laid upon the Table:

1. (1) National Council Bill [B 109—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development).
2. (2) Customs and Excise Amendment Bill [B 110—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Finance).
3. (3) Pension Laws Amendment Bill [B 111—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Health and Welfare).

Mr Chairman, with the leave of the House, I wish to move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! The hon the Minister in the State President’s Office has requested an opportunity to make a statement and I now call upon him to do so.

Mr Chairman, it affords me great pleasure to announce that all remaining disparities between the salaries of the various population groups in the Public Service are to be removed as of 1 March 1988.

Last month in Parliament I stated that I was giving urgent attention to the issue of salary disparities. I am grateful to confirm that I have received the full co-operation of my Cabinet colleagues, which means that we shall be able to resolve this issue before the end of this financial year. As I explained to Parliament, it is estimated that this final stage in the programme to eliminate disparities will cost about R135 million for a full year.

The removal of salary disparities will mean that the same salary scales as well as measures which govern the determination of individual salaries will apply to all population groups serving in the Public Service. The elimination of disparities will include general measures such as those applying to compensation for transfer costs, subsistence allowances and stand-by allowances.

I must also pay tribute to the various staff associations, particularly the Public Service League, the Public Service Union and the Institute of Public Servants. The dignified manner in which they submitted their representations and their understanding of the complexities and constraints involved, definitely advanced the process of eliminating disparities.

In 1979, as Minister of Internal Affairs, a portfolio which used to include responsibilities pertaining to the Public Service Commission, I was involved in drawing up the initial programme for the removal of salary disparities. For this reason I regard it as a special privilege that I should be the person to announce the end of salary disparities in the Public Service.

Mr Chairman, next year we shall be celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Great Trek. However, the Great Trek is not over, because the Great Trek to the Transvaal is still taking place. As the hon member for Roodeplaat indicated yesterday, 54% of the country’s Whites and 56% of the country’s Blacks live in the Transvaal. In addition it is currently estimated that there are 1,3 million illegal aliens in our country, who are residing mainly in the Transvaal.

The population growth in and move to the Transvaal is creating unique problems for this province. It is placing tremendous pressure on the existing infrastructure. It is also placing increasing pressure on the extremely sensitive services which the province must supply. We in Parliament must make sure that the Transvaal receives adequate funds to be able to supply those services properly.

Up to the sixties the provincial councils could levy taxes in order to supplement their funds. The Schumann Report and the White Paper on that report which appeared in 1964, resulted in the provinces receiving their funds from Parliament in accordance with a financial formula as from the 1971-72 financial year. This formula was contained in the White Paper, but has now been phased out.

In order to supply the services in the Transvaal properly—this applies to every other province too—adequate funds must be made available to the provinces. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister to order a proper investigation by experts so that a new formula can be found in terms of which the provinces or the various departments of the provinces can be financed. I do not think the present system is working entirely satisfactorily.

One of the services for which the provincial administration is responsible, is the provision of roads. With the tremendous population explosion in the Transvaal which is associated with the industrial development there, the existing roads in the province are simply no longer adequate. The need for roads is steadily increasing. For every new power station, for every new township and for every new industrial area more roads are needed. The financial situation being what it is at present, the Transvaal is simply not able to meet this need for roads. It is simply not possible.

Fortunately the Government, in its wisdom, has for the past two years imposed a levy on our fuel sales—at the moment it totals 8c per litre for petrol and 10c per litre for diesel. This levy yielded more than R600 million in the last financial year. It is expected to total more than R700 million in the present financial year.

Funds for the building of roads are now being generated. As far as major roads are concerned, there are now five organisations entrusted with the provision of roads. In addition to the four provincial administrations, the Department of Transport is also entrusted with this. This state of affairs simply cannot continue. For that reason I ask—I associate myself with an appeal made by the hon member for Primrose in the debate on the Transport Vote—that we establish a national road council or a South African road council to control and plan the building and financing of roads in our country and to determine the priorities involved.

It is important for someone to determine the priorities. What is more important—a road from Baardskeerdersbos to Putsonderwater or a road from Rysmierbult to Hessie se Water, or is the South Rand road from Krugersdorp to Springs and the western by-pass around Pretoria not more important? For that reason I appeal to the hon the Minister to attend to this co-ordinating of the road-building programme and the financing of roads in our country, and specifically in the Transvaal with its pressing need for a proper road network. Civilisation is not possible without transport, and because the present trend is for passengers and freight to be transported by road rather than by rail, the need for a proper road network in South Africa is of paramount importance.

Mr Chairman, I can find no fault with what the hon member for Hercules had to say regarding funds that have to be found for the various departments of the Transvaal Provincial Administration. I just want to say that since he referred to the Great Trek from the Cape to the Transvaal, I can assure him that the CP is migrating from the Transvaal to Cape Town, and specifically to this House of Assembly. [Interjections.]

Before the Committee reported progress last night, certain hon members of the NP clearly showed in their attack on the CP that they no longer want to take up the cudgels for the White man and the Afrikaner in this Committee. The hon member for Bethlehem clearly exemplified this when he stated with reference to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke that even the performance of the hon members of the House of Delegates would eclipse him. I just want to say that despite his ties with the NP, the hon the State President did in fact make an effort to take up the cudgels for the Afrikaner in the House of Delegates; with catastrophic consequences, of course. I think the behaviour of those hon members will severely disappoint him.

As the hon member for Carletonville has already indicated, the Transvaal, like the other provinces, has had to bow to the new constitutional development. After 75 years the provincial council has been phased out so as to be brought in line with the first tier of government. One could ask where the Government is heading with the second tier of government. The most important guarantee for successful constitutional reform is to be found in a systematic, purposeful and successful modus operandi. The goal must therefore be unequivocal and clear, and must be pursued scientifically. The Government is not doing this at all at the moment. There must be no uncertainty, nor must any impression of uncertainty be given, because if this happens, the population develops a lack of security, which leads to a crisis of confidence. This is what is happening in the Transvaal.

Interestingly enough, history has already proved that reform processes accompanied by substantial concessions in fact resulted in greater revolution in the case of the French Revolution in 1729, the Bolshevist revolution in 1917 and the Iranian revolution in 1979. History is repeating itself in the Transvaal which, like the other provinces, is being profoundly affected by the reform processes of the Government, since unrest broke out during the very course of the Government’s reform processes, and despite further reform having been promised, the climate of conflict still prevails.

The logical question is why. It is because no-one knows where the Government is heading with reform. Secondly, as the hon member for Ermelo explained, because the Black man was not involved initially, and had to witness privileges being granted to Coloureds and Asians, the UDF, the ANC and the PAC are fighting the reform processes. Therefore, if reform does not imply reform over a broad spectrum, and everyone is not involved or does not want to participate, this kind of reform will set revolution in motion.

In passing, it is also significant that it was the French and Bolshevist middle class that inspired the revolution precisely because there was insufficient reform. They then activated the third estate and used it to spark off the revolution. Nor can the aim of the first and second tiers of government to create a stable Black middle class in South Africa as a possible counter to the revolution, be accepted without further ado. Although economic power and a say in the process may be important, they are more interested in the political processes, since ultimately they determine who acquires the power base in the Republic of South Africa. This is the fundamental issue in South Africa. It has to do with the issue of power.

If the hon the Minister does not want to recognise this, I do not think he is taking the realities of the times into account. How does one grant the Blacks, with their numerical superiority, political participation without affecting the security and stability of the minority groups? Our hon leader has already said that we must look at the fate of the Biafrans and what has happened in the rest of Africa.

The second tier of administration cannot succeed on its present basis, since all affairs are at the level of general affairs, and this is diametrically opposed to the recognition of the right of self-determination of every group in respect of their constitutional and spatial development. The second tier of administration is on the same path of confrontation as the first tier of government. Rev Hendrickse is acting in line with the NP’s philosophy of give and take as far as the removal of all discriminatory legislation is concerned. His demand that the Group Areas Act be abolished, will also affect second-tier administration fundamentally. Just as prolonging the life of the White Parliament is now on the negotiating table, the other groups will use the second level of administration to diminish the standing room of the White man.

I should like to refer to the recent increase in the allowances of members of city councils and members of management committees. It is absolutely shocking. Nigel’s city council, which falls under group 9, and those taxpayers will have to come up with an additional R172 000 for the increase in the allowances of members of the city council and members of management committees. This is absolutely shocking. Why is this being done? Is it to persuade certain groups to come to the negotiating table, or does the Government really think that members, who in certain cases represent only a few hundred people, are entitled to that outrageous remuneration?

I would also like to know from the hon the Minister on what authority the Administrator is being empowered to compel White local authorities to pay increased allowances to members of Coloured and Indian management committees. [Interjections.] In the case of Nigel, the chairman’s allowance of R131,25 has been increased to R1 800. I believe this is almost 12 to 15 times more than it is at present.

Another matter I should like to touch on concerns the recommendations which the Executive Committee requires from time to time in respect of Tattersalls committees and hospital boards. Although the CP Members of Parliament have been duly elected in a democratic way by a majority of voters, their recommendations are usually not accepted. Usually the recommendations of NP members or so-called guardian MP’s are accepted.

The NP is making an absolute farce of the system by appointing people on recommendation who are in no way involved in the constituency. The NP is using this method to influence people so as to further their cause in the community in which they are still in reverse gear.

To be able to make a balanced evaluation of the expenditure of funds by the province of Transvaal, one would really need comparative figures from the previous year. Due to the fact that structurally the province has changed completely over the past year in comparison with previous years, available figures cannot be consistently compared, and particularly not with those in the report of the Auditor-General for 1985-86. The structural change has taken place in the spirit of the Government’s policy of power-sharing, and the functions are now primarily those of general affairs. This is therefore a continuation of the process of equalisation in which the White group is still the loser.

During the period of provincial government the Transvaal always had to contend with a shortage of funds, and the formula used by central Government to make funds available to the province, was always a point of criticism. We will probably only be able to determine whether this problem has been overcome next year when the annual reports of the various Votes are available.

Looking at the central Government’s contribution—as reflected in the 1985-86 report—which amounted to R2 244 million, as opposed to the province’s total income of R2 717 million, I gain the impression that the Transvaal has made no progress in respect of its financial position compared with the state of affairs before the Transvaal Provincial Council was dissolved.

Bad government!

This still leaves us in the position that apart from the fact that certain departments, apart from making no progress in the creation of essential services, are also unable to eliminate in any way the backlog they have built up.

It would be almost impossible to consider every Transvaal Vote when all the problems and needs are pointed out. I should therefore like to confine myself to Vote 3. It is encouraging to see that about R39 million more has been spent on major works than in the previous year. As a result of increased costs and inflation, however, it is doubtful whether that amount contributed in any way to eliminating any backlog or the rendering of effective service. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, like the speaker before him, the previous speaker referred to the Great Trek. He claimed that the Official Opposition was on a Great Trek to Parliament. I want to tell them that this is wishful thinking.

He also referred to revolution. If they wish, they can continue their efforts to stir up revolution amongst the Afrikaners by driving a wedge between Afrikaans-speaking people, thereby promoting their political views. They can forget about it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member permitted to say that the CP is trying to stir up revolution amongst the Afrikaners?

In an attempt at revolution. [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon member for Meyerton repeat what he said about revolution?

Mr Chairman, I said that they were stirring up a revolution—that is, a cultural revolution—amongst Afrikaners. I withdraw it if it is unparliamentary.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

They can continue to try and cause discord if they wish; they will not get away with it. The people look beyond what the CP presents to them. They will not come here in bigger numbers; in fact, we are going to drive them out here and their numbers are going to decrease. [Interjections.] The NP and the NP Government will continue in its efforts at reform to make this country a proper home for everyone where we can all live together peacefully and happily. We shall continue on that path, and they will not put us off. They can do their utmost…

Surrender!

They will certainly surrender, since they have nothing to stand for. This claim of theirs to be the sole guardians of the heritage and spiritual assets of the Afrikaner cuts no ice either. [Interjections.]

Order! There is far too much talking. Hon members who are not at all interested in the debate, are sitting and conversing unnecessarily. This must cease immediately.

I shall leave politics at that for the moment. This morning I wanted to express a few thoughts on nature conservation in our country, and in the Transvaal in particular.

We can sit here and argue about politics all day long—that is no more than right because that is what we were sent here to do—but when we adjourn and go home, I wonder how many of us sometimes still stand still for a moment and look at nature around us and admire our beautiful heritage.

Especially here in the Cape, not so?

That in the Cape is perhaps a little less beautiful than up there in the Transvaal, but it is also worth looking at. [Interjections.]

Our natural surroundings are there to be enjoyed. We did not make them; on the contrary, nature made us. Everyone before us, over the centuries in which there was life, lived in the same nature as we are living in today. Many admired it, but we wonder how many thought to preserve it for their descendants.

If we think back to what has happened here in our own country, since we are a young country of approximately 350 years, I do not think we have much reason to feel proud, because our forebears did not always do the best thing here. We are aware of hunts that took place and wildlife species that were almost wiped out. Later bush was destroyed, rare plants were destroyed, and when one thinks of those things, one is very grateful that there came a point when the authorities stepped in before everything was destroyed and those beautiful things were lost. At that time the authorities intervened and made arrangements to preserve certain things for posterity.

In particular they concentrated on nature reserves and parks, and the largest and best of them all is, of course, the flagship of nature reserves, the Kruger National Park in the north-eastern Transvaal on the Mozambique border.

That area was proclaimed a nature reserve as far back as 1884. Since then a great deal of work has been done on it and many improvements have been made. Nowadays half a million people visit it each year. It is a wonderful place. It is well-known internationally, and this is a wonderful thing for our country.

Apart from this reserve, there are a number of other nature reserves that are also well utilised. There are 15 large ones throughout the entire country, but I want to confine myself in particular to those in the Transvaal.

We receive the meagre sum of R12 166 000 per annum from the Budget for the maintenance and development of nature reserves. In the Transvaal we have 55 such nature reserves which cover a total area of 255 000 hectares.

What about Ellis Park? [Interjections.]

Apart from the fauna and flora which are being protected, major efforts have been made to save endangered species of plant, animal and bird life. Steps have been taken to save species threatened with extinction. Knowledgeable officials have tried to improve the situation and many of these species have been saved from certain extinction. We are grateful that the department is intervening and trying to preserve these things for posterity.

These 55 nature reserves are only equal to 4% of the Transvaal’s surface area. Apart from this 4% of the Transvaal’s land that is being used for nature reserves, a further 7% of the land area is owned by private nature conservationists. It is encouraging to know that there are so many people interested in nature conservation that 7%—that is 3% more than is undertaken by the State—is privately owned. This figure is continuing to grow as the benefits of this conservation effort become known and people begin to get interested in it.

Apart from a few of the smaller ones of 7 hectares, 10 hectares, 11 hectares and 17 hectares, these nature reserves are all open and anyone can go and enjoy nature in those areas. The smaller ones are used mainly for research, and sometimes it is awkward to receive the public there, but we are very pleased that so much research is being done.

I would probably be neglecting my duty if I did not refer to that lovely nature reserve in my constituency. It is the Suikerbosrant Nature reserve. It is a beautiful area which forms a triangle between the Johannesburg-Pretoria area, the Meyerton-Vereeniging area or Vaal Triangle, and Heidelberg, which could also be included. It is an area that has been worked on for a very long time now. It covers 13 370 hectares, and if I remember correctly, it was opened in 1979 and officially opened up for visits by the public. It is a beautiful area where all the city-dwellers can go to spend a little time in the outdoors. There are also facilities for people who want to spend the night, and large touring groups are also received. There are lecture rooms and recreation areas. There are many tarred roads and trails for people who want to go for walks, and there are also caravan parks.

It is a beautiful area which is wonderfully situated and which can be enjoyed by those city-dwellers. If they tour the area, they will see a great deal of game, since game such as eland, hartebeest, blesbok and springbok, zebra, kudu and a great deal of other game has already been established there to a large extent. There are also cheetah which have not been re-established, but which have remained there over the years. They have not all been destroyed, and there are still a number of them.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

But I only had such a little, Sir! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member will excuse me if I do not follow up on the remarks he made. I want to say at once that I had not intended to participate in this debate once more, but I was and am still so disconcerted about the speech made by the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning yesterday that I feel compelled to respond to it.

Hon members know me as someone who normally does not use strong language, and if I do so today, let it be an indication of the degree of shock I experienced yesterday in listening to that hon Deputy Minister. It is with the utmost indignation and displeasure that I wish to state my views about the speech the hon the Deputy Minister made yesterday afternoon. Let me say at once that that is not how I have come to know the hon the Deputy Minister. I do not know what came over him to have caused him to speak in such terms here yesterday. I cannot understand it.

He was instructed to do so.

Mr Chairman, it could be that he was instructed to do so, but then the hon the Deputy Minister must say that he was instructed to do so.

I would never have thought that in these times in which we are living I would hear such a verkrampte, right-wing, irresponsible speech on such a subject. [Interjections.] I would not have though that we would hear something like that from the hon the Deputy Minister. It was nothing short of naked racism, in spite of the efforts made by the hon the Minister to rationalise about the issue. Let me say at once that with his speech yesterday he eclipsed the CP. With that speech he was more right-wing than the CP itself. What bothered, upset and shocked me was not only the obsession with ideology, but also the intolerance and vindictiveness. I am being very serious now. He said yesterday that he himself would ensure, by his own actions, that any contravention of the Group Areas Act would be handed over to the police and to the courts.

I did not say that.

That is the impression he created.

You are twisting my words!

I did not expect such vindictiveness from a Deputy Minister.

You are twisting my words completely. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister’s efforts to sidestep or deny the real problems of that Act were really shocking. He tried to rationalise the issue, saying it was not discriminatory.

Must the contraventions be allowed to go on increasing?

I should like to quote to the hon the Deputy Minister the figures I have here. Up to 31 December 1984 2 841 White families were removed in terms of the Group Areas act as against 83 661 Coloured families and 40 000 Indian families. Does the hon the Deputy Minister now want to tell me that is not discrimination. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister does not have the floor at the moment.

The hon the Deputy Minister also spoke about land. Let me give him the following figures. Up to 31 December 1986, 749 886 hectares were reserved for Whites as group areas in contrast to 97 423 hectares for Coloureds and 50 673 hectares for Asians.

One should surely also look at the numbers. [Interjections.]

Then the hon the Deputy Minister says that is not discrimination. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister also mentioned Namaqualand, of all places, with its 2 million hectares. The way he spoke one would think he did not know Namaqualand.

I did not speak about Namaqualand. I do not know what you are talking about.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning must not enter into a discussion with the hon member Prof Olivier now. [Interjections.]

He did not say what percentage of the total surface area of South Africa those 2 million hectares represented. He did not say what those 2 million hectares looked like. To speak as if everyone has the right to obtain land, but then to say that this can only take place by way of a permit in terms of which land can be obtained in a controlled area…

The retired professor is going off his head!

Oh no, Mr Chairman, please!

Shameful!

If we want to be honest about these matters, this kind of irresponsible, basic…

Hypocrisy!

Yes. I wanted to use a stronger word, but I shall leave it at that. [Interjections.] I cannot find words to describe the callousness, cynicism and insensitivity reflected in that speech yesterday.

The hon the Deputy Minister also made it clear that the principles he laid down were non-negotiable as far as the NP was concerned. I repeatedly asked the hon the Minister for clarification about what was non-negotiable. The hon the Deputy Minister made very clear yesterday that to the NP’s way of thinking the principle of separate group areas was absolutely non-negotiable. He left no doubt about that. [Interjections.]

I do not know how the hon the Deputy Minister can make peace with his conscience. What he did yesterday has for once and for all clearly highlighted the NP’s inability to negotiate. It is unthinkable to consider that he can negotiate with other people on that basis.

You want one to be down on one’s knees and then negotiate.

I want to make a few last points. Any hope that I, as an individual, still had about this Government being serious about reform was completely shattered by that hon Deputy Minister’s speech yesterday. I am saying that in all honesty. [Interjections.] In the light of that speech all the talk of reform—I am addressing myself to the hon the Deputy Minister and other hon members of the NP—is an empty slogan devoid of substance and devoid of any meaning. [Interjections.] On the strength of the speech made by the hon the Deputy Minister yesterday, I do not know how those people in the NP, who tell us each day that the Government is serious about reform and is engaged in carrying out reform, and those in the NP who say that the NP does not deal with non-negotiables, can square the Minister’s views with their own consciences.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier must pardon me for not reacting to his speech. I shall leave it to the hon the Deputy Minister to put that man in his place today.

I should like to speak about important matters, namely the hospital services of the Transvaal. Today is the first opportunity we have of discussing this Vote since the provincial councils were phased out in June last year. Today I am proud to be able to say that the Transvaal’s hospital services are still of a high standard. However, there are also problem areas which have been pointed out by a few hon members here. The fact that we have had a R178 million cut in the present financial year, has meant that we have had to reduce our working capital by R102 million. This is really a major problem, since it means we shall have to act cautiously so as to curb over-spending, whilst still maintaining all our services. In many cases new extensions will have to be dropped. I have in mind, for example, a few institutions which have already been established, but which cannot be taken into use, for example the Leratong Hospital with 203 beds, the Hillbrow Hospital, which was the old NEH, with 80 beds, Coronation Hospital with 40 beds and Lenasia Hospital which has been completed and which has 102 beds, but which cannot be taken into use. The new hospital which has just been completed at Ellisras, is closed because there is not enough staff and money to take that hospital into use.

Urbanisation is causing a large influx of Black people in particular to our cities. They are looking for work and accommodation, and are increasingly entitled to hospital and medical services. These are also the people who are unable to pay.

Increases in the price of equipment are soaring, as a direct result of the rand/dollar exchange rate. A large X-ray machine which originally cost R320 000 when it was ordered, costs R760 000 on delivery. It is important that this piece of equipment be purchased, particularly in the running of our larger hospitals.

As regards primary equipment, without which hospitals cannot begin to function, there had to be a cut of R38 million. If a project has to be set aside, a backlog develops which cannot easily be made up. Medicine is another item the cost of which has increased by between 100% and 200%.

I am actually sorry that I am not speaking after the hon member for Parktown, since he always comes forward with such terrible problems which they experience in the Transvaal. Comparisons are always being made between the Johannesburg General Hospital and Baragwanath Hospital. We must in fact bear in mind that the cost per bed depends largely on the services and the size of the hospital. At Johannesburg General Hospital it costs R279 per bed to keep that hospital running at present, as opposed to R98 per bed at Baragwanath Hospital. However, one must take the sophisticated services offered at Johannesburg General Hospital into account. Let us take a look at what is offered at Johannesburg General Hospital. There are cardio-thoracic surgery, kidney transplants and dialysis, radiotherapy and oncology, to mention only a few.

From 1 January to 31 August 1987, 595 patients passed through this cardio-thoracic surgical section, 324 of whom were Blacks. There were 206 Whites and 65 Asians. We must realise that we are rendering general affairs hospital services, but also own affairs hospital services on an agency basis. Seventy-two per cent of those Blacks had heart-valve operations. If one considers that a single heart-valve operation costs R12 340, whilst it costs R16 000 to replace both valves, one realises that we are talking about a great deal of money. Each year 130 kidney transplants are performed, of which 26% are performed on Black people. At Johannesburg General hospital it costs R12 000 per kidney transplant. Radiotherapy for cancer patients is mainly performed at that hospital. In 1986, 17 000 Whites were treated there. There were 28 000 Blacks and 1 400 Coloureds who received those services. We provide training in all the ambulance services; there are helicopter services, as well as steam generation. One also receives many complaints that dreadful conditions supposedly exist at Baragwanath Hospital, where there is an occupation rate of 111%. I want to state unequivocally here today that the services rendered at that hospital are the best in the entire Southern Hemisphere. It is really the largest and most important hospital in the whole of Africa.

Let us take a brief look at what has recently been done at that hospital. A new nurses’ college for 750 students has been completed. A recreation hall has been built and two new wards, each with 40 beds, have been completed. A building comprising 13 storeys for the accommodation of 1 000 nurses has been erected. There are also three new casualty theatres, a new 18-bed short stopover ward, and a new neonatal paediatric theatre.

There have been so many complaints that the New Canada Hospital in Soweto is not being built. It is going to cost R70 million. Since we do not have the money, we cannot build it now.

The importance of the academic hospital in Pretoria cannot be over-emphasised. The medical faculty of the UP has been in existence since 1940, and they have had to make do with an old service hospital. Surely it is not a crime to create better facilities for those people.

The policy of the Transvaal, as far as hospital services are concerned, is to make institutions and facilities available where they are needed. Sebokeng Hospital was built in 1980 with 720 beds. Last year the hospital was expanded so that now there are 900 beds. To further alleviate the pressure in Soweto, three clinics were established. They were the Zola in 1983, the Chiavelo in 1984, and the Koos Beukes in 1986. Each of these serves 60 000 people.

Recently hospital fees in the Transvaal were increased to R80 per day, and there was a tremendous fuss about it. We were asked how we could afford to do that. However, when hon members bear in mind that the average cost per bed is R140 in the Transvaal, surely it makes sense for us to increase our tariffs.

When the new academic hospital in Pretoria is completed in 12 years’ time, it will provide for 600 White and 1 000 Black patients. In addition, two hundred doctors will be trained at that hospital annually. We urgently need those people. At present there are only facilities to train 50 doctors. We need them not only in our White hospitals, but also in the hospitals for people of colour. Hon members of the Official Opposition say that we do nothing for the White man, but everything for the Black man. Surely the greatest need today lies with the Black people of our country. There is a tremendous backlog, and we also have to render services for them.

Recently there was an article in a newspaper, which, inter alia, read as follows: “Move to suspend clinic cancer tests which are stupid and horrific”. I just want to make one thing very clear today, and that is that Pap smears are not simply done at random at our clinics and hospitals. Those patients have to go there specifically for the examination. Now the thousands of Black women want Pap smears performed on everyone, without exception, by way of a selection process. Where is the money for this to come from? There is a budgeted amount one has to keep to, and if we now have to do Pap smears on all these women—whether they come for a stomach complaint, a throat complaint or a sore toe—many pathologists would have to be appointed to perform all the analyses of the Pap smears.

Today I want to express my profound gratitude and appreciation to the MEC, as well as the senior director, the head of our hospital services, for all they are doing to maintain the high standard of services in the Transvaal. My appreciation also goes to all our doctors and nurses—of all races—who have to succeed. Hon members of the CP must really bear in mind that we need these people, since the reality of our country is that there are just not enough Whites to render these nursing services. If a Black woman is good enough to look after one’s children, work in one’s home, and cook one’s food, how much more is she not capable of nursing one? We are proud of the medical services we offer in the Transvaal. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall leave the speech of the hon member for Edenvale to be replied to by my colleague, the hon member for Parktown, because she dealt mainly with hospitalisation. There were one or two things she said with which I agreed, for example that the greatest need is to look after the Black population. Theirs is the greatest need.

Then there is this question that if one’s Black domestic is good enough to look after one’s child, she is good enough for a number of other things, but not, apparently, to have the vote! Still, never mind about that.

I should like to come back to the hon member for Losberg who spoke yesterday and reiterated this sentiment that we have heard so often from the CP in this House, about the reimposition of influx control. His main thesis was that all the squatter problems are caused—or to put it more accurately, very much aggravated—by the removal of influx control; that that is the main reason for the cause of the squatter problem in South Africa today in the metropolitan and peri-urban areas.

I want to point out to the hon member that most of the people in the squatter areas in the metropolitan and peri-urban areas were there long before influx control was abolished. Indeed, some of them have been there for two generations, and some for even three generations. This is all the result of the heritage of the Government’s policy over the past four decades of refusing to accept the inevitability and the irreversibility of the drift to the towns from the rural areas. This was pointed out 40 years ago by the Fagan Commission. [Interjections.] The Fagan Commission said 40 years ago that one can try to guide and control the drift to the urban areas, but one cannot reverse it, and one cannot stop it. The reason is simple; it is elementary economics: The jobs are in the towns, and not in the rural homelands. It is the pull factor of jobs on the one hand and the push factor of poverty in the rural areas on the other hand that have caused the drift to the towns.

Our situation is no different from that in any other country in the world. If one takes Crossroads in Cape Town, Red Location in the Eastern Cape, the squatter camps on the East Rand or anywhere else, one will find that people have been living there for two generations. Take for example Weilers Farm about which the hon member was so upset—a survey was done at Weilers Farm early last year.

We did one as well.

So the CP did one as well. Perhaps we should compare the figures.

It was shown that one third of the people who replied to the questionnaire were actually born in the PWV area. They come from the peri-urban farms that have been abandoned by the White owners, and people have remained on those farms. That is the case as far as Wheeler’s Farm is concerned. They are also the homeless people from the Black townships because the Government has refused to provide mass housing to cope with the drift to the towns over the past four decades and they are pensioners who cannot afford the rentals in the urban areas. They make up the bulk of these squatters.

Most of them, at least 50% of the people who replied to the questionnaire in the survey, were in full-time employment, and many of the others were in informal employment. They were not simply a drain on the State. What they need, and urgently, is shelter. Does the hon member for Losberg think he is going to solve this problem either by driving these people back to starve out of sight in the homelands…

I did not say that.

No, but that is the implication of what he is saying.

I never implied that.

He gave no alternative, except to suggest that the pass laws should be reimposed and that they should be shoved into jail by the hundreds and thousands. Half a million were jailed in the last two years before the pass laws were abolished.

What solution does the hon member offer? Of course, the only solution is the one this party proposes, that is first of all to open the land of South Africa to everybody who lives here, to all the citizens. That immediately disperses wealthier people from the urban townships who will buy land and houses elsewhere. It will relieve the terrible pressure on the low-income Black townships. That is the obvious thing, and not only in the Black townships, but in the Coloured and Indian townships as well. That is the number one solution but the Government will not accept it. We heard this from the hon the Deputy Minister in his disgusting speech yesterday.

There is also a number two solution and that is the one the Government has adopted. That, of course, is to have a plan for orderly urbanisation. Where is the plan, however? It is now 16 months since we had the White Paper on Urbanisation, and what has happened? Nothing at all. We have had a guide plan for the Witwatersrand which was so bad that it had to be sent back to the planning committee. Other than that we have had nothing at all of any importance that is going to solve this enormous problem of squatters in the metropolitan and peri-urban areas. We all agree that it is an enormous problem. The hon the Minister himself told us that there were 1,3 million squatters, though not all of them are in the metropolitan and peri-urban areas, who require housing.

We know that R750 million was allocated for housing last year. Of that, something like R350 million was spent to create employment opportunities and the other R400 million was meant to provide housing. Now we read that the special committee that was set up to plan this project hopes to provide 10 000 houses—I think—by the end of the year. Most of that building, however, is going to take place in the homelands, not in the peri-urban or metropolitan areas. This is all part of the Government’s obsession with decentralisation. They cannot bear to see the metropolitan areas expand although those areas have developed on purely economic lines, as they develop in any other country in the world. This is because the infrastructure, the market, the raw materials etc are available there.

Instead, however, we have a totally uneconomic plan of decentralisation which has failed everywhere else in the world. Nowhere in the world has forced decentralisation been a success. What on earth is the Government’s plan?

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

Yes, Sir, he may.

Mr Chairman, what does the hon member mean when she uses the term “forced decentralisation”? Does she mean legally enforced?

What about the Physical Planning Act and the new system of taxation which is going to put a burden on the existing industries, Sir? All these things are forced decentralisation. What about the whole policy of only building houses in those areas and providing no additional shelter in the existing metropolitan areas? All these things are forced decentralisation and it is totally uneconomic.

In the meantime, at least let us have serviced sites being made available. Let us have the allocation of serviced sites for informal settlement, which is the obvious other alternative. Instead of that, however, in 1986 we saw 64 000 people being moved from places like Langa in Uitenhage, and Brits, and 22 000 people from seven different communities are still scheduled for removal. 49 000 people—can you imagine!—were removed to KwaNobuhle out of their existing, albeit inadequate, housing—everybody admits that. The Brits housing, too, is inadequate. But why could there not have been development in situ instead of demolishing what housing there is and moving people to even more inadequate housing, as happened in KwaNobuhle where they went into tents?

At Thokoza on the East Rand shacks were demolished and in the height of winter people were left without any shelter. Yet two years ago we were told by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid that removals would only take place “if necessary”, whatever that means, and in the interests of improved living conditions and after negotiation with the people concerned.

To sum up, I must say that I see no sign of any overall action plan for orderly urbanisation. All we are getting are ad hoc solutions and crisis management, or shall I say “crisis mismanagement”? Meanwhile thousands upon thousands of people continue to live under the most miserable, unhygienic conditions, under constant harassment from police and the army for illegal squatting and trespassing.

You are soft on security.

Homeless people on the wrong side of the law…

You are soft on security.

Oh, stop it! You are like a silly old parrot. That is all we ever hear from you. [Interjections.]

Order!

You tell your army to stop harassing squatters. [Interjections.]

Order! No, I cannot allow this dialogue across the floor.

Well, please tell him to shut up, Sir.

Order! The hon member’s time has unfortunately expired.

What a shame!

Mr Chairman, I shall deal with the simplistic solutions of the hon member for Houghton in the course of my speech.

*At the outset I want to say at the end of this debate on the Transvaal that I should like to congratulate Mr Arbee most sincerely on his appointment as a member of the Executive Committee of the Transvaal. In the Lowveld we came to know him as a very conscientious person and a very hard-working member. The House of Delegates’ loss is the Committee’s gain.

On this occasion I should also like to thank the Administrator, members of the Executive Committee, the Provincial Secretary and senior officials for their co-operation and their open-hearted guidance to the standing committee. Even written questions were answered promptly and fully. I think the entire spirit of this debate reflected general agreement on this score.

The MP is the link between the province and the voters, and even if this system is still very young, in my opinion a very good understanding and full-fledged representation of the voter can be achieved. For this reason I want to thank the Administrator for his willingness to offer an orientation course to the Transvaal members of the three Houses during the recess.

Although provincial funds were supplied by Parliament in the past, this is the first time there has been a report in Parliament on the expenditure in terms of those Votes and a report is required of the Administrator by the committee dealing with public finances.

This system of accountability to Parliament and, as I have already mentioned, the open-heartedness with which the Administrator and the Executive Committee explained this, gave a great deal of legitimacy to the system, as did the fact that the committee may consider matters referred to it in public. The rules also provide that the committee may meet at a suitable place other than the seat of Parliament.

I want to suggest that there is room for improvement in any system so that the system may grow. I believe we must move in the direction that this debate we are now holding here in Parliament should be held in the main seat of the province and that it must be possible for the functionaries—the Administrator and the MECs—to be called upon in that debate to account to Parliament. If my recommendations in this regard are accepted, this will give far more legitimacy to the system.

The provincial administration can be described briefly as the main development agent of the Government at regional level. They have the important functions of the establishment and control of regional services councils, social welfare services, roads and hospitals and such other functions as are referred to them on an agency basis by other departments.

At the constitutional level they have the important function of local government development. The Provincial Government Act also provides for the joint or co-ordinated exercising of powers and performance of functions by the relevant provincial executive authority and governments of self-governing territories. I believe this is a power which can be used very successfully in future.

The province therefore plays the part of the main development agent at regional level in the social and constitutional spheres. The success of the development strategy depends on the financial resources of the various participants in this strategy. It is natural for any participant to consider his role in the development strategy to be the most important. At one stage I was concerned that this debate could degenerate into a “big brag”. For that reason every participant will demand a larger slice of the total financial cake.

Hon members on this side and on that side of the House provided demographic data from which it was evident that the Transvaal accommodates almost 54% of the White population and 56,04% of the Black population of the RSA outside the self-governing and independent states. Excluding those states, 45,66% of the total population lives in the Transvaal. Hon members also heard about the importance of roads and that 51,6% of all registered motor vehicles were registered in the Transvaal, according to the 1985 statistics. They also learned that the amount apportioned to the Transvaal has gradually decreased from 43,49% in the 1981-82 financial year to 38,20% in the current financial year, and have been told of the effect which the shortage of financial resources would have on the services offered.

The solution is that a formula based on specific constants for each discipline should be developed so that the money available for each discipline is divided fairly among the participants.

†Let me turn to the hon member for Groote Schuur. What really surprised me was that although the PFP complained that sufficient time had not been allocated to this debate, the hon member chose to launch a scathing attack on the Defence Force. I challenge him to repeat that attack during the discussion of the Defence Vote next week.

Who was that?

The hon member for Groote Schuur.

The hon member for Overvaal said that the selling price of houses in Soweto had been reduced to as little as R150. On the other hand the rent and service fees could not be paid. I do not know to what houses the hon member is referring, but the selling prices of houses built with national housing funds are determined on the basis of a formula which applies to all population groups.

The newspapers are full of it.

You read the wrong newspapers.

The hon member for Carletonville made two very interesting statements. He said the land for Blacks already exists in the consolidated areas of the national states. His party will therefore not provide any land for housing for Blacks outside the national states. He denies that his party agreed that we must move away from the Westminster system.

Now you are dreaming.

He said that if they came to power the Westminster system would of course be suitable for their White national state and for the Coloured, Asian and Black homelands. He went on to say that during the referendum campaign the NP said that we had to involve the Coloureds and Asians in order to keep the Blacks out. For the information of the hon member I want to refer him to the information document Constitution ’83 in a Nutshell, which was widely distributed by the NP.

While you are at it, quote from it what Stoffel has to say about power-sharing!

I quote:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Nelspruit for the constructive contribution he made in this debate.

It is now just over a year since the Provincial Government Act, 1986, came into force. The old provincial system was abolished and replaced by an entirely new system. New executive committees were appointed by the hon the State President, and this system would appear to have got into its stride very quickly and to be functioning well.

Although this has already been made clear, I do not think that the community in general and the outside world actually realise that we are dealing here with full-fledged multiracial government and that the executive committees have been appointed in this way. This tier of Government is doing extremely important work and in a certain sense it is closer to the community. It is therefore a striking example of the Government’s policy of the devolution of power.

I feel, however, that this tier of Government should receive more publicity. Perhaps the poor media coverage is due to the fact that no representative legislative authority exists at the second tier of Government, and that it is therefore less attractive to them. In spite of this I am of the opinion that more people should be made aware of this particular Government structure.

I am aware that the hon the Minister’s standpoint is that reform will only succeed if there is greater stability in society, and that as progress is made with the devolution of power, of necessity we will to a great extent succeed in bringing about stability.

It is an historic fact that the first large-scale meeting between the Afrikaners and the British immigrants, and later also the German immigrants, took place in the Eastern Cape. It is also there that the Whites made large-scale contact with the Xhosa community for the first time. This is also where the Coloured community eventually grew to be the second largest in South Africa. This region is indeed a cosmos of South African society.

In due course the Eastern Cape developed its own character and its unique population structure also became well-known. As a result of the political, social and economic demands and expectations of the respective communities, conflict necessarily arose. In the course of time, and with greater mutual exposure, greater understanding developed among the groups and problems were solved in this way. However, this does not detract from the need for greater exposure and greater understanding, nor does it change the fact that problems are still being experienced.

The origin of many political viewpoints on the entire population spectrum in South Africa can in a certain sense be traced back to the Eastern Cape. There is no doubt that the communities in the Eastern Cape feel strongly about this and have demonstrated this fact and continue to do so.

The communities are politically active. In a certain sense it can be said that a large part of South African political history is being written in the Eastern Cape. It is this characteristic of the Eastern Cape which sometimes makes the area politically explosive, particularly when it is encouraged by revolutionary forces in an atmosphere of despair resulting from the economic depression which the Eastern Cape has been experiencing.

However, I am delighted about the many signs of economic revival and confidence to be seen in this area. In addition to this there are signs of a gradual return to political calm, so that the political future can be discussed meaningfully.

One of the practical problems experienced by the area and its community is that the Government is far from them. Here one can think of the situation in the Transvaal, where the vast majority of the population live very close to the provincial seat, as is the case in the Free State and Natal. However, in the Cape there are various large components, and the residents of that area are relatively far from where the constitutional activities take place. When I say this I am not losing sight of the really positive part now also being played by the regional services councils at the third tier of Government.

I am aware that the hon the Minister is not unwilling to continue with and to develop the process of the devolution of power. Nor is the hon the Minister unwilling, in this regard, to extend the system of provincial government to the communities under certain circumstances. Perhaps the time is now ripe to consider the possible establishment of a province for the Eastern Cape, or at least executive committees for that area, which could function under the Administrator of the Cape.

Such a multiracial Government component will undoubtedly contribute a great deal towards bringing about greater political stability in the area. In this way Government will be visible to the people. Meaningful co-operation can be established with Ciskei and even Transkei. I believe that because of its particular background of experience the Eastern Cape can in this way make a contribution to the second tier of Government. The necessary provincial infrastructure already exists. There are already highly specialised expert staff qualified to deal with such an administration. Provincial offices already exist in Port Elizabeth.

In addition to the departments under the Administrations of the respective Houses of Parliament dealing with own affairs, there are already 19 State departments represented in Port Elizabeth. Of importance, in my opinion, is the fact that Port Elizabeth is the fifth largest city in South Africa. Port Elizabeth is one of the seats of the regional court which serves the Eastern Cape circuit and it is also the seat of the South-Eastern Cape Local Division of the Supreme Court, which handles the vast majority of the volume of work of the Supreme Court there.

The hon the Minister has said that the initiative for the establishment of other provinces must come from the existing provinces. However, I want to ask the hon the Minister to take the lead in this regard and ask the Administrator to do what is necessary to investigate the desirability or otherwise of such a form of regional government for the Eastern Cape. I am convinced that it goes without saying that the creation of such a further province in the Eastern Cape will contribute towards greater confidence in this particular area of our country.

This confidence is also essential for another reason. The creation of another province will also bring certainty regarding the seat of such a province. Port Elizabeth is the de facto leader of the area and is referred to as a metropolis in official documents. From certain technical points of view this is perhaps a misnomer, but the sooner there is certainty as to the constitutional future of the Eastern Cape and Port Elizabeth as its seat, the sooner Port Elizabeth will be able to develop into a full-fledged metropolis and be of greater service to the area.

There are also other cities in the Eastern Cape that have had the presumption to refer to themselves in the municipal yearbook as the capital city of the Eastern Province. The point I want to make is that a reality exists in the Eastern Cape. I think the time has now come for real attention to be given to the possible legal validity of such a constitutional structure there.

Mr Chairman, this morning we saw how upset the hon member Prof Olivier was about statements made by the hon the Deputy Minister yesterday. Now I must say it is ironic that although I am in the CP, I can fully understand Prof Olivier’s dismay. We are dismayed for different reasons, but basically it amounts to the same thing, namely the contradictory statements by the Government in recent years regarding matters of policy.

At one moment, for the sake of the liberal vote, their statements are those of the greatest Progs imaginable, whereas the next moment, for the sake of the conservative vote, they are the greatest conservatives imaginable. Contradictory statements of this kind can only be very detrimental to the Republic of South Africa, because everyone outside can see that this is a government without direction, which is simply playing a political game, although the issue is a serious matter like the constitutional future of this country.

The hon the Minister spoke for hours here, and everyone looked forward expectantly to certain keynote statements in his speech, so that we could determine in which direction the Government was taking us, but these statements were not made. Eventually I had no option but to try to ascertain, with reference to statements by the hon the State President, hon Ministers and hon members—including statements in this debate—as well as written explanations of the NP policy in a wide variety of publications, including daily papers, and observable actions by the Government, how one could sum up the constitutional predictions of the Government.

I am now going to confront the hon the Minister with this, because I am going to the voters with these statements. If the hon the Minister finds fault with any of these aspects, he must set matters straight now, in this Committee. [Interjections.]

The first statement is that power is going to be shared by all South African citizens up to the highest tier of government throughout the entire territory of the Republic of South Africa and the self-governing national states until those states become independent. They will then govern themselves. South African citizens in this context include all White, Coloured, Indian and Black citizens living within the borders of the RSA, as well as in the self-governing Black national states for as long as they are not yet independent. The basis on which power will be shared is one of absolute equality, based on general franchise. I want to point out, as a matter of interest, that I have taken this from a statement by the hon the State President.

White domination or Black domination in the Government of the Republic of South Africa is unacceptable. Government will take place by way of consensus. To ensure that neither the Whites nor the Blacks dominate the Government, a specific State model and a protective mechanism must still be found by means of negotiation. The regional services councils may possibly serve as a model for such a dispensation, provided it appears that these councils are functioning to the satisfaction of the NP Government.

The basis on which regional services councils operate, is voting power according to the value of services bought and paid for by each specific local authority participating in it. A two-thirds majority of the total voting power is needed to take decisions, while one local authority may not have more than 50% of the total voting power. The most important function of regional services councils is at this stage considered to be the creation of infrastructure in the developing communities, which according to the facts before us are the Coloured, Black and Indian communities. This model is not necessarily the only model which will be negotiated on. Another model may come to the fore. If one can land a man on the moon, one can work out a state model which meets the requirements set.

The National Statutory Council, or whatever it is going to be called, assisted inter alia by the Law Commission, will be among the bodies which will have to help work out the state model. At this stage the Law Commission must consider individual and group rights which must be protected in the system.

The National Statutory Council, or whatever it is going to be called, will consist of representatives of the present South African Government of Whites, Coloureds and Indians, representatives of the governments of the Black self-governing national states, and leaders of other Black communities and interest groups. The latter will be identified by means of elections, based on general franchise. It is not yet known when these elections will be held.

Until the ideal constitutional model is found, the National Statutory Council, or whatever it is going to be called, must consider and furnish advice on matters of general interest, including proposed legislation. This can be the forerunner of a joint State Council consisting of all groups and communities. Such a State Council will consist of leaders and other representatives from all groups and communities. The word “groups” as used here does not necessarily refer to population groups only, but possibly also to groups according to criteria other than the population group or groups to which the representatives belong. The State Council can participate in formulating policies on general affairs by means of consensus decisions.

Interstate co-operation with the TBVC countries, which may possibly be called confederation, is a priority.

As regards the parliamentary composition, Blacks, in addition to the Coloureds, Indians and Whites, will also be represented in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. They will be able to become Cabinet Ministers and possibly also State President, depending on whether the State President will be the highest tier of government in the new constitutional model.

In the future dispensation the concept “nation” will no longer be linked to any specific race or culture as was the NP’s intention before, as is mentioned inter alia on their membership card. “Nation” will in future mean all people, irrespective of race, culture or nationality who participate in the Government, and reside in the territory of the RSA or the self-governing national states.

While the specific State model is being worked out, the discriminatory effect of all laws will be done away with. It is not possible to say how long it will take to find a suitable State model. A change in attitude among the people in the RSA is the basic requirement for the success of any new dispensation. The pace of constitutional change will have to be measured by the pace of this change in attitude.

In the meantime the urbanisation of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in the RSA will be encouraged by attractive housing benefits, improved education and training, and the throwing open of central business districts for Black, Coloured and Indian businessmen in previously White towns and cities, and squatting will be regulated by the a delimitation of identified squatter areas and the creation of infrastructure there.

I am asking the hon the Minister to put any matter right or give any explanations he wants to give in the course of this debate. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Roodepoort said it was the policy of the NP to share power with all the citizens of South Africa, up to the highest level. This is correct.

When this party tells its people that we are sharing power among Whites, Coloureds and Indians when we elect a State President, the Official Opposition nevertheless says that this is not power-sharing. The standpoint of the Official Opposition is that these three population groups do not share power when the State President is elected. They say this is not a form of power-sharing; it is simply a majority decision taken by the Whites.

I should like to hear what the hon member for Losberg has to say about this, since he is their expert on constitutional law. [Interjections.] What does he say about this? Does he say it is power-sharing, or does he also agree that it is not power-sharing? [Interjections.]

The problem the hon member for Losberg has is that he cannot agree with me that it is power-sharing, because his leader said here in this House on 14 April 1982 (Hansard, col 4380) that the election of the State President was not power-sharing. [Interjections.] The hon member for Roodepoort also touched on another aspect…

The Whites have the majority vote.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is therefore suggesting that when there is a structure in which different population groups decide on something jointly, it is not power-sharing, provided the Whites are in the majority. After all, he did say it was a White majority vote.

The hon for Roodepoort touched on another aspect and alleged that the hon members on this side of the Committee were saying contradictory things about the Group Areas Act. I just want to tell him that the establishment of free trading areas was a decision taken by this side of the Committee when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was still on this side. The decision to introduce free trading areas is something the Official Opposition must accept joint responsibility for, and I shall return to this in a moment.

In the standing committee dealing with the affairs of the Cape Province, the hon members of the Official Opposition have the ideal opportunity to endeavour not only to explain their policy and to get the components of the committee to accept it, but also to see whether they can get the components of that committee to accept the consequences of their policy. However, that is not what is happening. The reason for this is twofold. In the first place they are only considering the interests of the Whites and are ignoring the claims of the other population groups serving on the committee with them. They are offering nothing to the people with whom they must negotiate and who share this country with them. There is virtually no common ground between these hon members and the hon members in the other Houses. Consensus politics causes them another problem, namely that there is no place for conflict and emotion in consensus politics. [Interjections]

The NP is the instrument for orderly reform in South Africa, and I want to thank the hon the Minister for the part he has played in bringing about orderly reform in the constitutional sphere and for the part he is still playing in bringing this about. This side of the Committee also says that White self-determination is not negotiable, but we go on to say that White self-determination depends on the meaningful survival of all population groups in South Africa.

The people of South Africa are asking for reform. Because many people do not yet have a complete say in the decision-making process, politics must be developed to accommodate reasonable demands. While the NP is battling with this problem, it is the CP that wants to deprive people and groups of their political rights. That is why I say there is no common ground for them to negotiate with people of colour.

At the opening of the NP Congress in Port Elizabeth on 30 September 1985 the hon the State President said the following:

I want to refer to the report of the committee, dated 12 June 1987, which deals with certain matters, inter alia the Group Areas Act. I then come to the point I want to make to the hon member for Roodepoort, namely that in 1979 the Government decided to establish free trading areas, and I refer him to the White Paper dealing with the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Legislation affecting the Utilisation of Manpower. I also want to refer him to the White Paper on the Erica Theron Report, and specifically to recommendation 5 which deals with group areas and in which the same standpoint was adopted.

One finds another interesting aspect if one looks at paragraphs 5. 7 and 5. 12 of this Commission’s report, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was also part of this. I am referring to the White Paper on the Erica Theron Report, recommendation 175:

The Government said that it accepted this standpoint, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also accepted it. Recommendation 176 reads—

In this regard the Government said:

That decision which this side of the Committee took on the opening up of beaches is a decision for which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Lichtenburg and others must accept joint responsibility. Then the hon member talks about contradictory statements made by this side of the Committee! What became of this standpoint which the hon members of the Official Opposition adopted when they were still on this side of the Committee? Who is making contradictory statements, who is running away from the standpoints which used to be their own? [Interjections.]

Order!

This party experienced a break-away in 1982 when that side of the Committee decided that the political ideas of right-wing radicals were more important than the future of South Africa. That is why I say this side of the Committee regards it as its highest priority that in everything it does, South Africa must come first. For that reason we must not be responsible for people of colour being driven to join the ANC because we begrudge them a place in this country with us. The hon members of the Official Opposition are responsible for that. They talk about the people who went to Dakar, but their policy will have precisely the same effect, namely the promotion of the objectives of the ANC. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Vryburg will forgive me if I do not comment on his speech as there are other matters that I wish to raise with the hon the Minister in the time that I have available.

There are three matters that I wish to raise. The one I have raised on a number of occasions—particularly under other Votes—concerning proposed independence for KwaNdebele. However, I feel it is important to raise it here again with this hon Minister because it is he who has told us in reply to a question that the government of KwaNdebele has been asked to provide adequate proof that the people of KwaNdebele are in favour of independence for that territory. Hon members will be aware that I visited KwaNdebele during the July recess and my impressions were that the majority of the people are not being given a fair opportunity to express their opinion with regard to that question.

I am aware that meetings have been held of particular interest groups such as traders, taxi drivers and public servants at which the Chief Minister has put the question to them whether they are in favour of independence or not. I do not believe that anybody whose trading licence, taxi licence or job could be at risk if he were to stand up in a meeting of that nature and say that he was opposed to independence, is a fair way of measuring the degree of support for or opposition to independence. This is particularly the case where one has a situation where Prince James Mahlango is prevented by a police order from attending meetings or speaking against independence. He is regarded as one of the leaders of that community and he certainly speaks for a great number of people. For him to be restricted in this way is totally unacceptable. I hope the hon the Minister will give his attention to this matter when he replies. I want to suggest to him that the whole matter of independence for KwaNdebele should be shelved until some truly democratic form of determining the views of those people can be formulated.

The second issue I wish to raise concerns pensions. To begin with I want to mention the situation in Lebowa. When I spoke under the Vote on Development Aid I said that there was a degree of overlapping between the department of this hon Minister and the Department of Development Aid and that there was uncertainty among certain chief ministers as to which department deals with which matter. I hope the hon the Minister will get together with the hon Minister of Education and Development Aid to decide who deals with which particular matters. They should then advise those chief ministers and the public in general as to which department deals with these matters.

In Lebowa there is a problem with pensions as in terms of the Lebowa Social Pensions Act of 1978 the government is apparently not obliged to pay pensions. Instead, the Secretary for Health decides how much should be paid out in pensions. I have been advised that this apparently came about in June 1984 when funding from South Africa ran out. However, pensioners who live in non-independent homelands and who applied before 1984—this is the cut-off date—claimed that they were missing out on their pensions. There is a problem in Lebowa with regard to pensions and I hope the hon the Minister has some answer to that problem.

The other matter regarding pensions that I want to mention is the pay-out to Black persons who live in the urban areas. In the past it has been the practice to pay them every second month. I am told that the procedure is now to be changed so that they will be paid monthly but that has not yet happened. I understand that it was to begin in July.

It is going to be phased in.

It is going to be phased in. I also hope the idea is now to pay these pensions by means of the automatic transfer system on computers into savings accounts.

If they have accounts.

Yes, if they have accounts. I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that there is a need to educate people with regard to this system—particularly people in the lower economic groups. Those are the people who need their money on what can be termed pay day to pay their rents and accounts and to provide food for themselves.

Proper control is required in the payment of pensions, particularly as matters sometimes get out of hand. A report in the Cape Times of 8 September stated the following, and I quote:

Therefore, there is a problem in this area and I hope that the hon the Minister will give his attention to that.

The third matter I wish to discuss with the hon the Minister is the question of squatters. This question has been raised on a number of occasions during the course of this debate but I make no apology for raising it again. I want to refer to a number of specific squatter camps. Mention has already been made of Weilers Farm where thousands of people are living in appalling conditions. At the Wilgespruit Fellowship Centre health officials have ordered the demolition of illegal structures on this church-owned property. The centre has advised the authorities that they do not wish to have unlawful occupants, but that these people have nowhere to go, and that staff from the centre are working with the squatters to prepare them to build for themselves when land is allocated to them.

1 200 squatters are also living on a farm called Varkfontein near Bapsfontein. I have a memorandum in this regard from one of our monitoring groups who visited that area on 8 August 1987. They arrived at a number of conclusions about the situation there and conclude their observations by saying:

He is the tenant of the farm and is in control of the situation -

That is Mr Nieuwoudt -

The White farmer’s parting words were -

That is the situation in Bapsfontein.

In Kibler Park people were temporarily housed by the Johannesburg City Council following their eviction as a result of pressure on a building company. The police assisted the authorities in taking the squatters away and accommodation was provided in an unused compound in the city’s Olifantsvlei sewage works.

At Westonaria there is an Indian shopkeeper who leases land from a White man. This has resulted in the demolition by the officials of all the zinc shacks on the property and some of the occupants have left. They are reported to be living on plots surrounding the area. Some 50 people remain, living in a few brick buildings. The shopowner understands that he has until the end of the year to “do something about them”.

At Big Farm near Roodepoort there have been a number of occasions on which these people have been harassed and I have been told that today, contrary to a report of the town clerk who said that the squatters would remain until the squatting housing problem had been sorted out, the municipal security police are tearing down those squatter shacks. The point is that there is not enough land for these people and, as the hon member for Houghton pointed out, a proper plan has to be worked out to accommodate these people. However, in the meantime I appeal to the hon the Minister to stop the demolition and to stop the evictions.

There have been moratoriums in the past with regard to pass laws and forced removals and I appeal to him to make an announcement that he shall stop the demolitions and the evictions until this matter has been sorted out in a satisfactory manner.

Mr Chairman, the Cape department of roads is administering and refining a management system to monitor the serviceable and negotiable aspects of the existing highway system with a view to determining the maintenance, upgrading and reconstruction needs. According to this system the average age of the first 20 road projects on the priority list, comprising approximately 775 km, is at present 29 years. What is even worse is the fact that the first 55 projects on the priority list, comprising 1 577 km, are now 27 old. The important aspect here is that the design-life of roads is calculated at between 20 and a maximum of 25 years at present.

It should be borne in mind that 30 years ago, when these roads were constructed, there was no idea whatsoever that they would carry such a heavy traffic load as they do at present. The fact that these roads are still negotiable at present can only be ascribed to the sustained and punctilious attention and maintenance of the roads department of the province. I should like to express my thanks to the department.

We have now reached the stage at which the surfaces are starting to crumble, and if we do not give urgent attention to the reconstruction of these roads, the efficiency of the capital asset embodied in the roadworks as a whole will be lost completely. That is unacceptable. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister is supposed to react to hon members’ speeches. If other hon members are talking so loudly, however, neither the presiding officer nor the hon the Minister can hear what the hon member is saying, and then there is no sense in having a debate. I call upon hon members to tone down their conversations. The hon member for Albany may continue.

Mr Chairman, as far back as 10 years ago the Provincial Road Engineer calculated that approximately 400 km to 500 km of the existing 12 588 km of highways needed to be reconstructed annually to ensure that the design-life was not exceeded. This means that we have to reconstruct 4% of our highways each year if we are not to fall behind. The shocking reality is that we barely reconstruct 100 km, or a mere 0,8%, each year. That is only 20% of what I regard as the annual minimum for the road reconstruction programme in the Cape.

When we look at the construction of new roads—that is surely the criterion for determining whether a country, province or area is making any headway or not—we find that only 10 km of new road is being constructed each year. During the past three years the maintenance costs for the highway network increased from R1 864 per km or R23 million, to R3 696 per km or approximately R47 million. At this rate, and with the present financial allocations, we are heading for a situation in terms of which we will not even manage the reconstruction of existing roads.

At present there are 4 896 km of proposed national roads in the Cape Province which are described as provincial highways, whilst there are only 807 declared national roads in the province. The result is that at present a large portion of the province’s limited road-building funds have to be spent on maintaining this envisaged national road network, and even on reconstruction, where the condition of the roads necessitates this. It has therefore become vital for these proposed national roads to be declared national roads so as to involve the Department of Transport in their financing or for funds to be made available to the province so that these projects can also be tackled.

It is calculated that the accumulated backlog over the past five years in the provision and maintenance of roads in the Cape Province now amounts to more than R2 000 million in present-day monetary terms. As far as divisional councils are concerned, this year it was only possible to provide approximately R64,8 million for normal expenditure in regard to the maintenance, resealing and improvement of roads under their control, as against a stated need of approximately R94,9 million for this financial year. Capital works have also been reduced, for this financial year, to a meagre R36 million, which does not nearly cater for the stated needs.

If it is also borne in mind that the allocated funds enable only 20 of the 37 divisional councils to proceed with work on roads and bridges, it is probably not surprising that the councils which are still actively engaged in this work have only built an average of 4 km of new tarred roads per year. That is really only a drop in the ocean when compared with the approximately 58 000 km of main roads and divisional roads under the control of the divisional councils. Various other statistics to motivate my request could be quoted, but owing to the limited time at my disposal I want to mention, in conclusion, that one should bear in mind that the province is weighed down by the burden of subsidies, interest and redemption on loans negotiated for rural, municipal and urban transport projects to the tune of approximately R45,7 million for this financial year. The Cape is a proud province with an outstanding record regarding the contributions it has made in the interests of the country.

In regard to the problems relating to our roads I want to say that we have now come to the end of our rope. In real terms today we are getting only one third of the money we obtained 10 years ago. I therefore want to make an urgent appeal to the Government today to abolish motor vehicle licences and to replace them by a levy of 5c per litre on the price of fuel sold at filling stations in the Cape.

The expected revenue from motor vehicle licences, after the recent increase, will be approximately R100 million for the current financial year, which is a mere drop in the ocean. By placing a suitable levy on fuel in the Cape, sufficient funds can be collected to make an end to the backlog in our road network and to ensure that the capital works amounting to thousands of millions of rand in the Cape can be maintained. I cannot think of a more fair and just way of solving this urgent problem. In this way no additional burden would be placed on the Exchequer. The principle which then applies is that the consumer pays in proportion to his use of the road system. We should merely ensure that what is at issue here, ie our roads, are of a good quality.

Let us look at the actual state of affairs. [Interjections.] In 1954 there were 14 road-construction units in the Cape; in 1972 there were nine, in 1981 there were seven and this year there are six; at the end of next year there will be five. Divisional council subsidies on main roads and divisional roads have decreased to such an extent that staff have had to be laid off, road work has had to be reduced and staff have had to work shorter hours owing to the lack of funds.

Secondly, because of the development of new irrigation areas, particularly in the Lower Orange River area, an additional burden has been placed on this department. What is more, the Department of Water Affairs feels that it is not its function.

Thirdly there is the problem of dust, particularly in the Ceres area where fruit is grown, and the department does not have the funds for the construction of tarred roads.

Fourthly there is the increase in traffic, particularly with the development taking place in the Eastern Cape and also that taking place on our foreshore areas.

As the country’s economy grows, increasing use is made of heavy vehicles. Now, with the relaxation of the permit system, rail transport is being replaced by road transport. This is placing a heavier burden on this department.

Mr Chairman, from a comparison of the census figures of 1980 and 1985 it appears that the White population in the Cape Province increased by only 6,3%, as against an overall White population growth in the country of 8,5% and a total of 10,8% in the Transvaal. This clearly indicates that a shift is taking place, and to me it again looks like a great trek from the Cape to the Transvaal. We are not sorry about that, of course, because it is clear that if people go from the Cape to the Transvaal, they are entering CP territory. If they were ever to return to the Cape, they would accordingly exert an influence on this province. [Interjections.] Apart from this fact, let me say that the overall ethnic composition of this area is changing drastically, chiefly with regard to the Black people flocking into the Western Cape area, which was traditionally, as we know, supposed to be a Coloured labour preference area. It is an irrefutable fact that this was again merely due to the failure to employ those measures which were, in fact, available to the authorities to halt this tremendous flood-tide of Black people. We have also ascertained from authoritative sources that some of the time-sharing flats in this White area are increasingly having restrictions on them lifted and are being sold to non-Whites. That is a factual situation which the Cape should take very careful note of.

Mr Chairman, I should like to come back to what was said yesterday by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning about the concept of a new nation. The hon the Minister told me that it was not the Government that builds a new nation, but that it was a factual situation. I merely want to say that I am not the one who says so. It is a fact that hon members on the other side are saying this every day. Surely that is a fact. The Government has already included Coloureds and Indians, and it is also going to include Blacks. That is a factual situation.

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

No, he has many hours in which to speak, Mr Chairman.

Yes, Moolman, let him have it! Let him have it!

In this connection I want to link up with the answer the hon the Minister gave the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition yesterday. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s question was the following: If, in our country, a situation were to arise in which the Whites wanted to inhabit their own area, would the State also be prepared to treat the Whites as they do other peoples, in particular Black peoples, ie allowing them to secede and accordingly be entitled to be treated as such? The hon the Minister’s answer circumvented the question. What did the hon the Minister say? When he had to reply, he asked: Where is the traditional area or residential area of the Whites? Is that not what he said? He said that we first had to obtain a majority before we could talk. He therefore made no real effort to answer the question. That is true, is it not? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was also told: Get that majority and then come and talk to us again. That is correct, is it not? Let me just say that that is a fairly arrogant attitude, because if we were in the majority, why would we need to go and ask him?

Tell him, Moolman!

That is a nonsensical contention because if we were in the majority, this party would decide how these matters were to be regulated. [Interjections.] As far as the traditional area is concerned, let me tell the hon the Minister something, if he does not know it. The Afrikaner people in this country, as the White majority, and in that sense the ones to determine the changing fortunes of the Whites in this country, has always, at least since 1910, regarded the present White South Africa, with the exclusion of those areas rightly or wrongly allocated to Blacks, as its own area. The Government was the one that decided. It was the one that took the decisions in this connection. It was the one that fought to obtain independence and sovereignty. It was the one that fought to make this country a Republic. It has always treated this country as its own. That is an indisputable fact, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order!

And that is also why there are 166 elected White members sitting in this House of Assembly. This country is our country. That has been our view all along. [Interjections.] That is the country about which this party says that the fair solution to its problems lies in partitioning. We say that we should partition this country. The Government on the other hand, is deviating from the traditional pattern of things and breaking the ties with the past. The Government is dissociating itself from the course of total separation, which has been adopted for hundreds of years now. They are breaking with that separation. The Government is arrogating to itself the power to decide to break unselfconsciously with that past, without giving us any prospect whatsoever of how they intend to protect this minority group, which we would then be.

The people will be settling scores with them!

The hon the Minister has given us an example of how minorities can be protected. He used regional services councils as an example. He gets away from the question of numerical strength and says that in accordance with the financial ability of people—determined in accordance with some or other table or whatever—they will obtain representation. That means that people will obtain representation in accordance with their ability to make financial contributions.

But I did not say…

No, that is what the hon the Minister said. In any event, that is the implication of what he said. What else could it mean? In accordance with a man’s ability to purchase services, he is granted representation.

Of course!

Surely that is a qualified form of franchise. [Interjections.]

Real old United Party policy!

We are now asking what that is, if not old United Party policy? They said that they would grant people representation in accordance with their financial contribution to the economic prosperity of the country. And that is precisely what this now boils down to. Mr Chairman, that is a transparent piece of double-dealing, and with that piece of double-dealing the Government will not succeed in detracting from the Black man’s basic numerical strength. When the Government says what it is now saying, what that amounts to is deceit. One could also take the higher echelons of Government as an example, its use there to protect a numerical minority. Here the Government is making a mistake, however. Again this is the basis for the Black man’s opposition, because on these terms he cannot compete with the White man. If the hon the Minister is of the opinion that he can still succeed in protecting the Whites by these means because at this specific stage the Whites still have the financial ability to guarantee themselves a specific position—the guarantee of a majority on the strength of its greater capability—it will find itself on the course which, in Russia, resulted in the revolution of 1917, the revolution of the so-called “haves” and “have-nots”.

Order! I did not want to interrupt the hon member in his argument. Before he goes any further, however, I request him to withdraw the expression “double-dealing”.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Rather say it is a trick! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I prefer to leave the matter at that. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, you will not believe me, but we have just come to the end of a discussion on the budget of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. [Interjections.] Yes, we have just come to the end of that discussion. In the process the opposition parties have probably given the Administrator of the Cape and his executive committee one of the greatest ever compliments. The PFP’s two representatives in the standing committee, the hon member for Groote Schuur and the hon member for Constantia, are not even present here today. [Interjections.] Now you know, Mr Chairman, how satisfied the PFP is with the way in which the Administrator and his executive committee are administering the Cape at present. [Interjections.]

Sir, you should know, however, what happened in the case of the Official Opposition. They did not express one word of criticism on this mixed form of government. [Interjections.] Not a single word of criticism of a mixed executive committee! It seems to me as if those hon members are beginning to realise that having a mixed executive committee is really not as bad as they initially thought. [Interjections.] They now apparently realise that it is not at all as bad as they initially believed. [Interjections.] We appreciate their contribution. The only small point of criticism that one could possibly have heard was that raised by the hon member for Ermelo, who apparently charged the executive committee with the fact that the population growth amongst the Whites in the Cape Province was not as high as that in the Transvaal. I give that hon member the undertaking that I shall take this matter up very seriously with the Executive Committee. [Interjections.]

I very briefly want to refer to the hon member for Port Elizabeth North who asked for a province in the Eastern Cape as an adjunct to the policy of decentralisation. I want to agree with the hon member that the original idea was—including Kimberley in the Northern Cape—to decentralise to that area. There are, however, financial problems involved in the implementation of such a step. What I am, in fact, aware of is that the executive committee is rationalising and augmenting its offices in both Kimberley and Port Elizabeth and that consideration is even being given to opening up sub-offices there.

The hon member for Vryburg made a very good constitutional speech which I do not want to reply to since I want to leave that to the hon the Minister.

The hon member for Albany advocated better road configurations. I merely want to issue a warning on one aspect. We can pinpoint needs in this House in any Vote we like. We need more money for all forms of development in this country, whether in the sphere of health, roads, defence—you name them.

I was very impressed to learn of the costs involved in a heart-bypass operation. I was never aware of the fact that the hon the Minister of Defence was so well off that he could afford such operations!

I want to refer to the handling of general affairs by the provincial government. The provincial government is supposed to deal with general affairs. I want to tell the hon the Minister, however, that in my view there are still too many own affairs being dealt with by the provinces. I am thinking, for example, of local government, certain museums, libraries, health aspects, works and similar aspects, and I want to ask that serious attention be given to having these own affairs taken away from the provinces and transferred to own affairs departments. This whole concept is causing problems for the committee, whilst in point of fact that committee only wants to deal, and should only deal, with own affairs. I am asking that very serious attention be given to this matter.

Those who have been in the employ of the provincial council, and who are now renewing their ties in that sphere, would not recognise the provincial administrations. There has been a tremendous change, or shift in emphasis, in their functions. They have been given a tremendous additional task, ie that of Black housing and welfare, which is an extensive one that now has to be dealt with by the provinces. I should like to extend my very sincere congratulations to the Administrator of the Cape, Mr Eugène Louw, and his executive committee, ie Messrs Koos Theron, Schoeman, Van Wyk, Nyati, Adams and Samuels, and also the officials, for the way in which they have accepted these new challenges in a very short period of time. They are making a very great success of this task and we owe them a vote of thanks.

While I am saying thank you, I want to extend a word of sincere gratitude to the members serving on this standing committee. We have entered upon an exploratory phase, things have worked out well and I think we are in the process of establishing a close-knit committee with the exercising of parliamentary control as its objective.

Perhaps it is because it is Friday that one feels one can be a little mischievous, and in the brief time left to me I should like to attempt to make two points. As far as the first of these is concerned, I want to associate myself with what was said about this earlier in this debate. Can we not finally get rid of the Westminster system? Can we not get rid of it now? Really, Sir, when their Votes are discussed, why can the Administrators of the provinces and their executive committees not sit here in the House so that we can conduct a meaningful debate with them?

Hear, hear!

What sense is there in having little notes passing to and fro instead of conducting a decent debate? Sir, we must really get rid of the Westminster system now. Let us please relinquish the Westminster system. Let those office-bearers take their seats here so that we can conduct a meaningful debate with them, so that they can put forward their views and we can know what is going on in the provinces. They are, after all, responsible people.

The second point I want to make goes a little further. Although there is parliamentary control over the actions of the executive committees, and there is consequently electoral control by way of parliamentary control, I feel that control is too far removed from the provincial tier of government. I wonder whether the time has not come, in the constitutional process we are engaged in—I am sorry to have to spoil the weekend for the hon members of the CP—for us to start looking at a mixed provincial council in which all population groups are represented. The time for that has now come.

I said that two years ago.

The hon member says he said it two years ago, and perhaps he even said it ten years ago. The political process, however, is a developmental process, and what was not possible ten years ago may be possible today, whilst what is not possible today may be possible in 20 years’ time. The point I want to make, however, is that in regional services councils we do in fact have a recipe for establishing a provincial council consisting of members of all the population groups and based on a separate voters’ roll, on consensus and on “consumer interests”. The latter offers us an example of something that can work.

I conclude by thanking the hon the Minister and his two deputies for the major task they are performing for us under extremely difficult circumstances.

Mr Chairman, it is a great privilege for me to speak after the hon member for Parow has spoken.

Do you agree with him?

The hon member touched upon several important aspects related to the constitutional reform process and I think the hon the Minister will certainly respond to some of them. The hon member must excuse me if I do not focus too much attention on the Cape Province, because it is my privilege to introduce the debate on Natal. I should like to speak about the reform taking place at the second tier of government.

†The establishment of regional services councils and the resulting rationalisation of services will lead to structural changes to many existing bodies also in Natal. The Abolition of Development Bodies Act, Act No 75 of 1986, provided for the abolition of the following development bodies: Firstly, the 13 development boards previously known as administration boards; secondly, the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas; and thirdly, the 38 divisional councils of the Cape Province.

With reference to Natal, the Act refers to the Natal Development and Services Board and the seven regional water corporations. These regional water corporations should not be confused with water boards such as the Umgeni Water Board since water boards, established in terms of the Water Act, 1956, are not included in the bodies mentioned in section 3 (2) (a) of the Regional Services Councils Act of 1985. The establishment of the proposed regional services councils will not in the least affect the functions of the water boards which are to supply water in bulk within their area of jurisdiction. Any takeover can only be effected in the event of successful negotiations with the board subject to the approval of the Minister of Water Affairs.

*What is important, and should always be borne in mind, is that with the establishment of a regional services council one should not only examine the rationalisation of services, but also the rationalisation of bodies furnishing services. That is a very important aspect which is also dealt with very circumspectly in Natal. In that connection I should briefly like to refer to the Development and Services Board and the regional water corporations. The Development and Services Board is a proclaimed local authority with 56 development areas and 36 controlled areas under its control, comprising 15 500 Whites, 64 000 Indians, 3 000 Coloureds and 27 500 Blacks. The majority of the functions and services which are furnished—I think this is of importance—are own affairs functions. It is obvious that the Development and Services Board should remain in existence in the short term, but that the composition of the board will, in all probability, have to change. Provision will possibly have to be made for the three own affairs administrations and for general affairs at the second tier of administration.

At present there are 7 regional water services corporations in Natal which are responsible for supplying water to consumers in the areas of jurisdiction of 41 local authorities, 32 development areas, five controlled areas and four Black urban areas. One can accept, with a reasonable measure of certainty, that three of the corporations, ie Amanzimtoti, Pinetown and North Coast, will to a greater or lesser extent be included in the regional services council which is to be established for the Durban-Pinetown area, whilst the remaining four corporations will be incorporated in future regional services councils. The reference to the Development and Services Board and the regional water services corporations indicate to what extent financial adjustments will have to be considered when regional services councils are established in Natal.

A further aspect to which I briefly want to refer is that of the participation of organised agriculture in Natal in regional services councils. Representation for people outside municipal areas only takes place, in terms of present legislation, by way of a representative body meeting certain requirements. One of these requirements is that this body should purchase a service from that regional services council. The problem with farmers arose from the fact that they did not purchase services from such a regional services council, although they did make use of services such as roads and hospitals. Consequently farmers as such cannot be represented on a regional services council.

Nor was organised agriculture prepared to obtain representation on a regional services council by way of a farmers’ association, because they—I think this was quite justified—were of the opinion that this could lead to the politicisation of the farmers’ associations. In terms of proposed amendments to the Regional Services Councils Act, already introduced in Parliament, these two aspects are now being rectified.

Regional services councils—and their functions—must not be confused with the old administration boards. One of the basic differences is that a regional services council serves all communities, without one group dominating another. Regional services councils are representative of all population groups in local communities when it comes to services of a general nature furnished within the regional context. This also includes the farming communities.

In my view it would be a mistake on the part of organised agriculture in Natal not to participate in, and share jointly in the responsibilities of, regional services councils created for the various communities. I trust, however, that the Administrator of Natal will ensure that the incorporation of organised agriculture—for Natal too—will take place in a responsible manner in consultation with the parties concerned. It is of importance to note that there are, in any event, certain conditions for participation, and these are: The services must be of overall importance to the community and must be cost-effective and cost-efficient.

Whether we want to know this or not, urban dwellers and farmers are dependent on one another. For the optimum development of our region and our country we need one another. One of the main reasons for the establishment of regional services councils is specifically to make the furnishing of local authority services more efficient and cost-effective by planning, co-ordinating and furnishing those services on a regional basis and to develop and uplift the less prosperous communities. The creation of regional services councils is a significant milestone in the development of South African local government and it deserves everyone’s support.

Mr Chairman, I will be replying to certain aspects of the speech of the hon member for Newcastle in the course of my own. I just want to say at the outset that I am pleased that the hon the Minister has agreed to reply in regard to aspects of the Natal Indaba later in the debate in view of the fact that he did not do so in the course of his last speech.

I want to refer to that particular matter, because I think it is very pertinent that this House should know exactly what the other side of the story is. I want to refer particularly to certain comments made by hon members on that side of the House on Wednesday evening in regard to the whole question of the Natal Indaba. In doing so I want to point out that the indaba was an exercise which deserves close study and scrutiny in that it showed that negotiation can be carried out successfully if all the parties concerned have a conviction and possess the common desire for it to succeed. I think a lesson which the Government can learn is the desire of the participants for that negotiation exercise to succeed.

The speeches made by the hon member for Umhlatuzana and the hon member Mr Hattingh should be treated with contempt as far as I am concerned. They reveal a complete lack of understanding of the realities of the situation in Natal and the problems which are created by the fragmentation of KwaZulu. We hear so much from Government benches about negotiation, but what is regrettable is that when positive examples of the true negotiating process do come to light, as is the case with the indaba, cold water is poured immediately on the endeavours of those who go out of their way to try to reach common agreement. This leads one to ask: What price negotiation?, and one cannot but question the Government’s sincerity in advocating negotiation as a means of solving the political problems that exist in this country when it can so ruthlessly, on the other hand, tear apart and destroy months of sincere and dedicated work.

I want to point out to this Committee that in spite of Wednesday evening’s criticisms the indaba contained certain important, positive principles which should not lightly be discarded by the Government. That is why I have difficulty in understanding the Government’s actual interpretation of negotiation. The NP is repeatedly emphasising the need for the protection of minority group rights in any negotiated dispensation—and may I say I subscribe fully to this—but surely then the acceptance by all participants of the indaba of the principle of minority group right protection is the very answer which minority groups have been seeking. This fact can without doubt be described, as far as I am concerned, as the greatest achievement of the indaba. I want to urge the Government…

You must be joking! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this is the kind of mentality they have. These are the people who are supposed to be leading the country. To what? [Interjections.]

Let me just say this about the manner in which the NP and the CP are endeavouring to destroy not only the indaba proposals, but at the same time also the concept of the indaba itself: In the spirit of the indaba the condemnation of the one is the destruction of the other, and I hope hon members on that side of the House will realise that.

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

Regrettably, I do not have time.

That is why I urge the NP to hold their fire, because it is obvious that they have a lot to learn when it comes to the exercise of negotiation, and I want to warn them not to play party politics with sensitive national issues which require responsible assessment and handling. Furthermore, I would go so far as to say that the NP really has no right to condemn the proposals of the indaba until such time as it is in a position to come up with a more acceptable alternative of its own. When they do so we can discuss the matter.

According to a recent Press report, Dr Dhlomo made reference to the fact that the Government was studying the indaba proposals. This would appear to be somewhat contrary to some of the NP speeches made on Wednesday evening and I therefore call upon the hon the Minister to state clearly in this Chamber whether the Government accepts or rejects the indaba initiative. The time has come for a clear indication to be given as to exactly what future the indaba has in the eyes of the Government.

You will never get it from this hon Minister.

It must stop dilly-dallying with the matter and clearly indicate whether it accepts or unilaterally rejects these proposals.

I wish to turn my attention now to the point made by the hon member for Newcastle. It concerns the question of the regional services councils and I want to say unequivocally to the Government that it must keep RSCs out of the rural areas of Natal. [Interjections.] People living in these areas do not need RSCs neither is there any justification for imposing levies on any sector, such as agriculture, which does not make use of public services. It is also morally wrong to expect the already hard-pressed farming community to pay for services which are provided solely in urban areas and from which the agricultural sector derives no direct benefit. [Interjections.]

Similarly, it is unreasonable to expect villages and rural towns that are providing their own services to finance those of the larger urban areas.

I also want to point out that the fragmentation of KwaZulu and their declared non-compliance with the RSC system virtually nullifies the effect that these councils would have in the rural areas of Natal. Therefore I want to tell the Government to stay their hand in regard to RSCs in the rural areas of Natal. [Interjections.]

The final matter that I wish to raise in this debate is the question of the Natal Parks Board. I wish to urge the Government not to tamper with the autonomy that the board has enjoyed in the past years. Its national and international success has been entirely due to the fact that it has functioned on an independent basis where it has been able to use its own initiatives to the full. Furthermore, I must also remind hon members that the Natal Parks Board carries out its own capital development requirements from its own sources of income.

In conclusion I would ask the hon the Minister to clarify the position in regard to the transfer and management of 300 000 hectares of forest area in the Drakensberg to the Natal Parks Board. This is an issue that surfaced some 15 months ago and which has not yet been implemented or finalised.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon member for Mooi River, but only when I think he speaks sense, as he usually does. Today, however, I was really quite worried about what he had to say. [Interjections.] As far as the Natal/KwaZulu Indaba is concerned, I agree with him that it deserves close study and scrutiny, but the constitutional proposals of the indaba, as is quite clear to anyone who applies his mind to them, are a sellout to Black majority rule in Natal.

What do you say about the tricameral system? [Interjections.]

The Natal voters also thought so, and that is why the hon member for Mooi River sits here alone. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister has already said he will reply in more detail so the hon member for Mooi River will get the rest of the answers to his arguments from him.

In dealing with the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the Province of Natal for the financial year ending March 1988, I should like to deal with a few highlights of the estimates, in particular with regard to hospital services.

Before proceeding, however, I should like to place on record a tribute to a man who over many years did much in breaking new ground in political reform in the Province of Natal. I refer to Frank Joseph Henry Martin, who died peacefully at his home in Durban on Saturday, 28 August. Frank Martin made his debut in the Natal Provincial Council in 1966 when he won the Pietermaritzburg South seat for the United Party. In 1970 he was elected to the provincial council for the seat of Pietermaritzburg North. In 1972 he became a full-time member of the Natal Executive Committee, and in 1974, senior MEC and leader of the provincial council.

He was a great team man with an astonishing capability to break down barriers between race groups and to be accepted by all, cobblers and kings alike. He was always at the forefront of negotiations with KwaZulu and the driving force in motivating the Natal Consultative Committee, which was the forerunner of the Joint Executive Authority which we have today. After the dissolution of the provincial councils he continued as co-convenor of the Natal/KwaZulu Indaba. He was always a man who believed in the protection of group rights. Shortly before his death he expressed his regret at not being able to continue with his work. He was always totally optimistic about the future of the Natal/KwaZulu region, and of South Africa. Those of us who had the privilege of knowing him have lost a great friend, and South Africa one of her finest sons.

I should like to talk on a subject which I consider to be most important, and that is hospital services in Natal. A broad overview of the amount provided under the Vote Hospitals shows a total provision of R472,213 million, more than 43% of the total budget for Natal, and an increase of R75,569 million, or 19,5% over the provision for the previous year, 1986-87. I think this is a most welcome increase in these times of inflation.

Among the main reasons for the large increase is the salary adjustment to create parity for nurses and paramedical personnel from 1 September 1986. I think this move is most welcome and has been awaited for a long time. This totals R46,271 million. Also, there are increases in the costs of supplies and services, in particular drugs and medicines which have increased by up to 50% in some cases. That totals R29,721 million. This is a perturbing factor. The steep increase in drug costs, while at the same time we are suffering severe financial constraints in the province, is a source of concern, and I believe urgent investigation into this hiatus is necessary.

I would like to give an example of this. I want to highlight the type of pressures being caused by prescribing drugs for hospital patients. In treating hypertension, for instance, there are, say, eight or 10 drugs available on the market, but only five available at provincial hospitals, the others having been taken off the hospital code. In certain cases the available drugs are not necessarily the best and the patient may not receive the best available treatment. Apart from the possible legal repercussions—and they are real—it is my contention that we should at least be able to maintain the existing recognised high standard of services. They must not be allowed to deteriorate. I think this factor must be looked into.

Budget restraints and the high cost of food have already necessitated a cut in the quality, even quantity, of food to patients and staff, and patient turnover is greater than ever before. Above all, we must not be forced to cut services with a consequent drop in the standard of health care.

On the credit side the hospitals find that staffing and the creation of essential posts have shown an improvement. Our nursing care continues to be of a very high standard—I think among some of the best in the world.

A further plus is that contrary to the propaganda relating to the brain drain, and particularly the medical profession, there was a great number of young doctors seeking employment with the provincial administration in the past few years with many having to be turned away. The recruitment of doctors with foreign qualifications has virtually ceased.

The medical component of the Natal Military Command have continued to assist the department by making available young national servicemen as medical officers. This has not only helped the department, but also provided young doctors with excellent training. Some have reported back to me and have told me what fantastic training they believe they are getting during their military service.

The average occupancy percentage of established posts in the province—almost 95%—has been most satisfactory. Ambulance and emergency services are also a plus as these have shown a dramatic improvement. A new operational system entailing the satelliteing of the emergency service vehicles at strategic points coupled with the development of a centralised communications system based at Grey’s Hospital in Pietermaritzburg now permits a response to over 90% of emergencies within four minutes. Durban—they are always a little slow in Durban—has recently handed over its services to the province to make use of and link up with the Rapid Response Unit. The NPA ambulance training school runs regular diploma-level courses in Natal and in KwaZulu. They train Blacks and Whites. The demand for training continues to exceed available resources.

Nursing training and the change in basic nurse education I think deserves comment. The new SA Nursing Council regulations were implemented throughout the hospitals of Natal in January 1986. The NPA entered into an agreement with the University of Natal to establish the Natal College of Nursing. I understand the latter body was established as the university would not enter into agreement with each nursing college—Addington, Grey’s, Northdale, King Edward VIII and R K Khan. Under an agreement these colleges were referred to as campuses.

I think Natal is the only province that has this system, but this does not meet with the favour of the Natal nursing profession. The four-year academic course has had a dramatic impact on general nursing practica per student. Under the old regulations students undertook 4 415 hours practica of which 1 627 hours were on night duty. The new academic course results in the students working only 3 320 hours in a general ward over a four-year period of which 960 hours are night duty. A comparison reveals a deficit in general nursing practica per student of 1 095 hours over their period of training. Not only do the new regulations result in a marked shortage of ward hours, but reservations have also been expressed by many senior nursing personnel as to their possible detrimental effect on the standards of practical nursing.

As far as regional laundries go, I note with interest the expansion of facilities at the regional laundry in the Durban and coastal area and an increased throughput in Northern Natal.

I wonder whether it is the function of hospitals to be involved in the laundry business and whether serious consideration should not be given to the privatisation of these laundries.

Under all the stresses and strains and financial constraints I believe the Director of Hospital Services, Dr Neville Howse, the assistant directors and all hospital superintendents and personnel should be congratulated upon their dedication and enterprise in running the ship so well under such trying circumstances.

Mr Chairman, I would like to associate myself and the CP with the tribute paid by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South to the late Mr Frank Martin. I did not have the privilege of knowing him, but I am aware of the fact that he was a formidable fighter for Natal and he deserves our admiration for this. We on this side join in the condolences extended to his family in their sad loss.

I would also like to say that I can find no reason why I should disagree with the hon member for Mooi River—he is not here at the moment—when he calls for a rejection of the regional services councils in country areas in Natal. We on this side qualify that by saying we call for the rejection of regional services councils per se. We would ask the hon the Minister to come forward with definite proposals insofar as the future constitutional structure of South Africa is concerned. In other words they should stop fiddling around—particularly in Natal—because the voters of Natal have the right to know what lies ahead for them. We need a clear statement from the hon the Minister on his intentions in this regard.

*It is a great privilege to take part in this debate as a member of the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal today. Of course, after the next general election in 1989, it will no longer be necessary for a Transvaler to represent the Natal CP, since there will be CP House of Assembly members in Natal to do this. [Interjections.]

Newcastle! You are out!

Order! No, we should rather await the results of the next election. The hon member may proceed.

With anticipation, Mr Chairman.

I want to make a brief comment on what the hon Deputy Minister had to say about the growth of the CP and refer in similar vein to the growth of the NP. The growth of the NP since 1983 has in fact been a very severe reverse growth. In 1983 in the referendum 67% of the voters voted “yes”. This number obviously included PFP and NRP people who were actually conned into believing that the NP was sincere in what it was doing. This resulted in a total of approximately 1,3 million voters supporting the NP in the “Yes-vote”.

In 1987 the NP once again drew PFP and NRP votes and their vote went down to roughly 1,1 million. I am sure hon members will agree with me that it is a serious reverse growth of almost 200 000 voters and a reduction of 15% over the past 3½ years.

*The only thing I can tell the electorate in South Africa at this stage, is the following: Keep up the good work, because that is how we shall get rid of the New Progs.

†In the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal, Coloured and Indian members who serve on that committee proudly and unashamedly fight for the rights of their people. When we in the CP fight for the rights of our people the left-wing Nats call us racists. How do they expect even the Coloureds and the Indians to respect them, let alone trust them?

*The Whites pay 93,6% of the total income tax in South Africa. [Interjections.] If we on this side of the Committee object to the unfair distribution of this tax revenue, we are called racists. [Interjections.] They call us racists!

†All I want to say at this stage to those hon left-wing members is that their forefathers must be turning in their graves to hear the likes of people such as the hon member for Innesdal. What sort of people are they who would betray their own race when no other race is prepared to do it? Even in this tricameral Parliament it is obvious that the Coloured and Indian members are not prepared to do that. However, the left wing of the NP are. Is this not a tragedy?

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, before the interruption of proceedings, I was making an appeal to the hon the Minister for clarity on the NP’s constitutional direction, particularly with reference to Natal. I once again appeal to the hon the Minister to put the White voters of Natal out of their misery and to clear up the uncertainty which hangs like a sword of Damocles over their and their children’s heads with regard to the future. The hon the Minister must tell them categorically that the NP rejects the KwaNatal Indaba and also a Black majority government. Doubt exists in the minds of Natalians and they think it is just a matter of time before they will be handed over to a Zulu majority government. [Interjections.]

Order!

While I am encouraged by the strong standpoints against the indaba proposals by the hon member for Umhlatuzana, the hon member Mr Hattingh and others, the comments of some other hon members alarmed me. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South called for an assurance from the indaba people that Pietermaritzburg would be retained as the capital city of the new KwaZulu-Natal, as though it was a fait accompli.

*Perhaps I should find out from the hon the Deputy Minister, who is unfortunately not in the House at present, whether the quotations I am going to use can be attributed to him. I am referring to a report in Beeld of 8 July 1987, under the heading “Dr Stoffel laat hoop opvlam—Regering het nie indaba verwerp”. They report that the hon the Deputy Minister said the indaba was on the right track. This was said in a speech by the late Mr Frank Martin, when he spoke as an architect of the Natal Indaba. In his comments to the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech at the opening of a new centre of the Bureau for Information, it was reported that Mr Martin had said:

I appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to adopt a clear standpoint either for or against the KwaNatal-Indaba.

They cannot adopt a clear standpoint, because they are not capable of doing so.

He must also make sure that what he proposes for Natal meets his own criteria.

*I am referring to the earlier participation of the hon the Minister, in which he said it must be feasible, acceptable to the majority of people affected by it, and financially attainable.

Mr Chairman, first of all I would like to react to the speech of the hon member for Mooi River.

Not again!

Yes, again. I think he said that we, and I quote him, have “a complete lack of understanding of the problems of Natal”.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Could the hon member please repeat the statement that I was supposed to have made?

I think the hon member for Mooi River used the words “complete lack of understanding of the problems of Natal”. I think those were his remarks in relation to the indaba. [Interjections.]

I would like to ask the hon member for Mooi River if he considers himself to be the only one who can decide on the problems of Natal.

He also spoke about party politics and the KwaNatal Indaba. I want to ask him who brought the KwaNatal Indaba into the political arena.

The NP!

Not at all! The NRP and the PFP alliance brought the indaba into the political arena! [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member for Mooi River at the same time if he can tell me what the logical consequences of the indaba proposals are and also those of the Buthelezi Commission’s proposals.

What are the differences?

Yes, what are the differences between the logical consequences?

Read them both and then you will know.

The hon member’s problem is that he does not understand them, because not very long ago he was dead against the Buthelezi Commission’s proposals.

Yes, indeed.

He says, “Yes, indeed.” We have here a typical example of a person in this Committee who supports the one man, one vote system. He is sitting here right now. [Interjections.] The problem is that he has nailed his flag to the indaba mast and the people of Natal have given him an unequivocal answer to what they think of the indaba proposals.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I just point out to the hon member that I at least increased my majority at the general election! [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order. [Interjections.] Order!

He is wasting my time, Sir.

I would also like to say to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis that both of them know as well as that we know that we have said, not once but a hundred times, that we laud the indaba process but what we do not accept are the proposals that have emanated from those proposals.

Come out with your own story now…

We do have our own story, yes. The people of Natal have supported us—there is no doubt about that. [Interjections.] I think therein lies the answer to the story of the hon member for Mooi River. [Interjections.]

I would just like to say to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis that I find it surprising that a member who is serving on the Standing Select Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal has, to my mind, not made a single positive contribution towards Natal’s cause in this debate. He has made no contribution whatsoever. [Interjections.] All he did was to play party politics, no more and no less.

I would just like to touch on a few important things which in my opinion are required for Natal, for I believe this is an opportunity to put Natal’s point of view. I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister and the hon the Minister of Finance to see whether it is not possible to establish a special fund for the Natal Provincial Administration for beach amenities for all races. I think Natal is in a very good position in this respect. I would like to refer to a draft regional plan which I think came out in about 1974 or 1975, and also to an evaluation of beaches along the Natal coast which came out in 1977. There is also a further report, a designation of beaches insofar as regional, international and local beaches are concerned.

It is common cause that the beaches of Natal are under an extreme amount of pressure. I believe that the time has come for the Government to provide the necessary funds to allow the Natal Administration to supply the amenities that are required for all races on the beaches. I accept that it has been a long time in coming but the point is the local authorities are not in a position to provide those amenities; they are short of funds. I believe the pressure is a national one; it is not a local problem, because Natal beaches cater for a large proportion of the Transvaal visitors. The time has surely come where the Government must take a serious look at the situation and provide equal facilities right along the coast for all the race groups.

I would also like to come to the town and regional planning department. I would like to raise the position of this department acting as town planners for local authorities. I find it difficult to accept that this department can be both judge and executioner. What is taking place at the moment is that as the official town planners for a local authority they plan and advise the local authority on their town planning requirements. Then when an application for special consent, or a waiver of certain town planning conditions is applied for, the town planners consider the application and then make their recommendation which in nine cases out of ten the local authority accepts. If the application is refused and the applicant then wishes to appeal, that appeal goes to the province and the province then, before they make a decision, use the good offices of town and regional planning. This in my opinion is not a happy state of affairs and needs to be looked at de novo. What I am driving at is that I would like to see that the public have the complete assurance that appeals that involve such situations are completely unbiased. This is a problem I think which the public are a little worried about at the moment.

Furthermore I think the time has surely come for the position of the developers and the lobby of the environmentalists to be assessed by means of a cold and clinical approach with regard to often emotional approaches by the environmentalists. I fear that this lobby can retard and inhibit required development in many areas.

In this regard I believe most developers are fully aware of their responsibilities to our heritage, and that the environment is of paramount importance in their planning. In many cases, however, development is attacked by the lobby before its full import is even known, which results in perceptions being established that are often completely wrong and are difficult to dispel.

It is said in the market place that in some instances the aspect of environment is used as a blocking device to delay, retard or inhibit development that is in many cases desperately needed in many areas. Furthermore officialdom on whatever level has scant regard for the costs involved by the developers in their planning and developing stages.

This is a perception I hope is not true and is laid to rest.

There are many developments that have protected the environment in perpetuity. There is no doubt in my mind that the entrepreneur must be encouraged to develop in the broader interests of the country, within reasonable and not unreasonable confines set by the authorities in respect of environmental control.

This factor does not only apply to developers, and I should like to cite an example of something that happened to a statutory body in my area not so long ago. The local water corporation had to augment their raw water supply from the southern end of their water drainage area. They therefore applied for a four metre servitude through a forest reserve to a point on the Umtumvuma river to draw raw water. They were refused the use of this servitude through a proclaimed forest reserve. So they had to move the proposed water extraction point further upstream at an additional cost of some R3 million to the total scheme. In today’s terms and interest capitalised over 30 years this is no small amount of money. Unfortunately, the ratepayers and the users of the water have to foot this bill. What I am therefore pleading for, is a more sensible and pragmatic, and not dogmatic, approach to development and environmental control.

I should like now to touch on the aspect of rating by local authorities. This is a subject that I raised a little while ago. I feel there can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that there are certain local authorities that are using the rebate system provided for in the ordinance in an incorrect manner. This rebate was introduced into the ordinance for the sole purpose of granting relief to senior citizens. It has now developed into a situation where everybody, excluding the commercial, industrial and the non-permanent residents, enjoys the maximum rebate. I would go so far as to say that no consideration is being given to the very people for whom this rebate was originally intended. Take for example a block of flats that have been sold on sectional title. Those people own those flats. They are all pensioners, but they do not become eligible for the rebate. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for South Coast will forgive me for not following up on what he said. However, I want to address the hon the Minister and I want to react to the absolutely insensitive speech by the hon member for Edenvale.

Mr Chairman, firstly, I should like to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon the Minister whose Vote we are now discussing, on his appointment as Minister of Health Services. We have already had 15 Ministers of Health Services, and he is our sixteenth Minister of Health Services in South Africa. While we are discussing health matters here today, and we see how many professional people are sitting in these benches, we know why this hon the Minister is the sixteenth Minister of Health Services. It is a pity, though, that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development and his Deputy are showing no interest in this debate, which concerns an important aspect of South Africa’s health.

I just want to tell the hon the Minister how important he is as Minister of Health Services for South Africa. The hon the Minister’s budget for health services in the Transvaal amounts to R1,1 billion. When one adds the budgets of the other three provincial health services the hon the Minister’s budget for provincial health services amounts to approximately R3 billion.

When we compare this to the own affairs budget of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, we find that the hon the Minister’s budget is at least five times more than that of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, which amounts to only R64 million.

The hon the Minister has hospitals such as the Baragwanath Hospital and the Johannesburg General Hospital under his control. The budget of each of these hospitals amounts to more than R100 million. The own affairs budget of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development amounts to R64 million. Therefore, the budget of one of these two hospitals under the control of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning exceeds the entire budget of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. I want to congratulate him on this enormous responsibility that rests on his shoulders. I am now truly convinced that I can address the hon the Minister on health services today.

There is something else that I want to tell the hon the Minister. He has 69 hospitals under his control in the Transvaal alone, and seven of these are academic hospitals. He has an approved bed total of 21 000. The patient statistics are as follows: Outpatients, 6 million per year; casualties, 1 million; admissions, 1 million; and patient days, 6 million. This is the responsibility, in the Transvaal alone, of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as a “Minister of Health”.

†Mr Chairman, I would like now to discuss with the hon the Minister the issue of the Pap smear. I am referring to the hon member for Edenvale’s very insensitive statement about Pap smears for the Black woman of South Africa. A Pap smear is done to diagnose carcinoma in situ of the cervix, which is a very good test to prevent the full development of cancer of the cervix. Cancer of the cervix is a very serious and unpleasant killing disease. The incidence of positive smears in White women in South Africa is 10 per 1 000 tests. Among Black women it is 25 per 1 000. In Black women over 40 the incidence is 40 per 1 000. The hon the Minister will therefore realise that it is common to find a positive Pap smear in Black women. I would like to tell the hon member for Edenvale to try to gather more knowledge on a subject she intends speaking about. In the Baragwanath Hospital alone they treat 250 to 300 cases of carcinoma of the cervix every year. It is estimated that each case costs R20 000, which means R6 million for the treatment of this condition which is nearly always terminal. I would like to ask the hon member who complained about Pap smears what a Pap smear costs.

I did not complain; the hon member should be more specific.

A Pap smear costs R5. In other words 1 million people could be tested for this condition at the same cost as treating 250 cases of carcinoma of the cervix. Therefore, in spite of what the hon member for Edenvale said, I would say that it is important that routine testing of Black women over the age of 40 should be undertaken, and with that I am done with the hon member for Edenvale for the meantime as far as that matter is concerned.

I would like, however, to refer to some of her other statements regarding the Baragwanath Hospital. It was pretty obvious that she was very much on the defensive about conditions in our Black teaching hospitals for which that hon Minister is responsible. I would like to tell the hon Minister what the people working there have to say, not what the hon member for Edenvale or I have to say. In a statement signed by 70 doctors at this hospital they spoke about the appalling conditions and referred to repeated requests by doctors to provincial authorities. They said the facilities at these institutions were deplorable and inhuman. Overcrowding was horrendous, with patients sleeping on the floor, the nurses’ allocations completely inadequate and ablution facilities far short of accepted health requirements. Pleas for help have been met with indifference and callous disregard.

In another article by respected doctors in South Africa, including Dr Solly Benator, Professor of Medicine at UCT, and Dr Ralph Kirch they say the following, and I quote:

We can really call this hon Minister the midwife to the downward spiral of health services because it is his constitution that is causing this tremendous fragmentation, discrimination and the deterioration in the hospital health services.

He is not the midwife, he is the sire.

I should like to quote to the hon the Minister statements by a retired professor of medicine, Prof Shamrock of the Baragwanath Hospital, who blames the deteriorating conditions of service at Government hospitals for the drain of expertise from academic hospitals. He says the situation is so bad that the hospital is being transformed from an internationally renowned academic centre for training and research into a glorified primary health centre. This is what people are talking about, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I want the hon the Minister to react to this because it appears to me the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development is doing a crash course on pension matters and cannot therefore attend this discussion. After his performance last week in respect of pension matters I hope this course on pensions which he is evidently attending now will last very long indeed!

I know the hon the Minister will take my questions seriously. I want him to react to the following. The health services in provincial hospitals in South Africa are deteriorating. If, however, the hon the Minister does not accept the word of these people, and also mine, I urge him to appoint a commission of inquiry as a matter of urgency to investigate the facilities at training hospitals in general, but in particular at the King Edward VIII Hospital in Durban, and the Baragwanath and Coronation Hospitals in Johannesburg. That is my first request.

Secondly, such a commission of inquiry must go into the conditions of service of full-time medical personnel at teaching and other provincial hospitals, with special reference to salaries, staff allocation, hours of work of junior staff, research facilities and travel allowances for trips abroad. All the evidence indicates that this is what is urgently required, and I should like such a commission to be appointed immediately to go into these matters. This should be done in order to prove us wrong, in order to prove that doctors and other staff working in those hospitals are in fact wrong. I challenge the hon the Minister or the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development to appoint such a commission.

Mr Chairman, at one particular teaching hospital in South Africa—one for Whites—where they have a department of cardiac surgery there is a professor of cardiac surgery employed. His assistant and second in charge, however, is not a qualified cardiac surgeon. You know what has happened now, Mr Chairman, as a result of this? That professor has resigned. Very soon, Sir, the Johannesburg General Hospital will not have a qualified cardiac surgeon unless someone else is appointed in the place of this professor who has just resigned.

I should like to continue but unfortunately I do not have sufficient time. I appeal to the hon the Minister again, however, to make sure we establish the truth or otherwise of those allegations that have been made, and that we also try to improve conditions in all the teaching hospitals in South Africa in honour of the tradition set by the first heart transplant twenty years ago. The threat of any further deterioration should be eliminated immediately by way of appropriate measures carried out by this hon the Minister and his department.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for South Coast remarked boldly that since I had been appointed to the standing committee dealing with the affairs of Natal I had made no contribution to the proceedings there. [Interjections.] First of all, Sir, I want to ask him how he could know that because he is not a member of that standing committee. His hon colleagues do not even trust him with the future of Natal to the extent that they will appoint him to that standing committee! [Interjections.] I suggest he finds out first what happens in that committee before he makes statements such as that. [Interjections.]

Let me tell you further, Sir, that although the hon member for Roodepoort and I have only had the privilege of serving on that standing committee for a brief period, we have tried, with the limited knowledge at our disposal, to make a contribution…

Now you are talking! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I judge by the reaction from the noisy section opposite that those hon members appreciate that comment. At least, Sir, we are honest in admitting that we do not have sufficient knowledge. They are not! Their Constitution proves that they are dishonest and that they still maintain that a thing can work, even when it has failed and everyone tells them it is a failure. I shall come back to that, however, later in my speech.

What you call honesty is ignorance! [Interjections.]

Coming back to Natal, Sir, I should like to point out that if the hon member for South Coast had taken the trouble to find out what had happened at the recent sitting of the standing committee, he would have discovered that the hon member for Roodepoort and I proposed an amendment to the dog laws of that province, which, we are positive—and the Administrator of Natal, I am sure, will agree with us—is going to save dog lovers a lot of grief. We were supported in that by the hon member for Pinetown. I should tell hon members that that is quite an achievement on our part—that we have been able to make some positive contribution to the affairs of the people of Natal during such a short period of service on that standing committee. [Interjections.]

As I mentioned earlier, White taxpayers in South Africa paid 93,6% of the tax in the tax year 1986-87. [Interjections.] In Natal, the situation is not quite as serious. There the Whites paid 83,7% of the total income tax received, and the people of Chief Buthelezi, the man who has the most to say about South African politics in South Africa today, paid 1%. Even the small Coloured community in Natal paid more income tax. However, the demands of these people, like those of KwaZulu and the Indian nation, far exceed their contribution. This is not acceptable to us. The New Prog Government is responsible for this disastrous state of affairs, and in the process they have created the impression that in South Africa there is a bottomless pit of money available; all one has to do is ask for it. [Interjection.]

This is confirmed by the recent statement by Dr Oscar Dhlomo, the KwaZulu Minister of Education and Culture, when he spoke in support of the KwaNatal Indaba plan. He appealed to Indians to join the Zulu nation in supporting this KwaNatal plan. Do you know what he said, Sir? He said the indaba plan was not for the benefit of any particular group, but was for the benefit of all in that region. I quote:

Where does he think the money for all of these glorious projects is to come from? Out of that bottomless pit? That is the situation that has been created by the NP Government. They create false expectations among the people who are not sufficiently cognisant of the real situation in South Africa.

I want to talk about a very serious matter which is creating problems in the Province of Natal. It is a problem which, I believe, is also being experienced here at the Groote Schuur Hospital. I refer to the problem that is being experienced as a result of the integration of services and wards. I think that the sooner this matter receives attention, the better. [Interjection.] I wonder whether even the authorities know what is going on when people who are seriously ill are subjected to what they consider to be indignity at a time when they are in a sick state—a state in which they could actually collapse and die—and they are forced, because of the integrationist policies of the Government, to do something which they have not done their whole lives up to now.

Be specific. [Interjections.]

If one surveys those hon members over there and their constituents, one will find that they have exactly the same objections as my constituents in this case.

It is a wonderful hospital. [Interjections.]

That situation demands action. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to say something else. [Interjections.] “Lawaai-kamp.” It is distressing to see…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I beg to draw your attention to the fact that during a previous debate you ruled that the word “Lawaaikamp” or any reference to it should preferably not be used in this Committee.

As an interjection!

Order! No, there was no ruling that the word may not be used. My ruling was in respect of general interjections which were not relevant. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

That hon member should keep his comments for an occasion when we can debate the NP’s policy against that of the CP in public. [Interjections.] If he does not have the courage to do so, he should rather keep quiet. [Interjections.]

†I want to refer to another serious situation which has been created by the attitude of the hon the Minister of Finance as regards inflation in this country. When, in the standing committee, I discussed the fact that the Administrator was prepared to grant borrowing powers to the Natal Anti-Shark Measures Board, I suggested that a better method would perhaps be to encourage visitors to Natal to make a contribution to the services provided, because it is all in their interests. I was told by the Administrator that it was cheaper to borrow money under the present inflationary situation in South Africa. He said that borrowed money was cheap money. That is fine while we have the present attitude of the hon the Minister of Finance, who lets rampant inflation just carry on. However, when the CP takes over and we get a decent government, and we reduce the inflation rate to 4%, borrowing money at 12% and 14% is not going to be cheap. It will aggravate the situation. I am sorry to see that this situation arises.

Mr Chairman, before making any remarks about this Vote, I first want to react to the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis’s reference to borrowed money. This is something that has come up for discussion during the past few days in the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal. What that hon member apparently does not understand, in spite of the patient explanation by the Administrator, is that money which is borrowed at 12% and 13%, at a time when the inflation rate is 15% and 16%, is not only cheap money, but actually money one gets for nothing. That is not, however, the important consideration. The Administrator very carefully explained to the hon member that borrowed money was used for capital projects, and the philosophy underlying that is that the consumers of those services pay for them. In other words, those who are paying tax this year cannot be expected to subsidise consumers 10 years hence. That is the basic argument underlying the use of borrowed money.

I should like to take this opportunity of thanking hon members on this side of the House who participated in the discussion of Natal’s budget. The hon members for New Castle, Pietermaritzburg South and South Coast all dealt with matters of exceptional importance to Natal, and we thank them for that.

The hon member for Parktown also dealt with a provincial matter, but my only regret is that his watch left him in the lurch, because matters relating to the Transvaal were dealt with three hours ago. [Interjections.] That is how the hon members of the PFP ended off their discussion. Their two representatives in the Standing Committee considering Natal’s budget have had nothing whatsoever to contribute to the debate.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Pinetown must contain himself.

Those two hon members have nothing to contribute to the debate on the expenditure of funds in Natal.

It is interesting to see that it is specifically those two parties, which have the least possible reason to speak on behalf of Natal, which had the most to say. In case the hon member for Mooi River, after a period of three months now, has perhaps forgotten about 6 May for a moment, may I remind the hon member that his party drew less than 10% of the votes of that province in which they once wielded the sceptre. Now the hon member wants to tell us how to negotiate.

You are still going to learn.

Coming from that party, that is a bit rich, a party which negotiated itself right out of existence by negotiating with the PFP. The PFP swallowed them, Indaba and all. That party now wants to tell this side of the House how negotiation and negotiation politics should be conducted. [Interjections.]

Order!

Really, Sir, in the very week in which this Government has shown what negotiation can deliver with the release of Major Du Toit, that party comes along without any record of successful negotiation whatsoever and tries to tell this party how to do it.

You may yet swallow those words.

If the message of that hon member’s party had been acceptable to the people of Natal, on 6 May they would have empowered him and his party to negotiate on their behalf. They did not, however, do so. The people of Natal said yes to the politics of negotiation, but it was the negotiation politics of the NP. This is the party that has shown that it knows how to negotiate successfully. The people of Natal are prepared to accept negotiation politics with open arms, but then they want to know that at the forefront there are people with the sense of responsibility to care for their future and that of their children and not people who simply participate in a round-table debate and then, when a decision is reached, do not know how to implement that decision. We gladly listen to contributions about the Indaba, and about ways in which an indaba or negotiations should be conducted. After 6 May, however, we are no longer keen to listen to the NRP.

You may yet. [Interjections.]

Now the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis wants to tell us how we should regulate our affairs in Natal. The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis tells us what the voters of Natal really want and asks this Government “to release Natal voters from their misery”. Could I point out to the hon member that although we appreciate the fact that he serves on the standing committee dealing with the affairs of Natal, he certainly cannot attribute his seat on that committee to the support his party enjoys in Natal. That is why he is least of all equipped to speak as an authority on the affairs of Natal. He serves on the Standing Committee on Natal owing to the requirements of the parliamentary system of which he is a member. He has a seat on that committee because his party nominated him, and I accept the fact that his party nominated him because he is the only one amongst them who understands the language spoken in Natal. [Interjections.]

Now they come along with great fanfare—it puts one in mind of the eve of an Intervarsity!—and tell us that after the next election their party will be in power in Natal. May I remind the hon member that 8,81% of the voters of Natal voted for that great party. [Interjections.] No, Mr Chairman, if we want to presume to speak on behalf of a community or a province we really should have a modicum of justification for doing so. [Interjections.]

Order!

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

No, Mr Chairman, my time is limited, just as the hon member’s time was limited, and I do not have two turns to speak. [Interjections.]

Order!

At the end of his second turn to speak the hon member adopted a much better approach when he said that they were still new to the standing committee and would like to make a contribution. We are always in favour of any contributions they want to make and we gladly listen to any such contributions. They need not, however, come and tell us how we should administer the affairs of Natal.

Wonder of wonders—as my friend, the hon member for Parow, said—I should now like to come to the Appropriation. I want to take this opportunity of extending my sincere thanks to the Administrator of Natal, the members of the executive committee, the provincial secretary and his officials for the way in which they conducted themselves before the committee on several occasions. The standing committee had the privilege of studying the Natal budget. As early as June the committee approved a draft ordinance relating to the budget, and during the past week it again dealt with three draft ordinances. Let me say that the fact that we could, to a large extent, achieve unanimity in that committee is largely due to the Administrator’s clear exposition to the committee of the motivation underlying the budget, of the conditions prevailing in Natal and of the overall administration of our province.

Hon members will understand that it is not possible, on such an occasion, to conduct nearly as comprehensive a discussion of a provincial budget as was possible in the days of the old provincial council or in the standing committee. In contrast to the fact that there is not as much time for discussion, there are certain important positive points in the new system. One must remember that the budget of each province can now be considered in great detail by the standing committee.

In my capacity as Chairman of the select-committee component of the standing committee, I can therefore report that the members of this House acquainted themselves with the account which the Administrator of Natal and the members of the executive committee and the provincial officials gave of the expenditure relating to Natal. During the past few months a considerable amount has also been said about responsibility, about liability and also about the so-called “accountability” of this new system as far as the voters are concerned. I think that in considering the functions of this standing committee, it is important to note that there are 23 members of Parliament serving on such a standing committee. Even if the two members of the Official Opposition were to be…

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, would the hon member now reply to a question?

The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis is apparently so eager to put a question now that I shall simply have to answer it.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member whether he is aware of the fact that the party which had the majority in Natal has not been the Government of this country for any length of time.

I think the hon member’s knowledge of history is leaving him in a lurch to a certain extent, but that is not the subject of our present discussion.

It is important to remember that there are 23 members of Parliament serving on this standing committee and that, with a few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of them are representatives of Natal. Eighteen of the 23 members are Natal representatives; that is only two short of the total number of members of the Provincial Council. Added to that there is the fact that three population groups are now being represented by those 18 members, not only White people.

Thirdly, the activities of the standing committee and the provinces’ responsibilities have been enlarged to such an extent that many matters which have previously been the responsibility of this Parliament have now been transferred to the province. Consequently there can be no question about whether the standing committees are, in fact, responsible to the voters of their province.

There is not, of course, sufficient time to discuss the detail of the Appropriation, and for that reason I am ever so grateful that at least one of our speakers, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, highlighted the single most important provincial department and examined it in detail. If we had more time to speak, there would have been an opportunity to go into this in more detail.

†In conclusion I want to deal briefly with the campaign which was started in June about the so-called secrecy in these standing committees. It has been our unfortunate experience that a campaign was launched in the Natal newspapers about Natal’s provincial affairs being debated in secret. I think we must blame the hon members of the PFP for that, because they were the only two who created this furore anywhere in South Africa. It was only in respect of the standing committee on Natal that this complaint was lodged.

That is mischievous! [Interjections.]

The frenzied campaign against the so-called secrecy which allegedly surrounded the activities of the standing committee, can only be laid at their door.

It is necessary in the minute or two still at my disposal to make it clear why the distinction between closed door consideration of standing committee matters and open committee meetings is made. In respect of the budget and the Auditor-General’s report on the finances of a province, the report and the actual budget comes to the three Houses of Parliament and can be debated both in the Budget Debate and also at the Committee Stage under the Vote which we are discussing now. However, that is not the case in respect of draft ordinances which are now promulgated in the provincial Gazette after they have passed through the standing committee. In that respect the standing committee assumes the role of the final legislative authority and, consequently, provision is made in our rules that when ordinances and draft proclamations are considered the committee can sit in public. I am happy to say that this was done this week and it worked well.

I think we are in the process of establishing a pattern which will work well in this whole tricameral system in the future. I also look forward to a situation…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? It is a very short question.

No, Sir, there is no time left. I am sorry.

I am looking forward to a position where within the foreseeable future the standing committees’ activities will be brought closer to the provinces and where they will become even more efficient in their activities. I may just add in conclusion that the campaign about the so-called secret consideration of Natal’s affairs seems finally to have been laid to rest in the Natal Daily News yesterday when they reported fairly and factually on the proceedings of the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, we are now coming to the end of a debate on provincial matters in which 32 speakers participated. Hon members will understand that even if I only referred to them by name, that would already take up the major portion of the time devoted to a reply.

At the outset I merely want to say that the Bill on the proposed National Council has been handed to the Speaker today and will be distributed to hon members. This step arises out of an announcement by the hon the State President on 8 May of this year and is the result of a process of negotiation which began when the Bill was initially published for comment in May 1986.

I believe that the Bill affords Parliament an opportunity, on behalf of the people of our country, to demonstrate our commitment to peaceful democratic processes. I have no doubt that even if we disagree with one another in this House and in the other Houses, we shall deal with this Bill with a dignity and seriousness commensurate with the circumstances prevailing in our country. I believe that hon members will therefore act with responsibility and with an appreciation of the importance and the seriousness of the matter when Parliament considers the Bill.

As I have undertaken, I should now like to react to some of the aspects of the KwaNatal Indaba to which my colleagues on this side of the House have not yet responded. In this specific context I shall also refer to the remarks of the hon member for Mooi River.

In my speech in the no-confidence debate in February of this year I mentioned that the participants in the Indaba had accepted six basic points of departure (Hansard: House of Assembly, 3 February 1987, col 141). I indicated that the Government accepted those six basic points of departure and also the inextricably interwoven interests of Natal and KwaZulu. Apart from this, the Government has no problem whatsoever with initiatives and solutions being sought at the regional level, provided certain basic conditions are met.

It should take place by negotiation!

The hon member for Durban Central did not even take the trouble to participate in the debate.

The whole problem lies in your basic conditions. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Durban Central must contain himself!

I merely wish to remark that I would prefer to come to light with conditions imposed by South Africa rather than conditions imposed by the ANC—the company in which the hon member finds himself. [Interjections.]

Apart from this statement, the Government has had no problem with a regional initiative in Natal relating to Natal having its own executive authority. Proof of this lies in the soon to be established joint executive authority for KwaZulu and Natal. The hon member for Umhlanga referred to this in detail.

I contend that the Chief Minister of KwaZulu summed it all up quite correctly when he said the following:

Another principle of the Indaba with which I am in complete agreement—in fact, it forms the basis of my efforts and those of the Government to find constitutional solutions—is that consensus should be achieved through peaceful negotiation. Having said that, I want to warn against a distorted picture implying that the Indaba did achieve consensus. For the sake of convenience a number of hon members opposite ignore the fact that there was a forced vote in the Indaba, a vote which was called for prematurely and for different reasons.

That is untrue! [Interjections.]

Like the hon member for Umhlanga and the hon member Mr Hattingh I want it placed on record that I find it lamentable that the Indaba was prematurely forced to vote on certain proposals, obviously because these opportunists wanted to make the Indaba proposals the basis of an election agreement, and indeed did so too. Now the hon member for Mooi River speaks sanctimoniously about what hon members on this side of the Committee did. The hon member knows that the Chief Minister of KwaZulu called upon White political parties not to make the Indaba concept or proposals the subject of an election agreement. He asked them not to make this a point of dispute.

What happened, however? The hon member for Mooi River’s party and the PFP completely ignored that request.

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

No, Sir. [Interjections.]

You only have an hour and a half!

I also have speeches by 32 hon members to which I have to reply.

Of course that agreement had catastrophic results for them, but I want to add that it also did serious harm to the Indaba. For that the hon member and his party must take full responsibility. [Interjections.]

You are playing politics!

The hon member’s party and the other party dragged both the concept and the content of the Indaba into the arena of petty party politics in Natal. That charge against them will remain. [Interjections.]

The Indaba proposals, however, were also an exercise to establish a joint legislative body for Natal. Let me say at once that in principle I am not opposed to a legislative body at provincial level.

†There are some other facts. In my opening address at the Administrator’s Conference in Durban on 9 October 1986 I said the following on this issue:

*The Administrator of Natal, Mr Cadman, would like to see “a legislature, representative of all the people of Natal and KwaZulu” being established. That is also the wish of the Chief Minister. If, after negotiation, it were decided to take such a step, the rights of minorities, amongst other things, would have to be protected. It would also, in accordance with the Government’s standpoint, have to eliminate the domination of groups.

There could be negotiations about how this could be done, but about the fact that it has to be done, there can be no negotiation. Recently the Chief Minister said the following in Switzerland:

I cannot find anything wrong with that statement. Our philosophy, however, states that the ideal way in which to maintain individual rights in our context is within the group framework. We can debate and discuss with one another the definition of groups; I have no quarrel with that. [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon members on this side pointed to the flaws in the proposals. Has the hon member for Mooi River taken note of Prof Schlemmer’s standpoint that the Indaba implied a majority government? Has the hon member taken note of the fact that the financial implications of the proposals have not been properly analysed or addressed? The hon member comes along today, however, and simply wants us to accept the proposals without debate.

I want to point out to hon members that when the report and the minority reports were submitted by the chairman of the Indaba, together with Mr Frank Martin and Prof van Wyk, on 13 January, I responded by saying that the Government would give attention to the proposals after the Chief Minister of KwaZulu and the Provincial Administration of Natal had furnished us with their comments. I contend that that is a reasonable standpoint. Not only is it a reasonable standpoint, but it was also accepted by the chairman of the Indaba and the two initiating parties.

I received Chief Minister Buthelezi’s comments last month, but I have not yet received the comments of the Administrator of Natal. As soon as I do receive his comments, the Government will consider further steps about how the proposals should be dealt with.

I really do find it regrettable that at this stage, which I have briefly sketched, a group of people in Natal have launched an extensive campaign to propagate the proposals as such before they have been considered.

What does that mean? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, surely there was no consensus about the proposals in Natal. What basis does the hon member for Durban Central have for saying that the people of Natal approved those proposals? Surely that is not true? [Interjections.]

I want to advocate, as was done yesterday and the day before yesterday, that we deal with delicate proposals in such a way that this does not result in further polarisation.

That is what you want to do.

Order! We have come to the end of a long debate and all hon members have had an opportunity to participate. If the hon member for Durban Central did not make use of this opportunity, he cannot now want to take the floor while the hon the Minister is furnishing his reply. [Interjections.] Order! Nor do hon members have to keep endorsing everything the hon the Minister says. The hon the Minister may continue.

This standpoint of mine is interpreted as follows by Chief Minister Buthelezi:

But listen to what he says, Sir:

Then he goes further and he says:

I agree with him.

I now want to come to the hon member for Randburg. The hon member knows that I have great respect for him as a person and as a parliamentarian. That is the spirit in which I want to react to the hon member for Randburg’s speech in this debate.

He said I argued like Plato in days gone by—logically, but with only my own perception of reality as a basis for my argument and without regard to other possible realities. I have always valued the hon member’s frankness towards others. It is a fine characteristic. Yet, by implication he is accusing me and the NP in general of being unacceptably unforthcoming, which is not conducive to the solving of South Africa’s problems.

Of course there are other parties and other people who think their perceptions of reality are accurate and correct. Of course there are others who think they have found the truth—and that, of course, forms the basis of their solutions to the problems of our country. That is true, is it not? But that hon member and other hon members now expect the Government to change its standpoint on the strength of those perceptions of reality.

What would that hon member have done if he had to govern the country? When he was part and parcel of the Government, the responsibility was too great. Would he accept the CP’s perception of reality, and therefore its critical standpoint, or would he accept that of the PFP? Or what about that of the UDF, the ANC or the SACP? They all have their own perceptions of the reality in South Africa. Or would he, knowing what they stood for, enter into never-ending discussions with them?

We try to bring one another to new insights. We can try to convince one another, but there is one cardinal truth, and that is that when all is said and done the government of the country cannot, at one and the same time, be an NP, CP, PFP, NRP, UDF and ANC government. Somewhere a standpoint has to be adopted and a government has to take decisions on the basis of what it thinks is best for the country.

The hon member says I pushed the NP in a certain direction, but surely that is not true. From one day to the next we are repeatedly reproached for having changed our policy, and hon members of the Official Opposition will confirm that too. And yesterday I also said that we did not apologise for adopting our policy. I hope that as long as I am here I, along with others, can be instrumental in effecting further changes in the interests of our country. [Interjections.] No, I am serious about that. Of course we must continually seek the truth, but some time or other we must act on the basis of our hard-won truths. A government has no other choice, whilst opposition parties do. This does not mean the abandonment of the search for truth and certainty. I do so myself—whether successfully, I do not know; hon members must decide for themselves. We continually subject ourselves to criticism. We continually evaluate what we consider to be hard-won truths and changed circumstances. Surely that does not only apply to the individual, but also to communities. Am I not correct? We must say that to one another without any recriminations. The Official Opposition occupies those seats as a result of that process, and I am saying that without any recriminations. My contention is that that is the essence of development. I can judge whether the party is right or wrong, but I do not have the right to condemn the fact of what has happened. Hon members will agree with that.

Let me say this to the hon member. No one can simply go on asking questions, because then his mistrust of the truth ends up in despair. I think he will agree that despair is no asset. Nor can it contribute towards solving our problems. Briefly, let me caution the hon member for Randburg—he is still young—to guard against elevating frankness and mistrust to the level of universal truths.

I see the hon member for Losberg is not here; I nevertheless want to react to his speech. The hon the Deputy Minister replied to him in connection with the problems at Wheeler’s Farm and Suurbekom, if I remember correctly. There is another aspect on which I want to address the hon member. In his unedited Hansard the hon member says, and I ask hon members to take note of his words:

That is a positive statement giving figures and a date, and if I had not stood up to ask the hon member a question, he would have addressed the Committee on the strength of this false statement of “fact”. I am saying this in all seriousness. The hon member took us to task, but he knew that the statement was not true.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon Minister say that the hon member made a statement which he knew was not true?

Order! I think the hon the Minister should perhaps formulate his statement differently.

Very well, Mr Chairman, I shall be glad to do so. All I want to say is that the hon member could have ascertained the veracity of the statement.

I shall now react to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke’s speech. He is an…

An outstanding member!

He is an outstanding member. [Interjections.] Let us, however, examine what the hon member said. He said that he was a member of the Afrikaner people, but not of the Afrikaner nation, though he was a member of the White South African nation.

The White nation.

The hon member must please give me a chance.

I have great regard for the hon member for Ermelo, because he is a State Advocate, and therefore he must be quite capable of the sound application of the law, including constitutional law. I should like to compliment him on that fact. He associated himself with the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke by saying that we were in the process of creating a new nation. I very respectfully ask: What nonsense is this? Would those hon members not like to ascertain what the definition of South African citizenship is? According to that definition Coloureds, Asians and Black people are South African citizens, and the citizens of a state go to make up a nation.

But we are going to change that.

But that is not the point. The point is the accusation by those hon members that we are now creating a new nation which includes everyone.

Because it is a unitary state that you people…

Do you deny it? [Interjections.]

No… [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member went on to say that the Constitution of 1983 did not protect White self-determination, but in the debate hon members of the Official Opposition said that we could not change the Constitution—hon members must now listen carefully—without the permission of others.

Yes, one cannot.

Wait a moment, the hon member must please give me a chance.

Let us examine the facts. In regard to matters solely affecting the Whites, this House and this House alone has a say.

That is very little.

That is quantitative. We are arguing qualitatively. If the hon member does not understand that, I cannot help him to do so. In regard to matters of national interest the Whites share in the decision-making.

The hon member then asked me a question about Botshabelo. I want to make three remarks. The first is that Botshabelo owes its existence to a joint agreement, on 7 February 1977, between the governments of the Republic, Qwaqwa and Bophuthatswana. At the time it was signed by the former Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and by Chief Ministers Mangope and Mopeli. In 1983 Mr Mopeli said the following at a festival of thanksgiving:

On 6 September 1985 the hon the State President, together with his colleagues, paid a visit to Qwaqwa. In discussions with the Cabinet the hon the State President gave the Chief Minister the assurance that the incorporation would be finalised before 1990. On the same occasion the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid reconfirmed the intention to incorporate the area. In a letter dated 22 July of this year the Chief Minister informed the Commissioner General that a meeting had been held with the inhabitants of Botshabelo at Botshabelo on 19 July 1987. One thousand inhabitants attended the meeting and enthusiastically supported the incorporation.

In a document reflecting the discussions between the Cabinet of Qwaqwa, myself and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid on 15 June of this year, the Cabinet of Qwaqwa made a few remarks about this. It was said that the transfer of Botshabelo would not mean that non-Sothos had to leave the area. There was no truth in the statement that the Government of Qwaqwa would only accept Sothos in Botshabelo. Consequently members of all race groups could continue to live there as long as they were prepared to accept the authority of the Qwaqwa government. I do not think that is an unreasonable condition.

The hon member also referred to the position of hospitals in the Free State. The hon member for Bethlehem gave him a fairly comprehensive answer and I do not want to repeat what the hon member for Bethlehem said. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke said there were only five White hospitals in the Free State. Apparently he wished to imply that the Whites in the Free State were being short-changed as far as the provision of hospital services was concerned. Is that not what he meant? [Interjections.] Then I do not need to reply to him on that score.

No, I meant that Whites were subject to…

Order! No, I cannot allow the hon member to explain what he meant.

Firstly, I merely want to make the point that the Whites in the Free State have not been short-changed. There are 28 hospitals in the Free State. Five of them are exclusively for Whites, and they are the hospitals in Bethlehem, Sasolburg, Jagersfontein and Zastron, and the Voortrekker Hospital in Kroonstad. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must not be so animated in the comments they make.

There are four hospitals solely for Blacks—Tumelo in Kroonstad, Pelekong in Bethlehem…

Mr Chairman, may I please obtain some information from the hon the Minister by way of a question?

Mr Chairman, I merely want to complete my reply and then I shall gladly listen to the hon member.

There is also Pelonome, which is part of the academic hospital complex of the Universitas Hospital in Bloemfontein, and the National Hospital. All the other hospitals have sections for White and Black patients and comparable services are furnished to the patients of the respective population groups. In relation to the other population groups, the Whites in the Free State are well provided for as far as hospital facilities are concerned. At present a hospital for Blacks is being planned at Welkom to increase the number of beds available to Blacks.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the hon the Minister’s comprehensive reply. I merely want to ask him whether he would be prepared to guarantee to the Whites in the Free State that there will always be separate wards and facilities for Whites in general hospitals in the Free State. [Interjections.]

Order! The question was not put to any other hon member! The hon the Minister may continue.

I have put the prevailing situation in the Free State to the hon member. If there were to be a change, we would have an opportunity of debating the matter here. Then the hon member would be able to put forward his views.

Can you guarantee that?

Must I now give a written guarantee? We now come to another point. The hon member complained about nurses of colour caring for White patients. I should like to make a personal remark about this. Black people look after our children at a stage in their lives when they are most impressionable.

Not my children! [Interjections.]

I merely wish to state that during the most impressionable years of their lives children are cared for by Black servants. [Interjections.] Let us not argue about that now.

It is not fair!

Order! This is not a suitable time for hon members to pronounce on whether a remark is fair or not. The hon the Minister is furnishing his reply. The hon the Minister may continue.

I was at Tygerberg Hospital last week. I was cared for by Coloured nurses. I was not contaminated, and the quality of the service they rendered was not inferior to that of the other nurses.

Hear, hear! That is quite correct!

Did they bath you too?

That was not necessary; I do it myself. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon member Mr Aucamp, who gave a definition of the White nation, and I agree with him. He referred to the functions of the standing committee. He commended the functions performed by the executive committee. On this specific point the hon member for Fauresmith supported him and asked how the administration of the Orange Free State implemented national policy. He spoke in appreciative terms about that. In regard to the remarks made by those hon members and other hon members about the executive committees, let me state today that we would not have chosen a better team of administrators and MECs to take the lead, in this difficult trial period for a new dispensation, than the team we now have. There are officials in that department and in those administrations whom I want to thank for their dedication. With that staunch leadership I have the utmost confidence that we can develop the second tier of government and really give it the status that the hon member for Roodeplaat suggested.

The hon member for Bethlehem reacted to the complaint about more White nurses. He said that that policy had been in force for the past 10 years.

That is not true!

Then you must tell him he is lying. [Interjections.] No, I am prepared to take his word as a Free Stater, and not yours, not the word of a man who does not even know the Orange Free State.

You must check the facts, because it is not true!

He pinpointed one important aspect; let me reiterate. He said that in practice 16% of that population was White and that 84% was Black. I should like to know where the White state is.

I now come to the hon member for Carletonville. I want to tell him that I am disappointed in him. He claimed that not one of us on this side of the Committee had taken the floor and put the case for the Whites.

Does that disappoint you?

Terribly, Sir, because it is not true. The rights and privileges of the Whites are inextricably linked to South Africa. [Interjections.] Surely I did not interrupt that hon member. The hon member will agree with me that the South Africa we are living in does not consist solely of Whites. The South Africa we are living in was certainly not ours by choice; it was a legacy passed down to us. It is not only White; this South Africa of ours is also Black, Coloured, Asian, Afrikaans, English, Portuguese, etc. It is prismatic in its diversity. Today I wish to state that there is no way of protecting the rights of Whites without protecting the rights of others.

Hear, hear!

The surest way of destroying the rights of Whites would be to adopt a short-sighted view that the rights of Whites are not reconcilable with those of other people in our fatherland. [Interjections.] If that were true, and if I am to accept that the rights of the Whites are not reconcilable with those of other people in this country, South Africa has no future.

Look at the numbers.

That is the basic mistake the hon member makes. [Interjections.] What has the hon member just said? [Interjections.] I will come to that if I just have the time. The thinking of that hon member, and of the CP as a whole, is dominated by one element which we have long since come to terms with, and that is a Westminster system of one man, one vote based on the individual and not acknowledging the group.

Are numbers not a factor in the President’s Council?

My contention is that there is no salvation for us in isolation.

The hon member for Carletonville represents a constituency in the PWV area. In this House he is probably the foremost expert on the mining industry. I pay him that compliment. As a consequence he should know that industry and mining in the PWV area could not exist without the presence of the Blacks? Surely he knows that. Let us examine what the hon member says. He says that we should take the money, which we spend on the Black people outside the other states, and spend that money in those states.

That was your policy throughout the years.

No, wait a moment, that is not true. Just wait a moment.

The hon member says that we should do so, Sir, but what does that mean? In the first place it implies only one of two things. It could mean, on the one hand, that we should resettle all the Black people in those states. [Interjections.] That is what he is saying. On the other hand it could be that he is saying that they need not be resettled; they should merely continue their wretched existence here. There is no other conclusion at all that we can draw from this.

Let us examine the facts for a moment. Twenty per cent of the country’s total population live in the PWV area. Forty per cent of the Whites live there. That area is responsible for 50% to 60% of the geographic gross production. There are 3,8 million Black people in the PWV area. Of these approximately 1,5 million are economically active. Remove them from the PWV area to those states and one would bring the economy of the country’s major artery to a dead stop.

The hon member asked me about viability. Sir, could we not for once take note of the realities of the situation? What problem is one of the major problems in this country? Population growth is one of the major problems, not so? Where does most of that growth manifest itself? Specifically in the national states and the independent states. [Interjections.] No, there is a big difference. In Transkei it is 3,7, for example, whilst it is 2,8 here. That is a big difference. All I am trying to say is that this leads to greater poverty and less progress.

One would also find that the natural growth-rate of black communities in the PWV area was much lower than the average for the country, because that is part of the developmental process. The hon members of the CP are so obsessed with the question of numbers whenever certain steps are taken. That is the attitude we encounter. I put it to the hon member that the people in his own constituency are dependent on the presence of Black people there.

Must they therefore have political rights?

Order! No, the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke must not make so many interjections.

I am devoting time to a discussion of this, Sir, because we have to have these things said. The hon member said that in the referendum we encouraged people to vote for the new constitutional dispensation by telling them that we had to incorporate the Coloureds and Indians in order to keep the Blacks out. But where in the world has the hon member been? When the debate on the new Constitution took place in the House, even before the referendum, we appointed a committee to investigate the further constitutional development of the Black people in South Africa. Where was the hon member then? On what basis can the hon member advance such an argument?

Why did you not tell those people at the time that you were going to allow the Blacks to participate? [Interjections.] Why not?

We told the people that we had appointed a committee to negotiate with them about how they should be incorporated. [Interjections.]

No, you did not!

That is untrue! [Interjections.]

Order!

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

No, I am not going to reply to any questions now. I am sorry. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman… [Interjections.] No!

Order! The hon the Minister has indicated that he does not want to answer any questions now.

Mr Chairman, I now come to the hon member for Groote Schuur. He did not make any apology for his absence. I can nevertheless understand why he is not here. If I were in his shoes, I would not have put in an appearance today either.

Who are you speaking about now?

I am speaking about the hon member for Groote Schuur.

†I should like to quote from his Hansard, Sir. I should also like to say that in my entire public career I have never heard statements more shocking than those made by the hon member for Groote Schuur. I quote him:

Now, I concede immediately, Sir, that I believe he does not understand the first thing about this:

*Mr Chairman, just listen to this!

Shameful!

I quote him again:

This is the language the hon member for Groote Schuur uses in Parliament, Sir:

*It is true, Sir, that one is frequently a product of the home one comes from. [Interjections.] Listening to the hon member for Groote Schuur, therefore, I can understand why his son adopts this standpoint towards national service. [Interjections.] I can understand it. Let me tell the hon member for Groote Schuur that I had three sons in the Defence Force. After they left the Defence Force they were more mature, more patriotic and more adult than when they were called up, and I am very grateful for that. [Interjections.] I am not alleging for one moment, however, that the Defence Force is without its faults. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am nevertheless saying that scandalous remarks such as this weaken the morale of the SA Defence Force. What is more, Sir, it decreases our preparedness. Let me say that the hon member for Groote Schuur and his hon leader, the hon member for Sea Point, owe this House an explanation about their standpoint on this issue. [Interjections.]

We agree! [Interjections.]

I am glad we find some common ground.

[Inaudible.]

We may disagree with each other, yes! I have no objection to that at all. If this is an example, however, of the prevailing spirit in the PFP, I must say, Sir, the hon member for Sea Point must not blame me when I doubt their commitment to peaceful negotiation in this country. [Interjections.]

Order!

I now come to the hon member for Hercules. He quite rightly said…

You are committed to no one on earth but yourself! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Green Point must contain himself!

The hon member for Hercules referred to the migration to the Transvaal. That is true. Once again the hon member has focused on a truth. A migration to the Transvaal is taking place as a result of the economic strength of that province. Migration is not taking place solely amongst Whites, as the hon member for Ermelo alleged. It is a phenomenon indicative of all the population groups. Why do we not admit to one another—even at this late hour—that urbanisation is an international phenomenon which can be regulated, but which cannot be blocked or stopped. In spite of the accusations made against this side, the truth is that the population growth rate amongst Black people in the PWV area—and now hon members must listen carefully—was greater from 1980 to 1985 that the growth rate amongst Black people in the country as a whole, in spite of the fact that the natural growth was lower. What does that signify? It signifies that migration continued in spite of influx control.

Was it implemented?

Yes, it was implemented. More than ten million people were charged for related offences. We made ten million enemies.

That was not enough! [Interjections.]

Just listen to the cynicism! He says we did not charge a sufficient number of people. [Interjections.] The hon member says it puts pressure on the infrastructure and the services. That is true.

He advocates that a national road council be established to co-ordinate the functions of road construction bodies and to determine their priorities. Let me tell the hon member that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has prepared legislation for the establishment of a national road council. The hon member is therefore not very wide of the mark. I merely want to say the following, however—the hon member will understand this. We established development bodies and advisory bodies to determine priorities on both the regional and national levels. We also have a State President’s committee on priorities. All this is related to the voting of funds for roads and other services. Here I am also replying to the hon member for Albany’s question about this.

Now I come to the hon member for Nigel. I merely want to answer him on two points. He says that reform should have a broad base and should include all people. I cannot agree with him more. He has actually got to the heart of the matter. I want to give him a piece of advice—I like the hon member—and that is to take that discussion further.

The hon member also referred to the remuneration of councillors. His contention is that city councils are now being forced to pay specific sums in remuneration to counsellors. That is, however, not true. For the purposes of compensation local authorities have been divided up into categories. That is the first fact. The second fact in this connection is that the circular recommended levels of remuneration. That was not compulsory. [Interjections.] Could I not please complete my reply? That is not the case. They recommend maximum amounts, but they state that within a specific category the same remuneration must apply to municipalities, management committees and Black town councils. The Nigel town council is therefore able to approve a lower scale for Whites, Coloureds, Blacks or whomever they may have in mind.

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

No, please, with all due respect, I have a large number of members to reply to.

Order! The hon the Minister does not wish to answer any questions now.

I do, however, want to ask the hon member for Nigel, who is a reasonable man, whether he does not agree with me about one thing. It is frequently far more taxing to satisfy the needs of a developing community than those of an established one. That is true, is it not? Nigel’s White town council does, after all, have virtually a century of administrative experience to back it up. Its administration is, for the most part, a developed one, but it is the others which need the development, and the burdens are greater. I wonder whether we understand that. I should like to lodge a plea. We all want…

[Inaudible.]

Order! I have already called upon the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke. He must now give the hon the Minister a chance.

We all want the Black town councils to succeed. Do hon members know what an enormous responsibility rests on the Soweto town council? I shall, however, leave the matter there.

The hon member for Roodeplaat is unfortunately not present, but he advocated the allocation of funds to the provinces in accordance with a scientific formula.

His back is sore.

I accept that. He mentioned the allocation of funds to education as an example. He also pointed out that in terms of percentages the major portion of the population lived in the Transvaal. That is true. By the way, I have no objection to that.

[Inaudible.]

No, now the hon member is venturing on dangerous ground. [Interjections.]

It is a fact that in the past the allocations to the provinces did take place in accordance with a formula. I was an MEC when that was introduced. According to that formula there was a unit cost for each pupil in a school, for a hospital bed, for a kilometre of road and so on. The concept of a scientific estimate or calculation is therefore not a strange one. It no use having the most wonderful of formulas, however, if one does not have the money. Then we cannot pay out the funds.

Consequently the allocations to the provinces were reduced, and I do not approve or disapprove of the fact. I want to associate myself, however, with another hon member who asked if there was one single Government department which thought it obtained enough money. I do not know of any such department. I am continually waging a war for money. And I also have to do battle with the people who do battle with me, ie the administrators of the provinces.

In all fairness, we try to meet the needs of the provinces, together with those of other Government departments, in accordance with the priority listings of the Exchequer and the State President’s Committee on National Priorities. As it is, the latter committee, in collaboration with the Economic Advisory Council, is giving attention to the allocation of funds on a functional basis. As soon as these investigations in all functional spheres have been completed, each province ought to obtain its rightful share of the country’s funds in relation to the size of its population. I hope the hon member will accept that fact. I find it so regrettable that the hon member for Parktown disagrees with the hon member for Edenvale.

He is not here.

I know. [Interjections.] The hon member for Johannesburg North says he is not all there, and I accept it as such. I must say that listening to his speech also gave one the impression that he was not all there. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Edenvale referred to the financial position of hospital services in the Transvaal. I immediately want to complement her on a very informative speech on that issue. I intend to refer it to the Administrator of the Transvaal. I merely want to say, however, that the Administrator of the Transvaal has brought this critical situation to my attention, and I am conducting negotiations with the relevant hon Ministers.

The hon member for Meyerton made a very important statement with which I agree. He said that the Official Opposition wanted to arrogate to itself all the cultural assets of the Afrikaner. I was under the impression that we, as Afrikaners, had such a wealth of culture that we could share it with others.

The hon member also referred to the involvement of the private sector in nature conservation. I also think that we should increasingly encourage the private sector to play an even greater role in nature conservation. When I was still an MEC I was, amongst other things, responsible for nature conservation. That was the most satisfying of my activities when I was attached to the province. I agree with the hon member. We live in a world in which the majority of our children think that milk comes from a bottle and that water comes from a tap. They do not know how dependent we are on Creation and the Creator. I share those sentiments expressed by the hon member.

I now come to the hon member for Houghton. She is engaged in a dispute with the hon member for Losberg, and I can understand that. She must not, however, simply start an agreement with me too. She says we have not done anything yet.

Well, what have you done?

I should like to tell the hon member. I listened so patiently to the hon member.

*The hon member says we have a White Paper, but have not done anything about that yet. Surely that is incorrect. Firstly the hon member will surely understand that we shall have to liaise with all relevant bodies and institutions, even in the private sector, if we wish to make a success of our policy of urbanisation.

†I think the hon member would agree with that. It is part of the White Paper.

*Directives embodied in the White Paper and comments in it by the relevant bodies have been assembled and processed. A comprehensive report is being drawn up and will be submitted to the Government. There is one thing I want to tell the hon member, and she will not disagree with me about that. Now, for the first time, we have largely succeeded in involving the private sector in the housing situation in our country, on a profit basis too—and I do not want to quarrel about that—because it is a myth that the State can provide housing for everyone. Housing—the nature and the standard of the housing—is primarily the individual’s responsibility. Secondly it is the responsibility of the employer and the employee. Thirdly it is the responsibility of the local authority, and fourthly that of the State. The State’s task—in regard to Black housing too—is firstly to single out the land. The hon member will agree with that. I have not done nothing. Since last year more than 6 000 ha of land have been singled out for Black housing.

That is a drop in the ocean!

But the rain comes in drops.

Yes, in drops!

All right, but then the hon member must talk to the Almighty and not to me. [Interjections.]

*It is estimated that in the PWV area alone 20 000 ha of land are needed for Black housing. I now want to make a statement. In spite of all the criticism levelled at the State, if the State did not single out and obtain land for the Blacks, they would not get it. [Interjections.] I have an example, but the hon member may assist me. Everyone asks for more land, as long as it is not in their areas. [Interjections.]

Now it must be sensibly located.

Now it must be sensibly placed, only in terms of the perception of the hon member for Houghton. What does not satisfy her criteria is not good enough. [Interjections.] Oh no, that is just a waste of time!

Order! I cannot allow a running commentary.

Mr Chairman, the Government has established a national housing trust in which the State and the private sector can be participants. This trust is going to bring relief to thousands of people. Township establishment and the development of already identified land is high on the list of priorities. I want to assure the hon member that everything possible is being done to give accommodation to each of the inhabitants of the country, or to create an opportunity for everyone to obtain accommodation. The steps in regard to deregulation are an effort aimed at making this possible.

There is some further information I wish to give the hon member. We are now negotiating with the utility companies which have thus far been involved in White and Coloured housing in an effort to persuade them to involve themselves in Black housing.

Will the hon the Minister undertake not to allow any shacks to be destroyed until these provisions are made?

Quite obviously I cannot condone the illegal occupation of land, and that is something different from squatting. In terms of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act of 1951 the definition of an illegal squatter is a man who occupies land or property without the permission of the owner and, in terms of the judgment, that permission need not be given specifically but can be deduced.

However, I do want to say—the hon the Deputy Minister also referred to this—that it is a disgrace how people exploit the needs of Black people and abuse them by letting them occupy land illegally.

Provide the alternative and then they won’t be able to.

I now come to the hon member for Nelspruit, but firstly there are the hon members for Parow, Umlazi and … Where is the hon member who is chairman of the standing committee? [Interjections.]

Don’t you worry, they will vote for you.

Oh, please! I first want to thank the hon members for Parow, Umlazi and Bethlehem for the leading roles they played in the standing committees. Even that was an experimental exercise. The hon member for Nelspruit has made the point that Parliament, has for the first time—perhaps not as efficiently or effectively as could have been the case—had the opportunity, through the standing committee, to demand accountability from the executive authority of the province. I have read the reports of the standing committees and I think they have all done an excellent job.

The hon member says that this gives the system more credibility, and I agree. He says the rules make provision for the fact that standing committees can sit in public and suggests that they should also convene in the main towns of the provinces. I have no problem at all with such an approach. I think there should be public representation as far as the country’s accounts are concerned. We ought to be in a position to make these adjustments within the framework of the existing rules.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth North made an important statement. He said that the various population groups had found common ground in the Eastern Cape and that that was actually a microcosm of the whole. That is of course true. As far as wars are concerned, the Eastern Cape probably has a more marked history of conflict than any other part of our country. He also said that it was true that there was conflict and still is, but that the people have eventually come to understand one another, and that many of the views we endorse today originate in the Eastern Cape. I also agree with that.

The hon member asked for provincial status for the Eastern Cape, and I want to tell him that he should merely exercise a modicum of patience so that we can first investigate the implications of such a step. As far as the executive committee is concerned, let me tell him that we are attempting to extend this throughout the province—the Eastern Border area, the Northern Cape and the Western Cape. I am not saying this is final; I think it is a start. As far as ministerial representatives are concerned, arrangements for the Cape are such that one has his seat in the Eastern Cape because many own affairs are dealt with there. The other has his seat in the Western Cape.

Incidentally, the hon member for Roodepoort—he is the Cape leader of the standing committee—had a turn to speak in the constitutional debate. He did not make use of that opportunity to ask the questions on constitutional matters which were bothering him. In my opinion he did nothing but make a racist speech about the opening prayer ceremony. [Interjections.] The hon member Dr Geldenhuys effectively replied to that. I want to ask the hon member however—I myself shall attempt to guard against that—that we agree not to make a political agent of Christ. Let us agree not to make the Bible an election pamphlet. Let us please make sure of that.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it right for the hon the Minister to allege that I am making a political agent of Christ?

That is not what I said. [Interjections.]

Order! When an hon member puts a point of order, there is only one person who reacts to it, and that is the presiding officer. It is not for other hon members to say “yes” or “no” or whatever.

My interpretation was not that the hon the Minister had made a specific allegation directed at the hon member for Roodepoort. He was making a general statement: “Let us not do so. ”

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I do not think it was a general statement. The statement of the hon the Minister was the result of a reference to the hon member for Roodepoort’s speech, and I think the implication is very clear. I think the hon the Minister owes it to the hon member for Roodepoort to withdraw that.

Order! As far as the hon member for Overvaal is concerned, I concede that the hon the Minister’s statement was based on a reference to the hon member’s speech, but I do not see any necessary allegation in it. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member’s speech consisted of a series of truths, half-truths, untruths and a whole series of conclusions. He said he was confronting me with those statements, and that if I did not respond to each of them today, he would go forth and proclaim this to be NP policy.

Now tell us which are the truths and which are the untruths.

How long is the hon member prepared to sit here? [Interjections.] If the hon member were to proclaim what he said to the world at large, he would be guilty of telling a lie in public. That is all I am going to tell him now, but he may do so if he wishes.

You are too much of a coward to reply…

If the hon member wishes, we may debate the issue by way of a motion when we convene once more or I shall reply to him in the no-confidence debate.

Order! The hon member for Roodepoort must withdraw the word “coward”.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

You really are scared.

Order! Which hon member said “you are scared”? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may continue.

I want to thank the hon member for Vryburg for an informative speech on constitutional matters. Amongst other things, the hon member made one statement about which I should like to agree, and that is that there are no interests common to the CP and the other population groups. He said that they were driving the Black people into the arms of the revolutionaries such as the ANC.

Did hon members listen to what the hon member for Carletonville was saying? He was saying that in this country the Black people were the revolutionaries.

No, that is not correct!

If that is not correct, I shall not reply any further to what the hon member said.

Here is my speech.

Very well, I shall have a look at it. I said, did I not, that if that were so, I accepted it as such.

Why do you first make an inaccurate statement?

I could not obtain the hon member’s speech in time. [Interjections.]

No, he is trying to wriggle out of it. [Interjections.]

No, if the hon member tells me it is not so, I take his word for it.

Those are the methods you employ.

I want to know from the hon member for Carletonville what colour the leader of the Communist Party is—White or Black. Is Slovo White? What is the colour of the heads of state of the Western world who advocate sanctions and boycotts in regard to the supply of arms and energy to us, amongst other things? [Interjections.] They are whiter than we are.

Red! What conclusion do you wish to draw from that? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member made an important contribution, and we can discuss it at greater length.

I now come to the hon member for Johannesburg North. The hon member touched upon three matters. The first was KwaNdebele, the second was the question of pensions and the third involved payments to be made. Across the floor of the committee I have previously told him what the position was in regard to payments being made, but I undertake to give the hon member all the information about the payment of pensions, in Lebowa too.

I briefly want to make the following statement about KwaNdebele. The Government believes that states have the right to opt for independence. KwaNdebele expressed such a wish. The Government accepted it. The Government and KwaNdebele agreed that when all matters had been finalised, independence was to have been granted on 11 December of last year. Internal clashes and disputes took place in KwaNdebele, not primarily about the question of independence, but about the nature of the constitutional system after independence. The point of dispute was about whether there would be a president who would be a nominal head of state or whether there would be a president with executive authority. On that basis independence did not materialise. The hon member will remember that on this issue the hon the State President adopted a standpoint on independence. His standpoint was that in the first place there should be a method by which to gauge the feeling of the majority of the people.

I mentioned that!

Secondly there had to be stability in the region. About this we have not yet had any feedback. I nevertheless want to caution the hon member. He told me that he was there on a visit. I do not know how long that visit lasted. Perhaps he would like to indicate how long it lasted.

A couple of days.

Two days?

Yes.

I merely want to say that I do not know how many people that hon member could have met in two days with a view to forming an overall impression of what the people of KwaNdebele want.

[Inaudible.]

I now come to the hon member for Newcastle. Let me tell him at once that I have great appreciation for his knowledge of local government. I assure him that I listened with great pleasure to his speech. I agree with him that until development boards disappear from the scene, their composition should be considered. Personally I believe that the establishment of regional services councils can be of value to large parts of Natal.

This now brings me to the hon member for Mooi River. I have replied to him and can therefore pass on to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South and say at once that he adopted very important standpoints on the hospital services in his area.

†I have a written reply for him in this regard. It relates to the provision of medicine, the question of funds, the question of training of nurses, and finally the position of the laundries. Lack of time makes it impossible for me to give him all the particulars. I thank him very much for his contribution, and I should like to let him have my reply in writing.

*I now come to the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis. [Interjections.] He made a very interesting statement. He put a question to the hon member for Umlazi. If I heard him incorrectly, I shall apologise for the fact. If I heard him correctly, he is asking whether the hon member for Umlazi does not know that a party which is in power in Natal does not remain in power for very long.

No, that is not what I said!

Now what did the hon member say?

I said…

Order! No, I cannot allow the hon member to state his case now. [Interjections.]

Chris, you are wrong again! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal really cannot sit there shouting across the floor of the House whenever the mood takes him.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis belongs to a party advocating an ethnic state. [Interjections.] Very well then, an Afrikaner ethnic state. [Interjections.] What price must he, as an English-speaking person, pay to become a member of that ethnic state? [Interjections.]

I am quite at home there!

That is all I want to know. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is very interesting indeed, Sir. The hon member then said they rejected regional services councils. He linked up with the hon member for Mooi River. He did not only reject them in the rural areas, however, but everywhere. The hon member must now tell me why it is so that hon members of the CP are competing for seats on the regional services councils.

I spoke of integrated regional services councils. [Interjections.]

But surely the councils are integrated. I am merely asking why the CP members in city councils are competing for seats on regional services councils’ which are integrated. [Interjections.]

We also reject this Parliament, but we are still competing for seats here!

No, Sir…

We want to bring you people down! [Interjections.]

I replied to the question of the indaba. I do not intend to take the matter any further. I now come to the hon member for South Coast. The hon member raised two points. The first related to the question of beach-front development.

†If the hon member would refer to the Budget he will find that provision is made for a sum of some R3,79 million for this purpose.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, the hon member wants even more. I understand that, Sir. Everybody wants more. I should like to suggest, however, that regional services councils could well be used in this particular regard.

The hon member expressed his concern about development being unduly hampered by environmental restrictions. He also mentioned the extra costs which the Lower South Coast regional water suppliers had to incur in order to avoid taking the pipeline through a nature reserve.

*Merely allow me to make one remark; I cannot speak about this specific one. I want to make an appeal that we do not pay lip-service to private sector involvement in development and then place such obstacles in their path that they cannot participate.

I have told my colleagues and the Administrators that in the process of development we should attempt to implement nature conservation, but we should not elevate the norms for development by the private sector to such a high level that from a tourist point of view, in particular, it is not a paying proposition for them to undertake such development. I therefore share his views on that.

As far as the hon member for Parktown is concerned, I merely want to tell him that his compliments are not deserved. The hon member knows as well as I do that my department’s responsibility in regard to medical services is nothing more than a channel for initiating such services. The hon member also knows that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development determines the overall health policy through the Health Advisory Council and in conjunction with the provinces. I would very much like to point out to the hon member that when we discuss the National Health and Population Development Vote he will be quite entitled to discuss the votes of the various provinces in that debate. The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis spoke about integration as far as beds were concerned, and I have referred to the relevant situation.

In conclusion I come to the hon member for Umlazi. I want to thank the hon member very sincerely for the contribution he made. He reacted to the question of the Indaba and spoke of the secret campaign in regard to the standing committee deliberations being held in camera. He said they have now been terminated.

In my opinion all the hon members made an important contribution.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister, as the hon member for Parow did, whether he would be in favour of multiracial provincial councils, a question he has not yet responded to?

No, Sir, the hon member for Parow asked about something else, which I shall be coming to in a moment.

I merely want to thank the hon member for Umhlanga very sincerely for the leadership he gave to his committee.

The hon member for Parow asked about something else. He asked us to make arrangements to have the Administrators and members of the executive committees themselves answer for the administration of their activities during a specific financial year. Without giving a final decision on that score, let me tell him that we are in a developmental phase and will have to gauge the effectiveness of existing procedures and mechanisms, and let me say at once that if certain adjustments are required, I would be one to promote such adjustments where possible.

Sir, I merely rise to grant the hon the Minister an opportunity to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

Vote and schedules agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.