not arrest it, in a trice the abbreviation PDP will stand for a tragic “population detonation pendulum”.

Mr Chairman and hon members of the House of Assembly, I find it an exceptional privilege and great honour, and in fact a great personal moment, to be able to make my maiden speech here this afternoon in the sanctum of White politics in South Africa.

I believe hon members of the House will not hold it against me for stating proudly that I find it a signal honour to be the first CP MP for Schweizer-Reneke in the history of South African politics.

Hear, hear!

Since 1943 all the districts comprising the Schweizer-Reneke constituency have formed part of an NP seat. I believe that we have succeeded in seizing the seat from the NP at our first attempt in Schweizer-Reneke. This is an exceptional achievement, especially in view of the fact that we were up against a very capable and worthy opponent, one with a very good NP organisation backing him.

The Schweizer-Reneke constituency is an exceptional one with exceptional assets. It is a constituency with the most superb asset of fantastic human material—in all sectors of the community.

Schweizer-Reneke also has a widely diversified agricultural sector which has already been applying the catchword of diversification in agriculture to very good effect over the past few years. Unfortunately farmers in that area at present also have serious financial problems in consequence of the devastating drought of recent years. There are eight country towns in the Schweizer-Reneke constituency containing genuine Afrikaners, true patriots of our beloved fatherland. SchweizerReneke is an area which maintains a growing diamond output, creating great stability in that vicinity. Not only do I find it an honour to be able to represent Schweizer-Reneke but it is a privilege I regard as a great challenge and opportunity.

For purposes of my speech I wish to confine myself to population development and lay stress on the farm worker and the agricultural sector. Over many years the labour committee of the Transvaal Agricultural Union examined factors which could contribute to improving the labour situation, living conditions and especially the personal image of the farm worker. The conclusion reached by that committee was that community development furnished the solution to the question of how agriculture could succeed in retaining the good, productive and effective farm worker for the agricultural sector.

The ability to maintain an acceptable standard of living in every country or community is chiefly determined by two factors. They are the size of the population and the available natural resources of the area. Practice and research have proved that fertility or population growth declines when the quality of life is increased significantly. The main object of the population development programme, as regards the farm worker too, is to raise his living standards and quality of life.

Mr Chairman, the question has to be posed: What image does the farm worker in the agricultural sector project? Unfortunately, available scientific statistics are scanty. The 1984 statistics of the Boskop Training Centre for farm workers reveal very interesting facts, however. Firstly, only 47,3% of all those attending the course at that stage had had no school training; 30,1% of participants offered Std 1 to Std 3 as their highest qualifications and only 0,2% had been educated up to Std 10. Statistics further showed that the years workers spent in the service of the same farmer on the same farm were as follows: 38,2% of the workers had remained in service with the same farmer from one to four years; 18,4% had remained with the same employer between 10 and 14 years and only 3,1% of them had remained with the same employer in excess of 30 years. This shows the magnitude of worker turnover as regards farm workers in the agricultural sector in particular.

Statistics on trainability tests at this centre also revealed many interesting facts. The trainability of farm workers was regarded as above average in the case of 32,4% of them. That of 52,2% was regarded as average and only 1,2% of the workers sent there were regarded as poor training prospects. The training of farm workers may therefore be tackled with great success in future.

The question to be asked is this: Who benefits from the community development of farm workers in particular? Firstly, let us examine the exceptional advantages to the employer, the farmer or the producer. It is a fact that productivity on farms will be increased in consequence of community development and attendant training. Secondly, the farmer or producer is assured of greater stability in his labour force. Thirdly, more reliability and responsibility is fostered in the worker.

As far as the worker is concerned, in the first place he acquires a feeling of recognition of his human dignity when community development is applied. Secondly, improved housing goes hand in hand with community development practically throughout and in the third place the worker feels more secure in his position, which is essential for productivity. Fourthly, facilities such as schools, churches and hospitals are made far more accessible to the worker. He receives better remuneration as a result of increased productivity and training and training, opportunities keep increasing.

How is this community development of farm workers instituted? The Rural Foundation was established under the leadership of organised agriculture and registered as a non-profitmaking utility company on 23 December 1982. Various speakers have already referred to this in the debate. The purpose of this foundation was to raise the quality of life of the rural population. A group of interested farmers or farmers’ unions form development associations and are affiliated to the foundation which then employs a population developer. Aided by finance already negotiated for farmers by the foundation, 75% of the expenses attached to the post of the developer are contributed by the foundation and the group of producers jointly contribute approximately 25%. The average costs per Black family on a farm therefore run to approximately R50 per annum at present, to come from the producer’s pocket.

How does this community development scheme aid in the development of the farm worker? This is a most important question. Community development and in-service training go hand in hand. To give practical expression to community development the individual has to be developed in his entirety. Certain spheres are especially important. The field of health obviously includes family planning as well as personal and environmental hygiene. Secondly, the physical conditions of the individual have to be developed. Better housing, better transport and improved recreational facilities have to be created. Thirdly, it follows that people have to receive education and training and this includes adult education as well as that of children. People also have to be able to develop socially by means of improved family functioning, youth involvement and development of a resistance to the abuse of alcohol. The religious development of people is of the utmost importance too because it has been found generally that where a greater sense of religion has been cultivated among people this has also occasioned a greater sense of responsibility among workers. The social sphere of life still requires vast development as well regarding sound and constructive use of leisure time and recreation. It is of paramount importance to develop the ethical norms of labour among farm workers as well. Reliability, responsibility, community pride, patriotism and national pride are cardinal factors in the entire community development programme.

To my mind community development regarding farm workers can only be successfully applied if the employer or farmer himself is proud to be and to remain a farmer and an entrepreneur. The disastrous debt situation of the farming community caused by the six-year drought, the enormous—in my opinion excessive—inflation in production costs and the abnormally high interest rates until recently make matters extremely difficult for the agricultural sector. Returning the critical financial position of agricultural producers to a sound footing has to receive the highest priority in conjunction with community development. In the absence of economically sound farmers, community development of farm workers is a dream which may never be realised.

Mr Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke on his maiden speech. It was a competent performance and I wish him every success in his political career.

I represent an historic electoral division. It is a splendid constituency where Gen Hertzog’s spirit of “South Africa first” still flourishes among the good people living surrounded by ironstone hills and wild-olive strees. What a privilege to succeed a representative like Charlie Simkin who was always available when his people needed him! A worthy father of his people!

The constituency of Smithfield comprises a vast rural area extending over eight districts yet 51% of the voters are urbanites living in the vicinity of Bloemfontein. This area also includes the large industrial area of Bloemfontein as well as huge Black and Brown urban areas including the enormous Pelonomi hospital. This constituency is surrounded by various Black areas among which Lesotho and part of Transkei feature.

One of the great challenges facing a member of Parliament—including me—is to be an instrument, in one’s capacity as a representative, in negotiating more acceptable living conditions and a better quality of life for one’s people. To me the foremost challenge in Smithfield—this applies to the rest of the country too—is to try to strike a balance between the size of the population and the extent, availability and possibility of renewal of available natural resources. In spite of my patriotism I am well aware that the potential of my area in regard to minerals, raw materials, water supply, agricultural land and rainfall is relatively limited. This is probably true of the rest of the country as well.

On the other hand the growth rate in region C, in which my constituency falls, is the third highest. If we take into account that the average number of children per family in rural areas is 6,2, it is probably higher there. In that region 47,3% of the Black people are under 19 which indicates the enormously high population growth there. In addition, 85% are illiterate or only partially literate. Most of our farm workers have not been suitably trained for the work required of them and it is in fact this problem and the problems arising from it which will have to receive urgent attention under the State population development programme. We are grateful for what has already been done in this respect regarding incentive measures and aid. We believe, however, that the time has come for farmers, within the present limited capabilities of agriculture, to be addressed in a responsible way on the creation of a healthy living environment for their labourers.

Here I am referring especially to pure water, sanitation and housing. That is why I was pleased to hear that one of the great reasons for resistance to the use of loans for farm labour had been removed and that they no longer have to be registered as a mortgage bond.

In improving the living conditions of Black workers we may not and cannot underestimate the role of farm schools. The ideal of seven years’ formal tuition should be attainable by every farm child within his milieu. It is important to note, however, that the Black parent is as concerned as his White counterpart about his child moving out of his sphere of influence. Arising from this, the ideal has to be achieved of a high school up to Std 10 in every country town as soon as the national economy permits it.

On the subject of farm schools, I find it disquieting that the geographic distribution of such schools is left too haphazardly to a few progressive farmers. A scientific survey of requirements is necessary to indicate strategic points where farmers may be encouraged to provide the necessary infrastructure to make a satisfactory distribution of farm schools possible.

The quality of tuition at farm schools is improving and we are grateful for this. In general we look forward to the day when the available staff, classroom accommodation, teaching aids and textbooks are adequate too.

It would be beneficial if the integration of a subject like population training could be considered at these farm schools at this stage. Literacy programmes, which have already achieved satisfactory proportions and been applied successfully in urban areas and country towns, may also be extended to farm schools with great profit.

It is my considered opinion that the farmer as the employer and his wife have an important role to play. My appeal therefore is that they should be indicated as a target group in influencing attitudes. Their human relations with, attention to and empathy toward their workers and especially their wives and children, together with understanding of their domestic conditions, are going to be the determining factors for a higher quality of life for our people in rural areas, with a resultant lower growth rate. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development recently warned that we were the last generation able to give attention to this grave problem. May this House and its hon members regard it as a crusade.

Mr Chairman, it is my privilege this afternoon to state here that I have been elected by my hon colleagues to this high office and I am most appreciative of that honour. It is indeed a great honour which has been bestowed upon me and upon the historic town of Krugersdorp, which like Bethal now has two members of Parliament to present its views and to solve its problems. I believe that in spite of our political differences the hon member for Krugersdorp and I share a common desire to be of service to our community, and Krugersdorp stands to benefit greatly from this.

I also have the honour of being the first English-speaking person to represent the CP in this House. It was also my privilege in 1977 to be the first English-speaking person elected as a NP representative in the Transvaal Provincial Council, where I had the pleasure of sharing a bench at various stages with both the hon member for Boksburg and the hon member for Nelspruit.

Permit me, Mr Chairman, to pay tribute here today to prominent English-speaking parliamentarians of the past and also to present-day parliamentarians who have thrown off the yoke of the language differences of the past and, in so doing, have fulfilled one of Dr Verwoerd’s dearest wishes.

I refer here in particular to people like Messrs Alf Trollip, Frank Waring, Owen Horwood, John Wiley, the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr K D S Durr), the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology (Mr G S Bartlett), the hon member for South Coast and the hon member for Rosettenville who, as I am sure you will agree, Sir, shines out like a gem from that part of the House.

Hear, hear!

I regard all of them as living proof of the growth of what will become a significant section of the Afrikaner people, namely the English-speaking Afrikaner. Many of them, like me, are of settler stock. I trace my roots in this country back to 1840. Many of them, like me, are of Scots descent, with little if any English ancestry, and full of Scots nationalism, making us natural allies of Afrikaner nationalism.

This has manifested itself over the years in the part played by Scots settlers in particular in the building of the Afrikaner nation.

*It was the late Dr Verwoerd who pleaded for the day to come in which we would all be bound by a single patriotism, one nation with two languages, after which we would only differ on social and economic problems. I think this day is dawning. It is merely a continuation of the tradition which started among a small group of settlers who together with the Boers, fought shoulder to shoulder and triumphed in the laager at Blood River. This small group has grown tremendously and this fact is borne out by the figures furnished by the hon member for Umlazi last week in regard to the English-speaking support for both the governing party and the Official Opposition.

Sir, may I pause here for a moment to consider this hon member? I should like to express my deepest gratitude to him for the respect he displayed for the English-speaking community by his use of the English language during last week’s debate. It is not only the fact that he spoke English but that there are few English speakers who are capable of speaking such faultless English. I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of the entire English-speaking community in expressing my thanks, appreciation and admiration for what he did.

†With regard to the motion, I do not intend to refer in depth to the population explosion problem of the Third World, nor do I intend dwelling on the contraception methods offered by the hon member for Parktown. We on this side of the House reject any suggestions that abortion be considered as a method. In fact, we do not believe in prescribing to Black leaders as to how they should cope with their problems. We believe that it is their responsibility to decide how to combat this very serious problem.

Africa has for many years been in the situation where children are being brought into the world, not so that they have any chance of life, but merely to die of starvation. Having moved past the stage of political conflict in many cases, Africa has already faced and still faces a crisis that today threatens millions of lives. This is the crisis of acute food shortages. Numerous foreign experts have repeatedly over the years advised and warned Africa as a whole to build up the agricultural sector as the base for industrial development. This has been done to little or no avail. Agricultural development has unfortunately been neglected by most self-governing states with only small percentages of their annual budgets being allocated to this most essential sector.

Can we in South Africa afford to wait for a similar crisis? We sometimes need, and often heed, advice offered by foreign experts relating to our multitude of problems. Let us then give consideration to what one expert, Prof René Dumont, the noted French expert on Third World problems, said in his book Africa Strangled in which he analysed 20 years of African independence. Surely we can learn from what he and others say. In reply to a question as to who he believes to be responsible for the situation in Africa, he says:

In reply to a question as to what he thought was the part of modern education in the African disaster, he said the following:

He refers to the Zambian system of education and says:

That contributes to a large-scale unemployment problem.He goes on to say:

He goes further in reaction to the question as to whether a capitalist or a socialist society would have fared better, and says:

He continues:

It is quite obvious what he is stressing. In reply to a question on a solution to this problem he says:

Another expert whom I wish to refer to is the former president of the World Bank, Mr A W Klausen, who says:

An interesting fact which he also mentions here is that in the year 2 000 there will be 6,2 billion human beings on earth and, in the words of one expert, feeding such numbers means that world food production must be increased by “at least as much as was achieved during the entire 12 000 year period from the beginning of agriculture”. If anyone therefore says that agriculture is not an answer I refer him to that expert.

I also want to refer to a book, Food First— The Myth of Scarcity, written by F Moor Lappe and J Collins. The authors claim that history demonstrates that the security of any nation has always rested upon its ability to meet its own basic food needs. Only when this has been achieved can trade serve to expand choices. They also say:

Of course in our own country the agricultural land located in the self-governing states produces a mere 7% of their agricultural output.

They go on to say:

Another widespread belief they go on to discuss is that agriculture cannot absorb any more labour, so the excess rural population has to migrate to the cities where new jobs in industry have to be supplied. Referring to the vexed question of population growth, the authors claim that Red China demonstrates the capacity of people to reduce their reproduction rates rapidly once their basic security needs have been met. Obviously, therefore, the provision of food plays a role even in the reduction of the population explosion.

We have a local example which I should like to mention. It is a success story which I feel warrants mention. I refer to the Financial Mail of 18 October 1985. In this particular article it is maintained that there is an alternative to decentralisation and urbanisation. A unit in Natal has come up with this approach. This route is postulated by the Institute of Natural Resources, a small research organisation, which is funded by the private sector and is attached to the University of Natal in Pietermaritzburg. Their thesis is disarmingly logical. It holds that rural Blacks do not drift to cities out of choice. It says they do so because:

This organisation has a research unit called the Nansindlela Research and Demonstration Unit Farm, just outside Pietermaritzburg, where experiments are being conducted in the use of modern intensive farming methods to increase the productivity of Zulu agriculture while at the same time preserving natural resources. What is significant is that this farm is a mix of self-sufficient production units. The experiments are being conducted under field conditions in the Biyela project area, a 23 000 hectare region typical of rural kwaZulu, near Eshowe, which currently sustains a rural population of some 30 000 people. They have made it work.

It would therefore appear that one solution to another far more serious problem—the population explosion—would be to help the masses to feed themselves and to produce a surplus. We have to find Third World solutions to what is basically a Third World problem. Encouraging increased productivity on the basis of a subsistence farming operation would certainly seem to hold that solution.

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon member, Mr Derby-Lewis, on his maiden speech in this House. He has made an interesting contribution to the debate.

I regard it as a great privilege to address the hon members of this House in this, my maiden speech. I regard it, too, as an honour to represent my party on these benches. I therefore thank the PFP for nominating me as a candidate in the recent election.

I must also thank the people of Durban North for electing me to represent them in Parliament. I feel particularly honoured to represent this constituency, for it is a constituency in which I have lived for the past 33 years of my life, in which I received my school education, and in which I in turn have participated fully in the education process. It is, as I have already indicated, an enormous privilege for me to serve the people of Durban North in Parliament.

The fact that I have been asked to make my maiden speech in the course of the debate on this motion is, I believe, most appropriate. For the past 18 years I have been directly involved in the education process and, more recently, in the administration of education at both the school and teachers’ society level.

It is at the latter level that I have had the opportunity of having a wide involvement in education and being able to look at education in both the urban and the rural areas, as well as at Black and White education. I do not think any hon member of this House would deny that education has a vital role to play in the development of a civilized society or in the general upliftment of people. Several hon members of this House have indicated this this afternoon.

In the same way, when we talk about population development in rural areas we must again accept the important role education has to play. I have listened carefully to the debate this afternoon and I have read very carefully the very similar debate which took place in this House in 1985, to which my colleague has already referred. In both debates much emphasis was placed on health services, population growth, family planning and related matters as important factors in population development programmes.

I wish to submit that any development programme can only be successful if a sound education programme is part and parcel of it. As I have said, this has, of course, already been mentioned this afternoon by hon members of this House. To emphasize the point, however, I wish to refer to the Science Committee of the President’s Council which drew up a report in 1984 on informal and non-formal education in South Africa. In this report the issue of environmental disadvantagement as a vital factor affecting population development programmes was considered. The report placed a great deal of emphasis on the need for extensive literary programmes and non-formal and informal education programmes to help overcome environmental disadvantagement. An interesting point in this report is that it also placed emphasis on the need for family planning as an important factor in the Population Development Programme, but stressed that for a family planning programme to be successful, it must in fact “be accompanied by a complementary non-formal education programme designed to assist families in understanding the objectives of family planning measures, thus influencing the fertility norms by emphasising the detrimental effects of large families on the standard of living and the quality of life ”.

This point underlines the main thrust of the argument of the hon member for Parktown.

This report also took pains to point out that any non-formal or informal education programme could only be successful among a group of people provided that a level of literacy had already been reached among them. This is the point which concerns me most of all. It has become quite clear to me that there are many children, certainly in the rural areas of Natal, who receive no education at all, and others who receive very little education of any real worth. Obviously the children in the rural areas rely mainly on the farm school system in order to receive an education. I have visited a number of farm schools and have come across some really fine schools, schools with modern buildings and trained teachers doing a good job.

I have, however, also come across some schools where the education which was taking place took place in wattle and daub rooms which were literally falling apart. In the case of one school in particular it was obvious that the teacher who was trying to teach approximately 50 pupils at five different levels at the same time, was totally inadequate for the task.

Inspectors of education for these schools talk about harassment from a number of people when they try to carry out their function, not least of all in many cases from the farmers themselves. It must be stressed for the information of the hon members of this House that the present situation with regard to the State’s involvement in farm school education is as follows, and I quote from a report of Mr P Mundel, a liaison officer for the Department of Education and Training:

It follows, Mr Chairman, that whether children in the rural areas receive an education or not is very much at the whim and fancy of the farmer. One must always hope, therefore, that the farming community is made up of enlightened people.

I was particularly encouraged to read in the Sunday Tribune of 17 April 1987 that the Department of Education and Training had carried out an extensive enquiry into Black rural education. Among the matters that were investigated was the role of the farmer himself in farm schools. The conclusion has been reached that the onus should no longer be on the farmer to provide school facilities and accommodation for teachers and that this, in fact, should be the responsibility of the Department of Education and Training.

There is a great deal of optimism that the general level of education will be greatly enhanced in the farm schools when the recommendations of the report are implemented. We must of course remember that at this stage education is not compulsory for the children of farm labourers, and that most children who do receive a farm school education are not educated above the Std 5 level.

A recent survey showed that in Natal there is only one high school for the children on the province’s 7 500 farms. I wish to remind the House of the significant report on the provision of education in the RSA produced by the Human Sciences Research Council in 1981. This report had as its basis 11 broad principles, the first of which stated:

This implies, among other things, that people in the rural areas will receive the same educational opportunities as people in the urban areas. It is vitally important, I believe, that we work towards this—particularly when we talk about population development programmes. Therefore, I do believe that the findings of the Department of Education and Training are important. I would urge that everything be done to implement these findings as soon as possible and, by so doing, bring about the education that is so necessary for the general upliftment of people. Once this has been done, we would need to continue with intensive informal and non-formal education programmes in the rural areas, and by so doing generally improve the quality of life of these people.

In conclusion, Sir, I should like to refer to the the example that Mr Clem Sunter of the Anglo American Corporation quotes in his scenario planning of the world and South Africa in the 1990s. He refers to the Japanese who, after the Second World War, placed tremendous emphasis on education as a vital factor in the re-establishment of Japan as a nation. After the war their target was a universal secondary education programme which followed the universal primary programme they had established as far back as 1870. Their aim was to ensure that the children in the rural areas received at least as good an education as their urban counterparts received.

We all know of the success Japan has achieved as a nation in the past few decades. We in this country therefore have an interesting model to follow. We have to improve, firstly, the level of literacy among all people in this country, but we need to extend this as soon as possible to a system of primary and secondary education available to all children in South Africa, which will enable them to improve their quality of life in regard to all aspects of the South African economy and society.

The sooner we introduce the development programme for the rural areas, the better. I would regard this as an urgent priority in this country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, allow me first of all to congratulate the hon member for Durban North on his maiden speech here this afternoon. He spoke with enthusiasm on education and this augurs well for future debates on education in Parliament. I wish the hon member a very pleasant stay here.

*I want to congratulate the hon member for Langlaagte on having raised this important matter here this afternoon, namely the fact that population development in the rural areas of South Africa should enjoy a high priority.

There should be no doubt on the part of any hon member in this House concerning the fact that population development and population growth are vital to our future. Today, when we speak about a growth rate, a fertility figure, of 6,2 among fertile women in rural South Africa, as opposed to a figure of 2,8 among the four million Blacks in the PWV area, hon members will appreciate its importance.

As regards the birth potential of Black girls in the rural areas in the age group 15 to 19 years of age for example, provision will have to be made for an astonishing number of people during the next three decades. According to the 1986 census there were 254 336 Black girls in this age group in the rural areas of the Transvaal. If we take a look at the average number of children in the rural areas of the Transvaal, which is slightly less than 6,2, namely 4,6, it means that at present there is a birth potential of 1 257 287. That is a fivefold increase in the numbers within 30 years.

As far as this same age group in Natal is concerned there are 278 779 Black girls having the potential to give birth to 1 113 438 children, ie a potential of a four to fivefold increase. In the Orange Free State there will be a fourfold increase within the next 30 years. Therefore this motion by the hon member for Langlaagte is vital to the future of our country.

If one bears in mind this growth rate in the rural areas there is no way—if we do not take positive action—in which we will be able to ward off a catastrophe in terms of the quality of life. The hon member for Langlaagte provided an excellent analysis of the definitions we use for the population development programme and for that I thank him. As far as the rural areas are concerned, it is not, in fact, a question of depopulation, but one of a decrease in the White population and I do want to say the following so that we can all understand this. There is no way in which we can partition these 5,5 million Black labourers onto our farms among 77 000 farmers, much as we would like to. There is no way this can be done.

I briefly want to refer to the indicators which the hon member for Langlaagte mentioned. At present we are the only country in the world which has indicators of the quality of life in each of the development districts in South Africa. They are monitored by the HSRC and we know exactly what the female fertility, the DFF, in other words the number of children per woman is in each development region. In every development region in the country we know exactly how many teenage pregnancies there are as well as the infant mortality rate. We also know what the life expectancy, the room density, the economic dependency figure and the income per capita is.

Malnutrition?

Yes, malnutrition as well. All these things are important in terms of quality of life. I shall return to the hon member for Parktown in a moment.

I want to say that these are the indicators which determine the quality of life. It indicates to us where the priorities lie. I am able to tell the hon member that today we know with great precision that one of the greatest priorities at present lies in Barkly East. Prof Mostert’s figures to which the hon member for Langlaagte referred, indicate that during the 1985-86 census there was an under calculation of the number of Blacks in South Africa. I also want to thank the hon member for Langlaagte for his kind words in respect of the department.

I should like to congratulate the hon member for Pietersburg on his appointment as the new Official Opposition spokesman on health. I wish him everything of the best in his position.

Speaking of good fortune, I should like to make use of this opportunity to thank the other new hon members who participated in the debate. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke is not here at the moment, but I want to thank him for his maiden speech. He spoke with great enthusiasm about Schweizer-Reneke. He gave a very good analysis of community development in his constituency and I am glad he referred to the Boskop Training Centre for farm labourers. It is aimed in particular at improving the quality of life of the farm labourer. I also wish him a pleasant sojourn in Parliament.

The hon member for Smithfield also spoke with great compassion about his constituency and I think we all appreciated it. The hon member then addressed the farmers. He said the farmers ought to do more for their workers as far as the provision of housing and clean water was concerned. I was also struck by the way the hon member assessed the need for farm schools in his area. There is no doubt that population training in the schools is an important factor and that the wife and the farmer can play an important role in that regard as well.

I also wish the hon member a very long and pleasant sojourn in Parliament.

†I should also like to congratulate the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis on his contribution in his maiden speech here this afternoon. He paid tribute to the English-speaking members of Parliament and he did so with compassion. His Scottish heritage is certainly not evident in the pronunciation of his r’s. Be that as it may, his overview on the Africa dilemma was interesting. I wish him a pleasant stay in Parliament.

*With that the maiden speeches have been dealt with. I now come to the hon member for Pietersburg. I think he was somewhat unreasonable towards the hon member for Langlaagte. I think they were after all words of welcome. He referred to the differences between the opposition and the Government. There are indeed, obvious differences. However the hon member did impute something to us which is not true. I shall take the liberty of mentioning it because I now have to react to the hon member's speech. He said that this side of the House advocated a unitary state. Is that true, did the hon member for Pietersburg not say that?

Dr W J SNYMAN [Inaudible.]

That is definitely not so, and no one on this side of the House has ever used the words “unitary state”, nor has anyone on this side of the House ever used the words “common voters’ role”. I should just like to place it on record that we cannot trifle with the truth in this way. It does not work that way. We should deal with the truth as it is.

What is “one undivided South Africa” in that case?

The hon member must wait a while; then I shall reply to him.

The hon member for Pietersburg referred to a unitary state and said that 13 different peoples had to be educated. I agree with him and in a moment I shall discuss what form the education should take. I am in full agreement with the hon member that the aim is 2,1 child per woman by the year 2010. The hon member said, however, that the figure for the Whites was less than 2,1 children per woman. He was right: It is 2,08! But what the hon member did not say, and it ought to be placed on record, is that the policy on this side of the House is that everyone—ie the Whites, the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Asians— should have 2,1 children per woman by the year 2010. It is not only the Whites to whom that figure should apply, but everyone! The hon member for Pietersburg said the hon member for Langlaagte had referred to a decline of 10% in the White birth rate. That is not correct. I do not think the hon member understood properly. The hon member for Langlaagte was referring to the decline in the infant mortality rate per 1 000 live births. Between 1984 and 1986 the infant mortality rate among Whites showed a decline of 10,9%. I think it was merely a misunderstanding.

It is very important, especially as far as our critics abroad are concerned, to mention that during the same period the decline in the infant mortality rate among our Black population was 25,9%. Among the Coloured population it was 21% and among the Asian population 33%. Although there is at present an infant mortality rate of 67 per 1 000 five births among the Black population, we should compare it with Zimbabwe where it is 79; Angola where it is 160; Botswana where it is 88; Lesotho, 120; Swaziland, 140; Mozambique, 120; Kenya, 92; and Zaïre where it is 117. I think it is very important to make such a comparison. We did, however, say that we are working towards an infant mortality rate for all population groups of only 10 per 1 000 live births by the year 2010.

I thank the hon member for Pietersburg for having done such excellent research …

Hear, hear!

I also thank the hon member for Overvaal. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg said that the Whites did not want to have more children. Today I want to state it categorically in this House that we have tried everything to encourage people to have more children but there is no way of causing people to have more children than they themselves decide to have. The status of women is the most important factor in this connection. The new status of women in the labour field plays a very important part. We have investigated it. Incentives and disincentives are therefore very difficult to deal with.

The hon member also asked what we had done in connection with the self-governing and the TBVC states. I am particularly grateful for the progress which we have made in the self-governing and TBVC states. Before I come to that, however, I first want to say that the departments for own affairs in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates are of course dealing with their own population development programmes. The RSA and the Ministers responsible for health and population development in the TBVC countries met on 9 February 1987 in Cape Town under my chairmanship and held talks on the importance of population development for the whole of Southern Africa. When we talk about 400 000 job opportunities that sill have to be created this year, that also concerns them. I am able to tell hon members that the talks were exceptionally positive and that each one of the TBVC countries decided in principle to accept their own population development programme. In my view that was a breakthrough.

There is also close co-operation on a multilateral and a bilateral level between South Africa and those countries. To tell the truth, we offered to train their population developers so that they would have enough personnel to do the work in their countries. This was accepted by them and we shall therefore second senior officials from our department to start the training there.

As far as the self-governing areas in South Africa are concerned, we also met on 20 March 1987 in Pretoria, with the Ministers responsible for health and population development. The aim was in fact to discuss the necessity of an individual population development programme for each of the areas. The discussions which were attended by all these regions was once again very positive and I should like to point out that the joint press statement …

What do you mean by positive?

They all accepted the aims of the population development programme.

The previous Minister always used to say the same thing.

Now wait! I shall give the hon member the figures. May I just ask the hon member for Parktown to restrain himself a little. I want to discuss something with him now. The poor hon member for Parktown spoke about “nuclear power” and “uterine power”.

†But the hon member for Parktown must certainly know that when one talks about uterine power—and the uterus is a womb— one is talking about the birds and the bees. It is not only a uterus, for goodness sake! [Interjections.] One needs something else. [Interjections.]

When we talk about the situation as far as the self-governing areas are concerned I can report that this was the first meeting where we had a firm commitment and we will meet again in six months’ time. In other words, the point I would like to make is that we are also addressing the problem in rural areas there, because we know that in many of their areas they have a total fertility rate which is too high at the present moment. As a matter of fact we have figures which indicate that at present the total fertility rate in Transkei is 7,3, in Bophuthatswana 4,9, in Venda 6,6 and in Ciskei 5.

For that reason we must do something about it, but I wish to remind hon members that the average number of children per woman is 6,6 in Zimbabwe; 8 in Kenya; 6,1 in Mozambique; 6,5 in Swaziland; and 6,5 in Botswana.

*I want to return to the hon member for Pietersburg. I thank him for his contribution and once again I want to express the wish that we will have very pleasant co-operation, inasmuch as he is now the Official Opposition’s spokesman on health. It is true that each one of them has their own population programme and that is why my answer to the hon member in that regard is positive.

†It is always a pleasure to deal with the hon member for Parktown; there is no doubt about that. He always comes up with something interesting like nuclear power and uterine power, and today he gave an excellent exposition of the various methods of contraception.

To make my point I would first like to provide him with recent figures in order to show him how far we have progressed. As far as Black women are concerned, 44% are at present using contraceptives. The figure of 16% to 20% which applies to the self-governing areas and the TBVC countries is still not high enough. Of Asians, 66% are using contraceptives as are 83% of Whites. The important thing, however, is that in four years the number of children per fertile Black woman in the PWV area dropped to 2,8. I think this is a tremendous achievement. [Interjections.]

The hon member asked me about clinics. I should love to give him clinics in the rural areas. We are talking about rural areas because that is what the whole debate is about. There are at present about 2 329 of these centres in rural areas of South Africa.

What centres?

They are centres for …

… family planning.

Yes, for family planning.

I want community centres.

What does the hon member mean by “community centres”?

What is it that you are planning?

Does he mean MOHs? What does he mean?

Community centres …

Mr Chairman, allow me to finish, as I will deal with all aspects. If the hon member is referring to a community centre with a recreation hall, he must remember that such centres cost a minimum of R60 000— R100 000. At the present moment we have 26 of those centres.

But that is not so important. At the moment we have 2 329 fixed family planning clinics and 4 843 mobile clinics in the rural areas with 900 nurses working in them, and in the next financial year we will be spending R36,5 million on clinical services in the rural areas.

Another important question that arose was whether we have people talking to and motivating them. There are 636 family planning experts doing just that. We have a further 100 population development officers all over the country involved in population development. As a matter of fact, there are also 406 mobile units that are roaming the whole country, rendering other services such as baby care and other more sophisticated medical services.

The hon member raised the point that only 39,1% of Blacks were urbanised. In fact, when one looks at the sub-Sahara region, one finds that only 17%—20% of Blacks are urbanised. For that reason we have to concentrate on the rural areas. I agree entirely with the hon member that when they are urbanised it is easier to get hold of them. One of the important reasons why the fertility rate came down in an area such as Soweto, was the fact that the city was electrified. When we put in lights, it was a great boon and the birth rate dropped.

There is one aspect which we have to discuss which is very important and which the hon member has referred to. He knows full well that we have given R500 million for sub-economic housing. However, the hon member for Parktown also talks about the Group Areas Act in a debate on population development! I want to tell hon members that if ever there was a turbo-charged failure it was the hon member’s statement that the Group Areas Act was responsible for the high population growth rate! [Interjections.] However, I agree with him that community development and the quality of life are key factors.

*I must proceed however, and I want to tell the hon member for Wellington his contribution on the Rural Foundation was excellent, as his contributions always are. He is also a director of the Rural Foundation. This afternoon I want to tell him that the department has increased its contribution to the South African Agricultural Union for the Rural Foundation from R3,2 million to R4,8 million for the next financial year. The Government is committed to this and it is our priority to allow an 18% growth because there are 842 farmers who are waiting to be admitted to the Rural Foundation’s programme. The Rural Foundation has already done very good work, not only in the Boland, but especially in the Western Transvaal, the Eastern Transvaal, the Free State and during the past months in Natal for the first time as well. The Rural Foundation is a very important part of our operations.

The hon member for Stilfontein referred very adroitly to the role of the economy, the per capita income and the room density of which Prof Budson spoke. That is true. One cannot get a worthwhile population development programme off the ground without improving the economic dependency figure, ensuring a good per capita income and lowering the room density figure. The hon member is quite right and I thank him for his contribution.

I think I have in this way reacted to everyone’s contribution. I should just like to conclude …

Hear, hear!

May I ask the hon member for Overvaal to shout “Hear, hear” when I raise my left hand, and preferably say nothing when I raise my right hand. I think that would be better, because then we will understand each other. [Interjections.]

To conclude, I want to say that our endeavour is based on the following few points, which are: The promotion of education and training—the hon member referred to that and an investigation has already been instituted by the Department of Education and Training—manpower training; primary health care; family planning; economic growth; the creation of prosperity; and enhancing the status of women, an aspect which is essential to this programme. I hope the hon members for Houghton, Rosettenville, Edenvale and Kempton Park as well as the hon member Mrs Chait, have been listening.

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

Always, with great pleasure.

With a view to enhancing the status of women, would the hon the Minister consider appointing a commission of inquiry into the workings of the Abortion and Sterilisation Act of 1975?

The answer is no.

Why?

Because all the women of status have already met with me in my office, and I have discussed the matter with them. They all know that this Government will never allow abortion on demand.

No one has ever asked for that.

That is my answer. I have seen all the women of status in that area and they are satisfied with my answer.

They are furious with you! [Interjections.]

I really think the hon member for Houghton should have applauded our statement on the status of women, but instead she is saying that everyone is furious with me.

Yes. I have a letter.

The hon member for Houghton has a great sense of humour.

*I want to thank hon members who have contributed to the debate. Thank you very much as well to the hon member for Langlaagte, who this afternoon addressed a problem which is of crucial importance to the future of South Africa. If we do not succeed in this none of our other plans for the future of our children and grandchildren will be of any value.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister rounded the debate off so superbly that I do not have much more to say. It is the custom in this sort of debate simply to speak until the allotted time expires, and this is what I intend to do now. I am nevertheless certain that if we were to put it to the vote, the motion would be adopted unanimously.

I should also like to thank all the speakers. The hon the Minister mentioned each of them by name, and I do not want to do so again. I endorse what he said, but I should like to add that the hon the Minister himself measured up to the high expectations this House has of him, so I should also like to thank the hon the Minister.

I am not really angry with the hon member for Pietersburg for accusing me of making an error of 10%. He made a mistake, but now I have discovered that I also made one. What actually happened is that the infant mortality rate—that is the death rate in their first year of babies born alive—among Whites dropped from 12,7 to 10,9 per thousand, a figure which represents a drop of 14%, which is very good.

The speech made by the hon member for Parktown was, on the whole, positive, but when he spoke of abortion as a form of contraception I felt that, scientifically, he was quite wrong, apart from the fact that he is probably also quite wrong in moral terms. The hon member also asked us why I had brought a motion before the House asking for the population development programme to be made a high priority at this particular juncture. That is not what is stated in the motion. It reads:

This has enjoyed a high priority for a long time. We are simply saying that we should promote that matter of high priority further. We are not only starting on it now. [Interjections.]

To end briefly in a lighter vein I should just like to tell hon members something about the very competent and likeable young minister of the Johannesburg West congregation in Langlaagte of which I am a member. Once he starts preaching, people listen. Sometimes, before his sermon, my thoughts tend to wander just a little. Last Sunday, while he was reading from the Scriptures and so on, my thoughts wandered and I thought about population development and people who were a little slow among other things. Then suddenly I pricked up my ears as he read something which I should like to quote here. I am quoting it a little out of context, but I want to apply it to population development. In Hebrews 5 verse 11—we are not sure who wrote the epistle—it is written:

I hope we have succeeded in doing this and that we shall carry the message further.

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

Mr Chairman, when the hon member for Overvaal began this debate yesterday afternoon, he said he thought it made history that 48% of the members on this side of the House belonged to the legal profession. I think history is perhaps being made this afternoon in that four other hon members have completed their maiden speeches before an hon member could complete a maiden speech he had commenced.

Before the House adjourned yesterday, I had intended to thank the hon member for Rissik, who made his maiden speech just before me, and to congratulate him on that speech. I am sure he will make a worthy contribution to the proceedings of this House.

Yesterday I closed with a reference to General Smuts and General Botha. This afternoon I should like to mention a few other historical figures associated with the Standerton constituency. I should like to refer to Wennie du Plessis, a figure from the 1948 period. He was involved in a great battle even though he was not a general. At the same time, I should like to mention the name of Mr Hendrik Schoeman, who made his mark on the Standerton constituency and also occupied the highest position of State President in a temporary capacity.

This afternoon I should like to thank my predecessor in this House since 1974, Mr Willa Hefer, for a very pleasant election campaign. It was a very clean campaign. I trust that, at his young age, Mr Hefer’s expertise will continue to be used to the benefit of this country.

During the past 26 years I have had the privilege of appearing in various courts in this country. I should therefore like to support the extension of the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts proposed in this Bill. I should also like to point out to the hon the Minister that there are other responsibilities which will accompany the extended jurisdiction.

Sir, I must make haste in order to avoid having to make my maiden speech over three days. [Interjections.] Allow me to furnish a few statistics. I should like to refer first to Department of Justice statistics of 1984-85. According to these, a total of 2 224 382 criminal cases were recorded in district courts, of which only 1,72 were set aside and only 2,24% amended.

In the regional courts, over which 128 magistrates preside, a total of 55 960 criminal cases were heard. The travelling time expended by these regional magistrates amounted to 11 453 hours. I mention this for a specific reason. They spent 11 095 hours doing research. In contrast to this, judges tried 2 497 criminal cases. Ninety-five percent of all criminal cases were therefore heard by the lower courts.

The standard of our courts is exceptionally high. I should like to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the department as well as the hon the Minister on the standard of our regional court magistrates in particular. If one bears in mind that of such a large number of cases only 1,72% were set aside and 2,2% amended, it indicates a very high standard.

The reason for this is, of course, the outstanding training which the Department of Justice offers these people. This great task is performed in the training provided in criminal as well as civil matters. If extended jurisdiction is granted, this will naturally have to be re-examined and improved.

I know that the regional court magistrates are very grateful to the department for again providing them with machine operators. During the past few years we have become accustomed to the fact that the regional magistrate up there on his bench would be constantly preoccupied with recording the proceedings on a tape-recorder. In my opinion this was very irksome, and we as well as the magistrates are most grateful that the dignity of the courts has, by this provision, been restored in some degree.

There are various other matters I should have liked to have broached, but I think I shall deal with them more fully on a subsequent occasion. I should like, however, to refer briefly to just two matters, the first being the subsidised cars of the regional court magistrates which, presumably for some or other good reason, have been taken away from them. One day these people turned up at court in big Mercedes Benzes, BMWs or other luxurious air-conditioned vehicles, and on the next they suddenly arrived in small cars. The 11 453 hours which they spend in cars are very important. It is extremely important, especially in the Highveld, that these people who spend so much time on the road should drive comfortable cars so that thay can arrive at the courts fresh for their work.

Since there was a bomb explosion at the magistrates’ court in Johannesburg only last week, I might mention that there were also bomb explosions recently in Volksrust, which is in my constituency. I think that special attention should be paid to the security aspects of our courts. The regional court magistrates, whose jurisdiction is being extended, try very important cases. They try terrorists virtually every day. Yet the magistrate’s protection usually consists solely of a court orderly who more often than not is a very young and inexperienced rural policeman—I am not referring to the magistrates in the cities now, but to those in country areas— or of an old constable for whom they no longer have any real use at the police station, and who then sits in court. I ask the hon the Minister to ensure that this matter is attended to.

Sir, I thank hon members for listening to me so patiently, and I am also grateful to have been granted this opportunity.

Mr Chairman, for various reasons it is a pleasure to react to a debate that has been characterised by sound argument, objectivity and occasionally even an unexpected note. In fact it gives one even greater pleasure to be able to participate in this particular debate on this particular day because today, 26 May, is of special significance in the political history of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

It is significant in the sense that today 39 years ago the NP came to power. It was 39 years ago that South Africa saw the political light, and that light has never shone so brightly as it is shining today.

We are going to dim that light of yours. [Interjections.]

Therefore it is a special honour to conclude this debate today and to express the hope that with a large number of new hon members on this side of the House, the hon members on the other side of the House will be dealt with so convincingly— they are no doubt equally competent and will be tested in the days to come—that they, too, will see the light.

The hon member for Overvaal introduced the debate on this Bill. Since the hon member is in fact opposing this Bill it would be appropriate for me to speak to him again at the end of my reply and to devote the necessary attention to him which he deserves in such circumstances.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North apologised for not being able to be present. He told me during the debate that he had an administrative problem. I shall clear the matter up with that hon member later. However, he has no substantive objection.

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

Yes.

Mr Chairman, I understood the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to have asked the hon the Minister what the answer to that problem would be. I think the hon the Minister must advise this House and not the hon member privately. I am interested in the hon the Minister’s reply.

I regard this as an administrative problem that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has in connection with the fact that there will be extensive documentation that will make it difficult for the practitioner to deal with. Butterworths provides a consolidated set of laws and an Act such as this one is one of those they issue on this consolidated basis; therefore that problem is largely eliminated thereby. Because in practice we have in any case organised it in such a way that one adds one’s own annotations, I do not think the objection is such a significant one.

One important point, of course, relating to computerisation of legal information, is that the practitioner is increasingly able to ascertain what legislation relates to what regulations simply by pressing a few buttons. Therefore considerable progress has been made in this sphere. I should say that the very interesting observations of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North should be seen in that perspective.

The hon member for Sandton very clearly took the opportunity—I give him credit for doing so—to lending his indisputable support to this Bill.