laid upon the Table:

1. (1) National Libraries Bill [No 65—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Home Affairs and National Education).
2. (2) Health Amendment Bill [No 66—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Health and Welfare).
3. (3) Pharmacy Amendment Bill [No 67— 85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Health and Welfare).

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committees, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

laid upon the Table:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the effect of the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the House will be the suspension of the evening sitting of this House tonight, for which sitting provision is made in terms of Standing Order No 18(2). He has, however, not stated his reasons for doing so. It would appear, Sir, that the problem we have to cope with in this instance is one of too little work and too much time within which to do it.

We in the Official Opposition, on the other hand, believe there is too much work to do and too little time within which to do it. I therefore want to use this opportunity to state briefly the point of view of the Official Opposition in this regard, as well as our objection to the modus operandi followed by the Government in relation to the hours of sitting of the House. It may well be that our objections in this regard are academic in view of the fact that the hon the Leader of the House has not made any catering arrangements for tonight. Be that is it may, however, the Government and the hon the Leader of the House are responsible for arranging the Order Paper and for introducing legislation. We have been asked to forgo the sitting tonight and, if I am not mistaken, this may well serve as a precedent for further requests of this nature, with the result that we shall probably not sit on Wednesday nights until after the Easter recess. I think the hon the Leader of the House is contemplating exactly that, so we may just as well iron the matter out now.

We are being denied an adequate and proper opportunity to debate important matters that should be debated extensively. We find it somewhat incongruous to have to forgo the time on these Wednesday nights. If we do not sit on four Wednesday nights, we will forgo about 10 hours. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member for Hillbrow a proper chance to make his speech and should not converse aloud across the floor of this House. The hon member for Hillbrow may proceed.

I have said that we shall have to forgo something like 10 hours if we sacrifice the Wednesday nights until the Easter recess. If that is the case, we feel that the time limits on debates be waived. In fact, the time limits that are already laid down by Standing Order No 43 should actually be waived in order to afford us a better opportunity to discuss important matters. This session the Government programme has necessitated adjustments.

We have drawn up a schedule of all the occasions during this session on which this House has adjourned prior to the time laid down in the Standing Rules and Orders from 30 January to 6 March. In total this House has been denied about four hours of debate. This has happened at a time when important matters should have been discussed.

I want to quote from examples of what we are referring to to demonstrate why we feel aggrieved by the present situation. In the debate on the Part Appropriation which involves approximately R7 billion, the time allocated to the Official Opposition in this House was 80 minutes at the Second Reading and 13 minutes at the Third Reading. [Interjections.] In the debate on the Additional Appropriation, involving an amount of R1,4 billion, we were allowed a total of 40 minutes. In the debate on the Transport Budget which the hon the Leader of the House himself handled and which involved an amount of R2,1 billion, we were allowed 80 minutes at Second Reading, 55 minutes in the Committee Stage and 25 minutes at Third Reading. In the debate on the Post Office Appropriation, which is being discussed at present and which involves an amount of R4,3 billion, the Official Opposition is allowed 40 minutes at Second Reading, 25 minutes in the Committee Stage and 15 minutes at Third Reading. Does the hon the Leader of the House think that this is time enough to discuss these important matters? If the Government can afford to sacrifice 14 hours of debating time, surely it can afford to provide sufficient time for the discussion of important matters.

Furthermore, when it comes to the Ministers’ Votes, the time allocated to us to deal with important matters arising out of the Ministers’ Votes is ridiculously limited. We must also bear in mind that this year we shall not be able to discuss two separate Votes semultaneously as we have done over the past few years. We shall only be able to discuss one Vote at a time in our own House. The time opposition speakers will have to deal with important matters arising out of the Ministers’ Votes will thus be very limited indeed.

In addition to that, while the Government can afford to lose time by not sitting, it cannot afford to allow us adequate time to discuss important matters such as private members’ motions. It has been tradition in this House to allow 10 private members’ motions to be discussed each session. This year, however, we have only been allowed to discuss six private members’ motions. It appears as if the hon the Leader of the House cannot find the time for four additional private members’ motions to be discussed. I can understand that perhaps because of the legislative programme there is insufficient legislation on the Order Paper at the moment. The reason therefor is basically because the new Constitution has been put into operation for the first time this session and, as we all know, all Bills on general affairs must first be considered by the relevant standing committees. The standing committees only started at the beginning of this year. Perhaps they will start earlier next year.

The very fact that legislation is not taking up all that time is the reason why this time should be reallocated to these matters of importance. The rules to which I have already referred and specially those concerning time limits on the discussion of Votes should be reviewed so that the time could be reallocated to enable us to have adequate time to discuss very important matters.

In conclusion I want to say that it is our final standpoint that we shall not call for a division but instead simply raise our voices in protest on condition that this state of affairs does not continue and on condition that the Government does not come along with a telescope to end off the session later in the year, with voluminous legislation, with additional night sittings, with morning sittings, with controversial measures and with legislation by exhaustion.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the CP and the NRP for keeping their word. We made this arrangement during the meeting of the Whips, and they are keeping to it.

The Official Opposition now want to put on a show here of working themselves to death. They want to work tonight: They are the martyrs that keep South Africa going.

If we do not work, who will?

Oh, shame! Look, this cuts no ice. We have been acquainted with this little game for a long time. These are the people who pretend to want to work so hard at this stage, but at the end of the session they cry “legislation by exhaustion”; then they are tired!

We are dealing with a new Constitution in terms of which there is a system of standing committees, which means that a lot of the work previously done in the House is now eliminated. Work is done in standing committees in the mornings and on Fridays. An attempt should not be made at this juncture to create the impression that they all of a sudden want to sit on Wednesday evenings. That sort of thing simply does not work. It is like water off a duck’s back to us.

The hon member says he wants to discuss the Rules, but we have already had a debate on the Standing Rules and Orders. Moreover, there is a Committee on the Standing Rules and Orders and the hon member can raise his arguments in that committee.

†The hon member should not advance those arguments on this occasion. In the past we had ten private members’ motions of which five were introduced by members of the Government while the other five were introduced by members of the three opposition parties. Up to this stage we have already had five motions and, if time permits, we could have another private member’s motion or even a further two or three depending upon the time we spend on legislation in the House.

*I see absolutely nothing wrong in saying the hon member did not succeed in creating the impression that they wanted to work while we want to loaf. He can forget about that impression. [Interjections.]

I could have moved today that we should not sit next Wednesday evening either, but I should rather keep it open to see how far we get with the programme. I can already say that if it appears to be unnecessary to sit in the evening, I shall once again move that we do not sit on Wednesday evenings. After the Easter recess we shall be sitting on Fridays, and perhaps we shall also have to sit on Wednesday evenings. I say perhaps; I am making no promises in this connection. We have no choice. We agreed on this in the Whips’ meeting and we are keeping to it. [Interjections.]

Order! Some of the hon members may not like what the hon leader of the House is saying, but they must hear him out.

I am saying this trick did not work. We are not sitting this evening.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr Chairman, when we look at the Post Office Budget we note that it looks different today to when the hon the Minister originally introduced it. I wish to ask the hon the Minister today whether he was aware, when he introduced this Budget, that a third of their bonus cheques would not be paid to the officials. Due to the reduction of one third in the bonus cheque there is now a difference of approximately R23 million between his present Budget and the original Budget.

Strangely enough we found that the hon the Minister said that he agreed with the hon member for Hercules, and that hon member said that the Post Office worker had not worked for his thirteenth cheque and that it was a privilege to receive it, not a right. Now I want to know: Is the R22 000 which is indicated as a ministerial allowance in the Budget, a right or a privilege? Are we going to delete it? Are we going to delete the allowances which hon members in this Parliament receive? [Interjections.] Is that a right or a privilege?

We must be more in touch with the worker and make fewer offensive statements. If the country is in a crisis we must take appropriate steps, but in doing so one really should not be insulting about it.

Some of the officials telephone me and say that a circular has been sent to them—I have not yet seen it—in which it is said that another 8% of Post Office workers will have to be dismissed. These are key figures who have received this letter.

I think that is a total lie. Just show me those officials. It is a lie.

I do not like persecution. [Interjections.] I do not want the hon the Minister to start a witchhunt among his officials now. I am merely asking the hon the Minister whether it is true or not. [Interjections.]

The hon member is making up a story now.

No, the hon the Minister is here to answer questions. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the difference between the R23 million-plus which the officials are now not going to receive …

It is R18 million.

The hon member says R18 million.

Yes, that is closer.

Yes, perhaps he is closer. I did not know that even more money had been deducted, but that is bad enough. Therefore the hon the Minister’s Budget has already been miscalculated by R18 million. The Budget as it stands before us, on black and white, is therefore R18 million out according to the hon member’s own words. Surely we cannot permit this. We cannot budget in this way.

Moreover, in these grave economic times the hon the Minister comes up with the item “replacement” and appropriates the amount of R249 million for this. Is it necessary to take this inflationary step of inserting this R249 million in these times?

Does the hon member know what that is about?

Most certainly. The hon the Minister says that I do not know what this is about, but I wonder whether he knows how a screwdriver works, and he is the hon the Minister of Communications. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must please not be cattish with me.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that if an hon member is on his way out of this House he becomes the Minister of Posts. I could give him various examples. Therefore he must not become argumentative with me. I want to be very friendly towards him.

I now wish to put a question to the hon the Minister. The revenue obtained from advertisements in telephone directories amounts to R53 million, but the cost of printing them is R23 million. To anyone who knows about printing work this can only mean one thing. If printing has to be done and the revenue is R53 million, whereas the expenditure is R23 million for printing work alone, then there is an enormous problem in that system. Now I want to ask: Do the people who print the telephone directories submit tenders every year? Or is it done every two years? Who prints them? Is it Nasionale Pers or Perskor? These things must be analysed, because if one has a revenue of R53 million the printing work alone should not amount to almost half of that.

Last year we heard about tons of these directories being carted away in trucks. Is that true? It was never denied last year.

Now I ask: Why do we print these directories? A directory is good for two years, as long as a supplement is issued. Advertisements can easily stand for a year. Surely we are instituting economies. Why do we not apply this?

We in this country must economize, but the Government in particular only realizes this towards the end of its budgets. Now the only way open to the Government is to cut down on salaries. The only alternative that it perceives is salaries and dismissals. This creates major problems. Have the workers not already made sufficient sacrifices? Has it not been said in this House that they are already working longer hours? Now the only savings that we can effect in a Budget of several millions of rands is a cut in their bonuses.

I do not take it amiss of the Minister. I like him. [Interjections.] Yes, I like him. He did not know that the people working for him would be deprived of one third of their bonuses. Then he comes here and tells us that he is a well-informed Minister! He cannot be. The Cabinet discussed this drastic step before he introduced his Budget, or else they ignored him totally. No, Sir, we cannot go on like this.

The letter about the 8% I have already dealt with. I just wish to ask once again whether it is really so necessary at the present juncture for provision to be made in this Budget for such a massive amount for replacement costs. If the State is trying to keep inflation in check then it should be moving at half speed as far as replacement is concerned. It must not do its calculations on the basis of full replacement cost annually. No company has the right to write off 100% for tax purposes. A partial write-off is allowed. However, one cannot calculate an enormous figure as the Minister is doing here now. The taxpayer has to pay for it. The hon the Minister is laughing. He is making a joke of it.

You are a joke.

Oh really, I have just been co-operating so well with the hon the Minister. I did not wish to be hard on him. Now, however, he tells me it is a joke. [Interjections.] Yes, he says I am a joke. I want to say that that is the Minister’s only tactic: He insults people because he is unable to enter into debate with them across the floor. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Langlaagte raised an interesting point concerning the ministerial allowance for this year which, according to the Estimates of Expenditure, has been increased from R19 000 to R22 000, and that while the rest of us have had a reduction of 3%. I hope he will tell us about that at some stage.

I would like, however, to begin with some matters concerning post offices in the Johannesburg North constituency. The first one is Saxonwold which is situated in the very busy Rosebank shopping centre. This matter I have drawn to the hon the Minister’s attention on a number of previous occasions. However, I have now been informed by certain constituents that the position at the Saxonwold post office is much improved. In fact, I paid a visit to the post office on Monday when I was in Johannesburg and I observed that all the windows were attended, that there were no long queues or a build-up of traffic and that members of the public were being attended to in an efficient manner. The Saxonwold post office must surely be one of busiest under the control of the Postmaster-General and I am pleased that matters have been improved and that things are now running smoothly. On Thursday last week the hon the Minister was worried about my positive attitude. I think that I am now being positive.

The hon member should be in the House on Mondays, not in post offices.

Well, we are dealing with the Post Office Budget and it is important that I go there.

The other post office I have a problem with is Northlands which is situated in Rudd Road in Illovo. There was some confusion last year as to whether it was at the Northlands or the Parklands post office where they had a problem, and I merely want to confirm that it is at Northlands where there is a problem. A number of constituents have complained that there are not sufficient windows open at which members of the public can be attended to by the staff, and that build-ups consequently occur from time to time. I hope the hon the Minister will give this his attention.

The third post office I want to mention is Bramley which is on the border of my constituency. [Interjections.] It is in the Trevenna shopping centre in Louis Botha Avenue, a very busy part of Johannesburg. I wrote to the regional director on 24 October setting out the many objections of the Bramley Residents’ Association to the siting of the new post office on stand 42, Rau-Marais Park. Included with the letter were a map indicating alternative sites for a proposed new post office and a traffic survey. I regret that the matter has not been resolved and I raise it simply because this is the correct place to raise complaints of this nature, as the member for Krugersdorp will confirm. I shall, however, write to the hon the Minister setting out all the details.

During the Second Reading debate last week I raised the question of adjustments to metering periods during after-hours dialling. I now note that the hon the Minister has issued a schedule of tariffs indicating that the metering period for a call from Johannesburg to Cape Town, for instance, has been increased from eight seconds to nine seconds, and that for calls after 21h00 the period has been increased from 22 to 28 seconds. This is a very good and a positive step and I welcome it, but I wonder why the same equipment cannot be used for overseas calls. I have raised this matter on previous occasions and I do not want to go into all the arguments about America and the United Kingdom again; I have gone into those in great detail during previous debates. However, there is a great need to provide differential rating for overseas calls and I hope the hon the Minister will give my appeal his attention.

I want now to come back to the question of the telephone backlog that we spoke about last week. I wish to repeat that the hon the Minister does not appear to have grasped the need to wipe out this backlog as soon as he possibly can. Telephones are urgently needed by private individuals and businesses. If he studies the speech made by my colleague the hon member for Hillbrow during the Second Reading—I do not have the time now to go into all the details—and if he listens to him during the Third Reading debate he will find that we do have alternatives to suggest in regard to the funding of this capital programme. We want to emphasize that the important thing is to ensure that the telephones are installed as soon as possible so as to satisfy public demand and also to increase revenue for the Post Office which will then help finance further developments.

While on the subject of telephones, I must come back to the question of free telephones for certain members of the Post Office staff.

That is hurting you, is it not?

No, no, not at all. I am on the right track, as my constituents told me when I was in Johannesburg on Monday. They were very pleased that I had raised that matter.

Why do you as a member not give up your telephone privileges?

No, that is for business. I have nothing against business calls, but I want to ask the hon the Minister a few questions. I asked him last week what the loss in revenue was to the Post Office in respect of this service, but I regret that in his reply on Monday—I have his Hansard here—he did not give that figure. The hon member for Hillbrow estimated that it was about R5 million.

May I ask a question?

I am sorry, I do not have the time.

That is wrong.

Well, I hope the hon the Minister is going to tell us what the correct figure is.

He said that the free telephones were given to staff members “at a time when their salaries were very low”. That package was therefore designed to meet a particular situation some years ago when it was not possible to adjust salaries. Obviously, the situation has now changed and during the past few years Post Office staff have been given substantial increases. I therefore believe that this particular privilege should be reviewed and done away with. It is not a holy cow. If the free telephones are maintained for staff members, will this be subject to perks tax? How many Coloured, Indian and Black staff members enjoy this privilege?

In the short time still at my disposal, I would like to talk about telex services. I would like to know why we do not start a system of call-back signs for users of the telex system. I am sure this will have an effect on the amount of money that could be saved by telex subscribers. I am advised that overseas organizations have call-back signs on telexes so that when a machine is unattended, the caller knows that he has the right number. I have a number of telexes here which were ent to places like Canada, Denmark, Australia, England and America, and they all have call-back signs to identify the recipient. I also have two telexes which were received by a subscriber in Cape Town that were not meant for him. One is almost a metre long. Although the correct number of the recipient is shown, the wrong number was dialled by the originator of the call. If there had been a call sign to identify the recipient, surely that would have made matters a lot easier. Apart from the waste of money, the sender does not know that the message was sent out incorrectly to the wrong machine in the wrong town. Had a call sign been available, it would have been easily identifiable to the sender and might have assisted in this regard. I am told that South Africa is one of the few countries where a call-back sign is not available. The Toronto Star in Toronto, for example, has the callback sign “Torstar”, while Anglo American in Zambia is “AAC” and the ANC in Zambia “ANC”. Easily identifiable call signs would make it easier for people to know that they have got through to the correct number and would prevent them from wasting time and money.

Mr Chairman, the previous speaker will not take it amiss of me if I do not react to his remarks because I am sure that the hon the Minister will do so.

In the debate thus far there is one thing I have found very striking, and that is that members of the Opposition rise, express their thanks to the hon the Minister and the officials for new post offices and other services they have received in their constituencies, and then immediately begin attacking the budget. I do not quite understand this.

That, however, is not really what I wish to discuss this afternoon. I should like to discuss the employees of the department and the training opportunities afforded them. To meet the department’s need for properly trained technical workers the department itself undertakes the training of its technicians, telcom electricians and telcom mechanics. Pupil technicians with a Senior Certificate or equal qualification undergo training for either the National Diploma in Telecommunications or the National Technical Diploma in Telecommunications. In both instances it is a three-year course and the first formal and intensive course is attended at a technikon or technical college. Further formal intensive courses are presented at the various post office colleges and technical training centres whereas, apart from attending the formal courses, pupil technicians are simultaneously given field training in the various regional directorates. After passing the National Diploma and the National Technical Diploma and being appointed as a technician, an official may be exempted, at departmental expense, to undergo further training. Obtaining the National Higher Diploma and subsequently the National Diploma in Technology …

Order! Hon members must converse more quietly, if they have to converse at all.

Provision is also made for people who do not qualify as pupil technicians. They are appointed telcom trainees and undergo theoretical and practical training over a period of three years. After completing their training they are appointed telcom electricians and mechanics. Promising telcom pupils may also progress to the rank of technician.

It may be seen from this that in-service training plays a prominent role within this department. During the period 1 April 1984 to 31 December 1984 527 pupils completed their training. On 15 February 1985 7 598 pupils were undergoing training. I could just mention for the sake of the Opposition that 6 014 were Whites, 585 were Coloureds, 357 were Asiatics and 642 were Blacks.

Over the past year the Research Institute of the Post Office proceeded with projects, studies and research work related to the development and improvement of new telecommunications systems and services in South Africa. The investigation into the influence of lightning on above-ground and below-ground lines is continuing and is being extended. Information deriving from a commercial lightning tracing system is being utilized to the full. Mass routine testing of all types of telephone equipment and phonometric equipment is carried out on an ongoing basis by the laboratory in order to determine suitability for departmental use.

A well-trained person is a productive person. I therefore believe that this department can boast that its production is among the best in the Public Service.

In my constituency there are a number of post offices and I want to take the opportunity to convey my thanks to the postmaster and every employee at those post offices because the service rendered there is absolutely praiseworthy. I also venture to state that there are very few constituencies in our country without a waiting list for telephones. I therefore feel that this increase announced by the hon the Minister is not excessively high. In my constituency, too, there is a relatively long waiting list for telephones. We are experiencing overloading of the main line service and I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether speedy attention could not be given to these shortcomings.

With reference to what I have just said, I should like to close by saying that a fine future undoubtedly awaits any person who wishes to enter the service of the Post Office. They can make good progress there.

I wish to conclude by conveying my thanks to the hon the Minister, the Postmaster General and all the officials for the way in which they seek to meet the needs of our country and all its people.

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

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Precedence given to private members’ business.

Mr Chairman, the motion I bring to this House this afternoon reads as follows:

I am mindful not only of the tremendous privilege granted me in that I may introduce this motion before the House today, but also of the tremendous responsibility this entails. Some of my hon colleagues on this side of the House will deal with certain facets of this motion this afternoon and I should like to convey my cordial thanks to them in advance for doing so. In particular I wish to convey my thanks this afternoon to the hon the Minister, who was prepared to comment on the discussion of this motion. On behalf of all sides of the House I also wish to say that we are gratified that he is rising here today for the first time after his very serious illness. We pray that he will recover fully and we wish him everything of the best.

I regard the population development programme as being of cardinal importance to South Africa, not only for the sake of the Whites—I wish to state that very clearly— but also for the sake of every population group in South Africa; indeed, of every population group on this sub-continent on which we live. That is why this motion has been so worded as to request approval for the Government’s population development programme, not only the approval of this House but also that of the other two Houses that form part of this Parliament, and that of all other authorities, in general, that represent some population group or organization. This population development programme requires one mighty effort at cooperation on the part of all the people of South Africa. If we do not do this we are all ultimately doomed to poverty, backwardness and endless misery.

In a certain sense the population development programme is more important than the existence and the development of the Koeberg power station, the Orange River Project and the discovery of sufficient oil on the Agulhas bank. If hon members ask me why I say this, my immediate reply is that a country can be as rich in natural resources as likes but once it has been flooded by masses of hungry and thirsty people who are undereducated and under-developed, then the writing is on the wall for that country and the people living in it.

The President’s Council has now given us a report on the demographic trends in South Africa, and they put it very pertinently that South Africa has only 40 years left to get its house in order, particularly with regard to the aspect which I wish to deal with this afternoon. After that the numbers in South Africa will not permit of a feasible population development programme. For that reason I wish to state this afternoon that an imaginative programme of education is one of the most important components of such a population development programme. Mass education can break through this Draconian cycle and ultimately contribute towards raising the standards of living and the quality of life of the people in South Africa.

When I say that raising the standards of living and the quality of life are the only solution for an uncontrollable population explosion then I am saying that a balance must certainly be struck between population numbers on the one hand and vital resources on the other. For this we need the participation of the entire population of South Africa. Every facet of the private sector will have to contribute its share. The Government, through all the bodies that represent it and act on its behalf, will have to do its share. In addition, the role of the community is indispensable as regards the successful implementation of a programme of population development of this kind. I wish to state very clearly this afternoon: Co-ordination is imperative in this process with regard to all the programmes that are at present being pursued in an effort to promote this cause.

With a view to investigating international trends I should like to refer to two international congresses, held to discuss this matter, that took place recently, viz the one that took place in Bucharest in 1974 and the second in Mexico in 1984. The unanimous recommendation was made that it should be the authorities, the Government, that should take the initiative in drawing up such a programme. There is not a single country in the Western world which allows the private sector to take the initiative in toto and exercise control over any population development programme. In the same breath, however, I want to say that the role of the private sector is indispensable to the success of such a programme. I feel that we should rather speak about an essential partnership that must develop between the Government and the private sector in the launching and control of such a programme.

However, I want to come back to the immediate threat facing us. If the population of South Africa increases at its present rate, it must necessarily lead to the collapse of the national economy, to use a well-worn term. It is a fact that the situation in which the required balance between the numbers of the population and the realistic utilization of vital resources can no longer be maintained, lies within the foreseeable future. There are democratic trends that make this clear to us. It is of cardinal importance that a way be found to influence democratic trends such that they may be reconciled with the utilization of available vital resources. That is easier said than done. We are dealing here with different population groups at different levels of development and with different traditions, values and norms. To reverse such a situation without further ado, is not so simple. This programme undoubtedly represents one of the greatest challenges for all the participant groups in South Africa. I wish to say once again that this signifies the population in toto, all of us in this country. I should like to refer to the existing family planning programme of the Department of Health which is achieving a reasonable degree of success with regard to the Whites, Coloureds and Asians, and there are sufficient statistics from which one can quote to support the statement. However, I must also acknowledge that as far as the Black population groups are concerned, we are less successful in this regard. There are problems and we cannot deny it. However, if one is able to identify this problem, one can do something about it. For example, we can try to appoint sufficient staff to carry out this programme. However, it may be that we do not have the money to do this. Moreover the technical aids are lacking and there are insufficient facilities.

I could proceed in this vein but in this regard I must refer to the biggest deficiency in the programme of the Government, the Department and all other bodies. It is the fact that we lack a co-ordinated campaign incorporating all the existing services whereby to deal with this programme. The Department of Health and other government departments, the provincial administrations and local authorities will have to revise drastically their liaison with one another. I am addressing all of them this afternoon because I have a suggestion to make later. When I say this I am not even referring to public bodies, community leaders and to the families concerned, which basically form the crux of the whole situation.

The great tragedy of the matter is of course that the families with the largest number of children suffer most if the acceptable standard of living is destroyed by the increased population pressure. It is always the poor who suffer first in such a situation. Let me say in the same breath, for the edification of our enemies outside who seek to impose disinvestment on South Africa, that they will also succeed in destroying the population programme of South Africa which is aimed at improving the standard of living of all the people in the country. I want to say to the UN, to the USA and to all other bodies that under the guise of trying to help, they are engaged in a programme of slow suicide in regard to South Africa and its people. Their efforts are counter-productive and they are wrecking what they are trying to achieve by way of the methods they are trying to use because disinvestment means the closing of the taps whereby the people of South Africa may develop and grow. What we have here is a vicious circle of population increase and poverty. This cycle must simply be broken by concentrating on the link of population increase. In this regard the cooperation of all the communities concerned and their leaders will have to be obtained in achieving the objectives of the programme, and that includes every group in South Africa. The objectives will have to be more or less the following. Perhaps I am saying drastic things now, but it is time, this afternoon, for us to speak very bluntly about a matter of crucial importance. By the year 2000 the South African population will have to stop growing, and there must be no more than 50 million people by that time. By the year 2020 no woman in this country of the childbearing age—between 15 and 50 years—may have, on average, more than 2 children. Rather than punishing the families and imposing penal measures, I suggest that in contrast to the situation in China, for example, we should approach population groups in South Africa with incentive measures. In China families are forbidden by law to have more than one child per family. If a family should have more than one family it is deprived of privileges such as housing. Eventually the man in question may even lose his job. Therefore drastic steps are taken elsewhere in the world to ensure the success of the population development programme. I say, however, that one should act positively rather than negatively, because if one acts negatively, one is faced with trends such as a sharp increase in the abortion rate, which is an extremely negative trend which must be fought tooth and nail in this country. I should prefer to ask that the Government consider, say, giving families with two or fewer children, free maternity benefits. Moreover, definite tax benefits must be granted to every family with fewer than two children. At present we obtain a tax deduction for up to 4 children. In my opinion this deduction should be double for those families who have two and fewer children. As far as housing and educational benefits are concerned, very positive consideration must be given to those families who are prepared to work together for the future of our children by making it worthwhile for them now. Let the people who do not wish to co-operate, experience what it costs to work towards the eventual downfall of everyone in South Africa.

I want to make a very strong plea this afternoon for the rapid establishment of a co-ordinating body, under the leadership of the Department of Health and Welfare, to co-ordinate, stimulate and control the population development programme. I also propose that every pregnant woman or mother who receives some form of government aid, whether through welfare organizations, the provinces or the department itself, must show an official card at a clinic—and if it does not exist, it must be created—to indicate that she is participating in the population development programme.

In addition there is a shocking fact that I want to tell this House this afternoon, viz that only 56% of all South African women in the age group 15 to 50 years are protected against pregnancy. This figure ought to be at least 75%. When we look at countries in the Western world, we find figures of up to 85%. I say that we must try to achieve 75% in South Africa.

The very best of all methods, however, is sterilization. Nowadays a well-trained surgeon, by way of the laparoscopic method, can perform 65 sterilizations per day on women with the utmost safety and can achieve the highest degree of effectiveness with the operation. If we bear in mind that it costs the authorities in South Africa R50 000 per child from the day that that child, whoever it may be, is born, until it starts its own career in society, then we realize what it in fact costs the State if the population increases in an uncontrolled and irresponsible way. Every year 12 000 women of an average age of 35,5 years are sterilized, and the average number of children is 5,8. The ideal situation would be if the first unwelcome child could be prevented by providing the basic guidance in the parental home. I contend that parents are too afraid to discuss this with their children, to give them sexual guidance and point out the dangers, because if one speaks to any young girl who has experienced an unwelcome pregnancy, she will tell one that she did not know or had not been properly informed. I say that the parental home should be the first to provide this care. Even if we think that children know everything, they do not know everything.

The Church too, has a definite role to play in this regard. I believe that the Church is neglecting to discuss properly and from a scriptural point of view the question of responsible family planning with its communities and youth. I also believe that a school has a definite role to play in this whole population development programme, particularly by way of advice and guidance. After all, it is true that the most defenceless amongst us are at schools. In fact it is those first—and undesired—pregnancies that must be prevented. The time is past when we could say that it was the will of the Lord that a person should have six children; the other three were planned. That is simply not how things work anymore.

I therefore appeal to all these bodies and all the communities of our country to link up with the Department’s population development programme. I also wish to appeal once again for the establishment of the envisaged board which I advocated here earlier on.

If we do not do these things then the very thing will happen that the State President warned against in his Chancellor’s Message at the University of Stellenbosch earlier this year on the occasion of the opening of the academic year. He said that at the present rate of population growth of 2,3% per annum, today’s 28 million people would by the year 2000 have increased to 48 million. That number will grow to 80 million in the year 2020, and 138 million by 2040, whereas in 2050 the figure will be 180 million. The Science Commitee of the President’s Council in fact tells us that South Africa has only enough water for a population of 80 million. Moreover we shall have to maintain an economic growth rate of 4,5% per annum to prevent large scale unemployment. In view of present economic trends it is virtually impossible to achieve that.

In conclusion I just wish to say the following. If this House decides today to give positive support to the objectives of this motion, this example will have an effect on the other two Houses of Parliament. If we should then also obtain the unanimous support of the private sector, the self-governing and independent national states and every parental home of the church and the school, then there is definitely hope for the future. However, if today’s debate is abused for petty and misplaced party politics, we are all doomed in any event. I therefore make an appeal this afternoon—a positive appeal—to hon members of this House to give their wholehearted support to this motion, and I thank them for doing so in anticipation.

Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon member for Brits immediately that we will be supporting his motion in spite of his speech. [Interjections.] It was obvious when he spoke that the hon member had not made a careful study of the problem he was addressing, and that he was resorting to all sorts of generalities while failing to confine himself to the real problem facing South Africa.

The hon member made mention of certain of our limited life-supporting resources and also pointed out that the provision of water to an ever-growing population was one of this country’s most acute problems. I will, however, refer to these matters again somewhat later in my speech.

Furthermore, Mr Chairman, I want to repeat to the hon member for Brits on behalf of the PFP that we will be supporting his motion, a motion which he moved here in true NP backbencher style. However, I want to thank the hon member for introducing a motion here which, by the very nature of its wording, is tantamount to an admission of total failure over a period of 37 years on the part of the ruling National Party. It amounts to an admission that the National Party has failed in respect of its policy and ideology.

*I want to convey my thanks to the hon member for Brits again and again in the course of my speech, just to assure him of my continued support for him and his motion. However, I only hope that the hon members of his own party will also support him in this motion of his. This applies in particular to the hon member for South Coast, who made a heated attack on the hon the Minister and on the National Party in this very House last year because of the failure of this policy and the unsatisfactory way in which they were implementing the policy.

†Why does the PFP support so wholeheartedly the population development programme? That is because the chief objective of this plan—and the hon member for Brits did not touch upon this at all—is the improving of the living standards and the quality of life of all the peoples in South Africa by way of improving health services, education, economic programmes, housing projects, urbanization and rural development. The essence of this plan is to improve the quality of life of our people. What an admission the hon member for Brits has thus made! After 37 years he has asked us to support this programme to improve the quality of life of the peoples of South Africa. He should rather go on his knees and apologize to this House. He should ask South Africa for forgiveness for the 37 years of failure to improve the quality of life of the people of this country. For the first time the Government now comes …

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

No, I do not have the time to reply to questions now. The hon member for Brits now admits that the NP Government has to develop a plan to improve the quality of life of our people. That dawned upon them after 37 years.

In this respect I immediately want to warn the Government. We must not simply have a population development programme—the hon member for Brits hinted at this—because our resources will not allow a population exceeding so many million; no, we need a commitment to improve the quality of life of our people. If we succeed in improving their quality of life, we can forget about these programmes and plans. People themselves will then control the size of their families without any programme or plan. One does not limit the size of one’s family because South Africa will be short of water by the year 2000. That is not the reason why one limits the size of one’s family.

I want to quote from an article by Dr Schoeman, Chief Director of Population Development. He says:

It is not because the water or food supplies are limited. It is because the quality of life increases. The hon member for Brits does not seem to realize that. One cannot persist in threatening people by referring to diminishing water resources. In the year 2000 we might have found different ways of having enough water. It is the quality of life of the people that will limit the size of their families.

After having studied these reports, plans and programmes carefully, I must confess that in my opinion—and I am sure all hon members will support me—the obvious omission in this population and community development plan is the failure to spell out the necessity of improving the political quality of life of the people who need to be uplifted. Nowhere in the hon member’s speech or in these plans do we find a parallel improvement proposed in the political quality of life of the people. This is essential; otherwise the plan will fail. How can one expect to educate people when their education system is inferior? How can one have urbanization and rural development while influx control and the Group Areas Act are being applied, and while forced removals take place? I want to quote again from Dr Schoeman where he writes about the community development plan. He states that we “… acknowledge and protect the human dignity of all people”. How can this be achieved while all the inhuman and undignified discriminatory laws remain on our statute books? The population development programme, with all its noble aims, will be a total failure unless the NP-Government at the same time issues a declaration of intent to improve the political rights of the majority of South Africans. I want to warn the hon member for Brits and the hon Ministers involved that in order to make a success of this programme this is essential.

In the rest of my speech I want to deal more specifically with the population development programme and family planning. Firstly, I should like to state clearly—and in this regard I differ with some of the hints the hon member for Brits dropped about some form of tax relief if one has a small family— that it is the unchallenged right of individuals and couples to decide, without interference from any source, whether it is the Government or a private body, on the number of children they want. This is the right of each family and nobody may interfere with that right. Family planning must never be seen as a project whereby a group of doctors and nurses run around with scalpels to cut ovarian tubes, with ligatures to tie spermatic cords, with curettes to scrape out uterin of the prodders of gestation and with pills to pop into the mouths of unsuspecting females. No, as stated before, the success of family planning will depend on the people themselves planning smaller families with a view to improving the quality of their lives. This is without doubt the key …

You have said that five times already.

The hon member for Brits says that I have already said this five times, but I shall say it a thousand times and I wish he would say it only once. He should not only say it once, but also mean it so that he can influence the hon the Minister and the Government so that they will in all sincerity do something to improve the quality of life of all our people. I think he ought to listen quietly to what I have to say because outside this House the people are crying for and demanding an improvement in the quality of their lives.

It is true that as the quality of life improves, the number of children per woman diminishes. In South Africa we have an excellent example of this because of the ethnicity in our population composition. Which of our population groups has the best quality of life? The Whites. What is their number of children per woman? 2,08. As we go along we find that in the case of Asians the number is 2,7; in the case of Coloureds, 3,4; and in the case of Blacks, 5,2.

Let us examine the recognized objective of a replacement figure of 2,1. We then find that only the Whites, those who enjoy the best quality of life, have a figure lower than that while the figure in respect of Blacks is double that. Therefore quality of life is the important factor.

The high birthrate and excessive population growth among the developing people have been brought about by a change in the pattern of disease and medical advancement that has made it possible to improve and prolong the lives of people who before were decimated by epidemics and other serious illnesses. The fact is that among these people we have achieved better disease and death control than birth control. Among the Whites we control births as well as if not better than disease and death. Among the Asians we are nearing our objective but among the Black population, while the urgency of illness and the fear of death will cause them to seek medical advice, a large family, fertility and pregnancy are recognized by some of those people not as a problem but as wealth, virility and manliness. As they develop, this will be balanced out and these people will become part of those sections of society for which this is important.

Neither I nor my party nor anybody else can fault the objectives of the Department of Health and Welfare in its plan (1) to decrease infant mortality rates; (2) to increase life expectancy; (3) to prevent infectious and contagious diseases; (4) to promote general health; (5) to expand family planning programmes; (6) to provide information, education and communication—this is known as IEC—and (7) to implement community development projects.

When we study this plan, we realize the immensity of the problem. What worries me considerably is that in this plan we talk about plans and facilities, but there are certain things about which we do not hear enough. I think the hon member for Brits has already tried to apologize for that failure because he spoke about a lack of money and a lack of manpower. What I should like to hear more about in this plan—I direct this to the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare—is where they intend getting the manpower. How will they train the necessary manpower?

Let us look at the infant mortality rate in South Africa. The infant mortality rate is a recognized yardstick in measuring the health standards of a nation. In reply to a question which I asked the hon the Minister earlier this year he said that among Blacks the rate was 80 per 1 000—these were the 1983 figures; the 1984 figures were not available at that stage—among Coloureds, 58,8 per 1 000; among Asians, 18,3 per 1 000; and among Whites, 14 per 1 000. The rate of 14 per 1 000 compares with the best in the world, but the rate of 80 per 1 000 must also represent areas where the rate is much higher than that and of course the urban areas where the rate is much lower.

What a great task the prevention of infectious and contagious diseases is for the Department of Health and Welfare. The hon the Minister of Health and Welfare was recently asked about the figures for 1984 concerning tuberculosis. In South Africa—the homelands and the independent Black states are excluded from the figures—47 280 cases were reported. It is generally accepted that the number of reported cases does not reflect the true incidence of tuberculosis in South Africa. There were 35 000 admissions to hospital and 1 900 deaths resulting from tuberculosis.

In most developed countries in the West tuberculosis is no longer a problem. These figures show an acceptance of the failure to bring primary health care to the people of South Africa. The incidence of malaria increased by 124% in South Africa last year and that of typhoid by 12%. I am trying to show the immensity of the problem that has to be tackled in order to bring a better quality of health to the people of South Africa. These figures are frightening. I would like to ask the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare how he is going to cope with this situation.

When the hon the Minister gives his reply later today I would like him to tell us if he has thought about where he will find the medical personnel such as doctors, nurses and technicians to make a success of this development programme.

There can be no doubt that up to the present the medical schools in South Africa have trained our doctors in order that they can practice in the USA. I refer specifically to doctors, but it also applies to other courses. This has happened because the educational system is in such a bad state. When these doctors fail to make it in the USA, they return to become specialists in our cities.

I would like to give some figures to the House. The population of South Africa can basically be divided into 50% rural and 50% urban. The mortality rate among children of all races under five years among the urban population is from 10% to 30%. In the rural areas this figure is 55%.

The ratio of doctors to the population is 1:750 in the urban areas. In some areas it is 1:300. In the rural areas this ratio is from 1:25 000 to 1:40 000.

In the urban curative hospitals the cost per in-patient is from R40 to R120, whereas it is R15 in the rural areas.

An important aspect of the effort to improve the health of the people is the distance a patient has to travel to the nearest available medical facility. In the urban areas 10% of the people live within 5 kilometres of a medical facility. In the rural areas from 10% to 60% live further away than 100 kilometres. We seem to have too many doctors in the wrong places and too few in the right places.

The hon the Minister must tell us today how he sees the future training of doctors so that they will accept the role they have to play to make a success of this population development programme.

Does one have to train doctors to do that? [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister has always impressed me by specializing in knowing nothing. He should have an honorary degree as Deputy Minister of Lack of Knowledge. To answer his question: One can train people to do that. One can introduce this type of training and help them to become interested in it. The universities have special departments dealing with community help but the hon the Deputy Minister has obviously never heard of these. I really think something should be done about that hon Deputy Minister. [Interjections.]

My question to the hon the Minister is: Will he recognize the vital role of the properly trained doctors in the planned community health centres? How many of these health centres are planned? I asked the hon the Minister this question. These health centres will be essential in the effort to improve the health of our people. His answer, Sir, gives the following frightening figures: There are two health centres in the Transvaal—two, Sir!—five in the Orange Free State, two in Natal and six in the Cape. How many have been built between 1982 and 1984? That was my next question. In the Transvaal two, in the Orange Free State—if the hon the Deputy Minister does not know it—two, in Natal two and in the Cape— again for his information—one. I want to ask the hon the Minister: With this type of development, will we be able to meet this great threat to South Africa which the hon member for Brits tried to indicate here? I think we are failing already because of a lack of proper planning and an inability to get trained personnel.

It is disquieting that at present community health is largely concerned with the provision of facilities. If clinics are the first priority as regards health service facilities, it is essential for the Minister to indicate who must staff such clinics. In South Africa many people with less sophisticated training—this is for the hon the Deputy Minister’s benefit—can perform many of the functions now undertaken by doctors. In South Africa such a person is known as a primary health care nurse. It is recognized that a health team will function satisfactorily with six primary health care nurses and one doctor. Are these primary health care nurses being trained and, if so, how many? I ask the hon the Minister to tell us today how many primary health care nurses are in training in South Africa.

Time will not allow me to discuss the great threat to the nursing profession in South Africa due to there not being enough facilities to train nurses and due to there not being enough posts for nurses if trained in some hospitals. The threat is also due to the decreasing number of White matriculants and to the austerity plans of the health authorities which are causing nurses to leave this very noble and essential profession.

We will therefore support the motion, but we would like to state very clearly that success in this field will depend on the sincerity of this Government’s efforts to improve the quality of life in every sense of all the people of South Africa. That is what is needed and for that we need sincerity, manpower and proper planning.

Mr Chairman, due to the demographic trends in South Africa, it has become extremely important for the whole subject of this motion to be viewed scientifically and realistically, on the one hand in regard to physical resources, which are indispensable to a growing population, and also, on the other, so that steps can be taken to maintain healthy and balanced growth of families, which is one of the cornerstones of the national economy. The development programme of a population should be differentiated, varying from one population group to another to achieve a total fertility rate of 2,1, a figure universally regarded as the ideal to be aimed at. And so, in this House, where we specifically represent the Whites in South Africa, we should prefer to emphasize healthy family growth for reasons which I shall be indicating in the course of my speech. We therefore move the following amendment to the motion:

Healthy family growth therefore, on the one hand, means that where there is an excess, something must be done to counteract it. It is, however, equally true, on the other hand, that where that family growth is insufficient amongst certain sections of the population, it should be stimulated to achieve healthy family growth. The South African population as a whole south of the Limpopo, is at present growing at an average rate of 2,3%. For Whites the rate is 1,55%, for Coloureds 1,8%, for Asians 1,7% and for Blacks 2,8%.

If this growth rate were to continue, we can expect, as the hon member correctly said, to have to accommodate a population of 138,19 million people in the year 2040. Black people alone will comprise 121,6 million of this number. It has been estimated that to maintain a balance between population and resources, to maintain the standard of health at an acceptable level, and to further the economic position of everyone, the South African population will eventually have to stabilize in the region of 80 million people. That is indeed the absolute maximum that our limited water resources, particularly, can accommodate. My hon colleague who will be speaking after me, will elucidate this aspect of the matter further.

The total fertility rate of a population is determined by its overall mortality rate, as well as the birth rate—both are taken into account in the calculation. This figure—the figure for all the peoples—should then be in the region of 2,1 to achieve a so-called replacement situation, which would mean that the numerical strength of a specific people remains more or less constant.

If we now look at the fertility rate of the various peoples in South Africa at present, the following picture emerges: for Black people it is 5,2; for Asians 2,7; for Coloureds 3,4; and for Whites it is 2,08. Therefore this means that the growth rate for Whites in South Africa has already fallen below the replacement level. This is already being reflected in the lower admission rates at our primary schools as well as by an expected decrease in the number of White university students in the 90’s. These are the very people who are represented by these members of Parliament in this House of Assembly. If we want a single population development programme to achieve any success, we shall also have to analyse the factors responsible for this decline so that the necessary remedial steps can be taken to deal with this trend as well.

In this regard, I want to identify three factors, which are contributing to this situation. Firstly, the prohibitively high housing costs make it almost impossible for the average newly-wed White couple to start a family. That is a fact; we only have to look at the flats in our cities in which those young people are cooped up. Some of these blocks of flats do not even allow children. We need only go and ask those people if they can afford a roof over their head. They cannot, and as a result they cannot make a start with healthy family growth.

A second factor is the high cost of living, accompanied by the process of impoverishment of our people—the White people— who are no longer able to afford the cost of maintaining a family. I want to mention one item which is of particular relevance here, namely the cost of confinement. What does a confinement cost a white married couple today, in comparison to other groups in this country?

I want to identify a third factor. The hon members on the other side will reproach me by saying I am dragging politics into this matter. However, the following is still an irrefutable fact in this problem we are dealing with: an ideological standpoint of a Government that has changed to such an extent that an own fatherland with its own freedom is no longer a prospect. That factor inclines our people towards fatalism and cynicism about what its descendants can expect for the future. [Interjections.] It is true. If hon members want to protest, they are welcome to go out and ask young people about this. This is exactly the reply that they will receive. Unfortunately none of these factors can be set to rights by the present Government.

Order! There are hon members in the party of the hon member for Pietersburg who are conversing somewhat loudly. Perhaps they could converse a little more quietly to give him a chance.

As I was saying, the present coalition government will unfortunately not be able to remedy all of these factors and consequently only a change in government can put the matter to rights.

A second important objective of a comprehensive population development programme should also, therefore, be to effectively temper population growth, where it is too rapid, with the co-operation of those involved. The Department of Health and Welfare plays a very important co-ordinating role in this matter. The hon member for Brits appealed to State Departments to work together and to co-ordinate their work, but I want to tellhim that to the best of my knowledge the department is already playing a very important co-ordinating role in a programme in terms of which at least 11 other departments are also involved in encouraging people and communities, at a local level, to launch a successful population development programme through, inter alia, information, education and communication for the promotion of the broader aims of the programme. It is extremely important, for example, that a successful family planning programme should be launched in remote country areas as well, because it is a fact that the rate of population growth among the approximately 6 million labourers on our farms is one of the highest in the world today. The Pretoria News, inter alia, reported as follows on what was said recently at a conference on population and development which took place on 6 March:

This is the kind of misery which we have to avert in the Republic of South Africa. That is why it would be a great pity if there were to be a cut, for financial reasons, in the support programmes of the department. I am thinking of activities such as family-care services, family planning, population development, information, education, communication and environmental health, which are some of the components necessary for a successful programme in the interests of all the peoples of South Africa. This is an enormous task requiring great enthusiasm and drive. I therefore want to convey my sincere thanks to the Department of Health and Welfare and all its officials for this onerous and important task which they are performing in the interests of the South African population.

Mr Chairman, during the course of my speech I shall come back to certain aspects raised by the hon member for Pietersburg, particularly his totally unscientific misreading of the facts as to why the population growth of the Whites is so low.

I take great pleasure in supporting with absolute conviction, in an enthusiastic and positive way, the motion before this House. Before going any further, I think it is perhaps as well that, on behalf of this side of the House, I thank Dr Schoeman and his staff most sincerely for the enthusiastic and positive way in which they are launching this extremely important population development programme and implementing it in practice. Any community or people, or even various peoples living in close proximity, seek a basis for co-operation. I think that the population development programme provides the strong basis for co-operation for everyone in this country, transcending barriers of colour, language, population or any other barrier.

Certain speakers have already pointed to the necessity for the population development programme. In order to emphasize its importance once again, I want to point briefly to a few reasons for such a programme. When this programme was relaunched in March last year, the hon the Minister himself said the following—and I quote from Die Burger of 17 March 1984:

It therefore concerns—and I shall come back to this during the course of my speech— population development and the improvement of the quality of life. Certainly, yes. However, I think that it is unbalanced to ignore completely—like the hon member for Parktown—the fact that there are insufficient sources of food. It certainly does concern population development; it certainly does concern the improvement of the quality of life. However, it is impossible to improve standards of living if chaos develops and there is no food or resources. That is obvious.

Last week a seminar was held in Johannesburg, and Beeld of 8 March reports on it as follows:

The point I want to make, is that it is absolutely essential that this programme be launched. I could perhaps also just refer to this report of the Science Committee of the previous President’s Council. This report is becoming a frame of reference whenever this subject is discussed. It is an excellent report. In fact, I think it is a written monument, specifically to the late Dr Marais, who was the chairman of this committee. I just want to point to one important point relating to education. On page 201 of this report, low and high projections are made for the future. It states that 20,7% of the population in developed countries consists of school-going children. In South Africa, 20,9% of the White population consists of school-going children. I quote:

Now the important point, however, is that the school-going youth constitutes 26% of the Asian population, 28% of the Coloured population and 20,15% of the Black population. The percentage of Black school children is low because there is not yet a sufficient number of them at school. However, in these projections it is stated that 25% of the Asian, Coloured and Black population will be going to school by the year 2000. What does this mean? If one takes the low projection that there will be between 38 million and 40 million Asians, Coloureds and Blacks in this country, there will be roughly 1,7 million more children from these population groups at school than for precisely the same number of people in a developed country. For example, if there are 40 million people in Germany or America in the year 2000, there will be 1,7 million more children from these population groups at school here than in those countries. A country like Germany or America is literally breaking its neck to be able to meet the education requirements of all the children properly, to establish the necessary infrastructure and to finance everything. The population of a country like South Africa—and I think the hon member for Parktown missed this, too— consists of approximately 25% First World people and 75% Third World people. Consequently, it is impossible to make some of the comparisons he made. The point is that if a developed country finds it extremely difficult to find the money to educate those children, how on earth would this country succeed in educating even more children? That is another extremely important reason for this programme.

The final passage I want to quote from this report is to be found on page 229, and it reads as follows:

This is what this population development programme is about. What have we done? Time is catching up with me, and I just want to read the following from the annual report to you. The State President, who was Prime Minister at the time, announced that we were going to introduce a population development programme. The reason for this is to be found on page 39 of the 1983 report of the Department of Health and Welfare:

The hon member for Parktown made out as though he had coined the phrase “quality of life”. He said that the hon member for Brits had not even mentioned it. However, that is precisely why the population development programme was introduced.

This partially answers the objection of the hon member for Parktown when he said that it must not look as though we go around with knives and just want to cut off tubes, as well as the hon member for Pietersburg, who spoke of “increasing the size of a family”

It goes on to mention—

Family planning is therefore not synonymous with restricting the size of a family. Very often family planning does constitute restricting of the size of a family, but very often, when it is necessary, it also means increasing the size of a family.

A scientist like myself does not easily speak in absolute terms, but I want to emphasize that if we want this programme to succeed, it is an absolute prerequisite that we face the real facts and examine the real situation and we must then carry out our planning in terms of that real situation. In my opinion, that is where the hon member for Pietersburg fails. It is no use walking around dreaming.

What are the real facts in South Africa? Why has the population growth of the Whites decreased? There is only one reason for this, and that is the fact that the Whites have money and have reached a high level of education, as well as a high economic standard. This is precisely the same reason why this is the case in Germany, America, or any other country.

When people go from platform to platform saying that we must give the Whites more money so that they can afford more children, they are talking absolute nonsense. This is completely unscientific. It is not true. It is not the case. If we want the Whites to have many children, we must make them very poor. That is precisely why the Blacks have so many children. They have not reached that economic level, and consequently they have not reached the necessary scholastic level, and all the other things that go with it, either. It is as simple as that. One cannot increase the White population growth by giving them more money; one decreases the population growth if one gives them more money.

This is the precise reason for this programme. We must educate these people, we must give them a better quality of life, we must “give” them more money. The story that the Blacks are given everything, is nonsense. Self-preservation is only possible, and chaos can only be averted, if we “give” the Blacks “more money”. This is how the programme works. If I have time, I shall come back to that.

That is the fact of the matter. One must assess the facts of the matter, and plan accordingly.

Another fact of the matter is that there have been, are, and always will be millions of Blacks in this country. It is an absolute fact that they will be here permanently. In fact, there will be considerably more of them. If one wants to plan now, even if it were to be political planning—we are not talking politics now; we are talking about this scientific population development programme—it is simply a fact that the Blacks are here permanently and that their numbers will increase. I cannot imagine that there could be a member in this House who does not have sufficient intelligence to realize this. We now have to plan accordingly.

Let me mention another fact—and I have sufficient sources to prove this scientifically. It is a fact that Black urbanization will take place. Even if one stands on one’s head, and even if one performs a few other tricks, this is something one will not be able to prevent. Just as White urbanization took place, it will also take place in the case of the Black people. Just as urbanization could not possibly have been stopped in Britain during the Industrial Revolution, we will not be able to stop it here. We therefore accept that fact and we are now planning proper urbanization. In fact, urbanization is a good thing, since we have in fact seen that the birth-rate decreases with urbanization. Then it is also easier to introduce the health services the hon member for Parktown was speaking about.

I repeat that South Africa is a country which, like the rest of the world, of which it is almost a microcosm, consists of a First and a Third World. I therefore believe that we have made a mistake in the past by trying to impose the standards of a First World on a Third World. One cannot simply apply Western standards of housing, hospitals, education, and so on, to the various population groups in our country. This is simply not possible. It is unattainable, since it is impractical.

I agree with the hon member for Parktown on the training of nurses, doctors and so on, but unfortunately I do not have the time to go into that now. However, the fact is that we shall once again have to give this matter very serious attention. I am even prepared to say that in my opinion, it is high time the medical services of the First World are privatized. The State can no longer afford them, and it will not be able to afford them in the future. By the year 2000 the State will no longer be able to provide medical services for the entire population. As a matter of fact, it is not the State’s task to do so either. However, it is the State’s task to provide these services for the 75% of the population who really need it.

The First World does not only consist of Whites, but to a large extent it does. In his motion the hon member asks for the full cooperation of everyone, and I support this wholeheartedly. When I speak of “everyone”, I mean all peoples, all colours, all political parties and all religions. This also includes cultural organizations, and whatever. Everyone must co-operate.

I said earlier that one must accept a fact. It is a simple fact that a large percentage of the Whites find themselves in a certain position, and that we have a Government. The responsibility of the various groups and their ability to do something about this programme differs, of course. It is a factual situation. That is why the Government, and specifically the White section of the population, has a very important responsibility to get this programme in motion within the limits of their ability; in other words, to do the initiation work.

The psychologists refer to the various levels of needs of the community that have to be taken into account. They also talk about upgrading the levels of needs of the various groups. For example, one begins with the primary level of need, and this includes food, clothing and facilities such as housing, and so on. This is what must be looked at first. When people move to the cities, these needs must be fulfilled first. This is described as the primary level of need.

The next stage is the secondary level of need, and this includes schools, community centres, and so on. The one comes to the community facilities, etc, where the people who have been upgraded can begin to look after themselves; in other words, they begin to implement self-enrichment. It is therefore the stage where these people have learned to help themselves.

The tertiary level of need, the third level of upgrading, entails sport and culture, amongst other things. One does not play rugby or listen to Brahms if one does not have food to eat or a home to live in, etc. That is why one must move from the primary to the secondary level, and ultimately to the tertiary level. This is the practical implementation of the programme. It is a tremendous task.

When one studies the literature, one sees that there are experts who pose the question whether we have not fallen too far behind and whether it is still possible to perform this task. I want to conclude by saying that we will only succeed in this task if we really face the facts. We must not go around with such foolish stories like giving the Whites more money so that they can have more children, since this is completely unscientific; it is not true, it is a lie and things do not work like that. We must face the realities and everyone, all political parties, must put their shoulder to the wheel and make a forceful, united effort and create a basis on which everyone can work together. Then we will succeed, but if we do not do so, we will not succeed, and chaos awaits us. I take great pleasure in supporting the motion.

Mr Chairman, towards the end of his speech the hon member Dr Vilonel touched on a subject which I want to single out for special emphasis, and that is the process of urbanization. I shall come back to it.

As a layman, I am somewhat hesitant to speak after four doctors, one of the mind and three of the body, but I believe that it is the duty of this party to reassure the CP. They need not be afraid, for as long as the NRP exists, the White population will not disappear from South Africa. [Interjections.]

†Perhaps we should not be participating in this debate because this team of ours of five members has played its part and I have to disagree with the hon member for Brits on his taxation proposals; we have between us 20 children, and one is a bachelor who has not made any contribution yet … [Interjections.] … at least none that we are counting, and another member has contributed one. That leaves three of us who would not really agree with the hon member for Brits on extra taxation for more than two children. If hon members do a little arithmetic they will know how those three would be affected!

The hon member for Brits has raised a tremendously important subject. It is a matter on which there can be no difference between us. I should imagine that ex-Minister M C Botha would be having a fit if he were sitting in the gallery today because that appeal of his for White babies has never been forgotten and is still being thrown back at Whites by many Black leaders when one talks about family planning.

The very latest figures on population growth that I have seen are: The White population 16 per 1 000; the Indian population, 24 per 1 000; the Coloureds 27; and the Blacks 40. There one has the whole story: A growth of 40 per 1 000 against 16 per 1 000 for Whites. I want to agree with the hon member Dr Vilonel that we have to face up to the fact that one of the keys to the control or planning of the population among the Blacks is going to be housing, urbanization, etc. We are dealing with traditions here which go right back into tribal history. We have a system where a man moves to town, works, goes back home for a short holiday and produces another child, and every time he has another child or takes another wife, he just builds another hut. That creates no problem except finding the money to feed them. Once families move into town, however, where they have a physically limited space within which to accommodate the family, all sorts of problems develop. Attention must be paid to the number of people that it is possible to accommodate in a specific space, as well as to the number of people that can be fed and brought up on his income.

I do not agree with half of what the hon member for Parktown said, Sir. He spoke of the quality of life but made it subordinate to the quality of political rights. [Interjections.]

You were not listening properly to what I was saying. [Interjections.]

I agree that we should concentrate on the quality of life because a decent quality of life should be our first priority. The hon member for Parktown, however, places the quality of political rights before the quality of life.

No, that is not correct. [Interjections.]

That was the order in which he placed them at the conclusion of his speech. [Interjections.] He concluded his argument by saying “the quality of political rights and the quality of life”. He placed the two things in that order. [Interjections.] I want to place the emphasis on the quality of life. [Interjections.] Well, if the hon member denies that that is the case, I am prepared to accept his word for it.

I place the emphasis on the quality of life. That means we must plan for the urbanization process, which, as the hon member quite correctly said, cannot be stopped or reversed. M C Botha is still alive today, but Blaar Coetzee must be turning in his grave because the magic year 1976 came and went without the tide being reversed to the homelands. This is where this programme must actually prove its final success—in the controlling and planning of the urbanization process in order to ensure that people who want it can have a home if they try, that they can live decently and benefit from the plan. When a person who has a small family derives no benefit from this—when it makes no difference to his quality of life because he does not own a home which he can improve, and because he cannot provide for his children a better opportunity in life owing to the socio-economic system in which he lives—he is not even going to be interested in trying at all.

We will have to obtain the support of all the population groups in the country for a programme which will bring home to everyone the reality of the fatal consequences of not planning ahead for the turn of the century and beyond. Winning that support, Mr Chairman, depends on people knowing and understanding that by participating they have something to gain, that by controlled and proper family planning—that means by ensuring that they do not have more children than they can afford to educate and feed and clothe and give a decent chance in life—they can be convinced that this is within their reach. By accomplishing this we can win their co-operation. This is going to be a tremendous public relations task which South Africa will have to face. To get that message across is going to be our major task.

Something else which goes hand in hand with this—and here I am addressing the homeland Black leaders—is the introduction of proper title to land and buildings in the homelands so that, just as in the White areas of South Africa, families will be enabled to own their own homes. They should cease to be part of a community-owned village or tribal area where they can simply go on building extra huts as and when they want to. When they have the pride of home-ownership and the benefit of being able to make that home the base for a better quality of life, this plan will have met with success. This is what we all—even the hon member for Parktown—want to see for all our people. Unfortunately, I have had reports which state that the availability of staff and facilities provided by the State is such that it causes the people involved in the promotion of family planning to become desperately frustrated in many cases. Admittedly the serious economic situation of today aggravates that feeling. Those reports, however, date from the time before the economic slump; they date from last year.

It is a pity that the hon member for South Coast is not in the House now to hear me say that last year he made one of the best speeches—actually the best one, I think—on this subject. He pointed out the frustrations and difficulties experienced by the people dealing with this issue in the clinics and hospitals. This aspect lies in the hands of the Government.

However, we support the spirit and the intention of the motion. I think it is an important matter which the hon member for Brits has brought to the attention of the House once again. I believe that the solution to this matter lies not in words, not in speeches and not even in sterilizations performed by the doctors with their scalpels. [Interjections.] It is too late to help me now—I have my seven and that is enough. [Interjections.] Neither the doctors, nor the Government can be of much help. It will be through economic development and through the raising of the living standards of people in South Africa that we will ultimately achieve the goals which we have to set ourselves in this regard.

Mr Chairman, later in my speech I shall come back to the positive things to which the hon member for Durban Point referred here. I just wish to say that with regard to the motion moved by the hon member for Brits, it is clear that we are dealing here with an extremely important matter. I think it is as well that motions of that nature are discussed in this House. Their importance is obvious.

However, I do wish to express my disappointment. I had expected the hon member for Brits to indicate to us what he in fact meant by the following remark in his motion:

I believe the hon member for Brits will concede that essentially, it is meaningless merely to make a vague appeal for the cooperation of peoples—in the execution of any programme. What I therefore expected of him, in all honesty and fairness, was to indicate what he really expected those peoples to do. I do not expect him to indicate what families or individuals must do, but rather those peoples who, according to him, must participate in this development programme. In the second place, I expected of the hon member for Brits to indicate what the responsibilities of the State were in order to create the appropriate climate within which this population development programme could take place. I would want to know what the responsibilities of the State in this regard were, apart from the launching of such a programme. In that regard I want to express my appreciation for what I considered a really positive contribution made by the hon member Dr Vilonel. [Interjections.] In many respects that hon member hit the nail on the head.

However, I wish to add that I was somewhat concerned about the impression that the speech by the hon member for Pietersburg could create. Other hon members have already referred to this. What it in fact amounts to is that as far as the Whites are concerned we advocate population growth, but as far as the other groups are concerned steps should in fact be taken to curb the population growth. That unfortunately, is, the impression created, and I do not wish to say that the hon member intended that. However, that is indeed the impression created, perhaps because he did not properly analyse the words “sound and balanced family growth” that he used in his proposed amendment and failed to tell us what he intended thereby.

I also wish to say that to a certain extent I agree with the hon member for Durban Point. I am of opinion that the penal provisions proposed here by the hon member for Brits would in fact be ineffective. I also wish to say to him that this gives rise to an inner conflict in people.

I myself come from a very large family. There were nine of us. I must point out to the hon member for Brits that what his motion amounts to is that those who are least able to afford it will be punished. I must add, however, that we grew up in a different era. There was not the same pressure on the natural resources of South Africa. I want to say, in all honesty, that I have never regretted being a member of a really large family. That feeling of mutual loyalty and love which exists in such a large family is something I should really prefer not to be without in my life.

Therefore I believe we must be very careful when we speak about penal provisions that we wish to impose upon people in some direct or indirect way.

The problem is a tremendous one and there is no doubt that with a view to the pressure on our natural resources we are faced here with a problem of overwhelming proportions.

However, I must add that we should really be circumspect when working on the basis of population projections. The Science Committee of the President’s Council refers in its report on demographic trends in South Africa to the unreliability of population projections because there are too many factors impinging on the process. I am compelled to say, with all respect to the academic colleagues who did so, that to work on the basis of a population projection which extends to the year 2150 is in fact meaningless. I do not believe that in this regard one should work with a period of more than, say, 50 years, but to work on the basis of periods of 170 to 200 years is totally meaningless. So many things can happen that it seems to me as if there is no point in doing so.

It cannot be denied that it is evident that an unbalanced population growth is really an impossible problem. It is quite clear that the most important factors restricting population growth are summarized in paragraph 3.8.7 on page 111 of the report of the Science Committee. I say this to the hon member for Brits as well, because in that report they discuss that and it is in that regard that I wish to link up with the remark by the hon member. In this paragraph the Science Committee states:

1. (a) Economic development
2. (b) Adult literacy and mass education
3. (c) Health and medical services
4. (d) Social and family structures and functions
5. (e) Urbanization and
6. (f) Family planning programmes.

The family planning programme announced by the department seeks to embrace these elements, but the fundamental point can be summarized as follows: Population growth is, firstly, limited by cultural and socio-economic factors. If it is of importance for the State that the population growth should adjust and adapt to the natural and other resources of the country, and to our productive capacity, it is essential that those factors be duly taken into account, and therefore the role of the State cannot be denied in this connection.

When we consider the whole situation it is quite clear that the first requirement is that we shall have to accept urbanization, because as the report shows it has been proved time and again that contact with the system of Western values is one of the most important factors in influencing population growth.

Nowhere is this contact so intimate and strong as in our urban centres. On that basis alone it is essential that we accept urbanization. The policy we have pursued thus far in attempting to curb that normal process by way of influx control measures is counterproductive as regards the true objectives that we wish to achieve by the population development programme.

It is clear to me that other factors that have been spelt out here, such as education facilities, must be made available to the people of South Africa on a far wider and more equal scale. Time does not permit me to go into this but in the past there was discrimination, or whatever word we might use for it. In this way we also failed to create the factors whereby to encourage a sound population growth. Here I have in mind education facilities, training facilities and job opportunities.

When we speak about an improvement in the standard of living—the hon member for Parktown was quite correct to say that this is essential, and I shall refer to his final remark later—then it is essential that all job opportunities must be available to all people in South Africa. This means admission to all labour categories and the removal of all possible restrictions. As long as restrictions still exist people cannot be exposed to the forces of the socio-economic factors in this regard. This also means that matters such as home ownership and full property rights must be made available in both urban and rural areas.

The first requirement is that all measures imposing restrictions on the socio-economic growth of sections of our population must be removed. In that regard I support what my hon colleague said: Politics is of importance, because unfortunately we have seen, time and again, that participation in the political decision-making process will in fact signal the end of all these other restrictions.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Brits for putting this important motion before the House today. It has been a long time since I have heard the House as quiet as it was today, because this is an extremely important subject which is going to be of paramount importance to everyone in this country in the future. Viewed from a socioeconomic, political, constitutional and health standpoint, this population development program is most probably one of the most important projects yet to be launched in this country.

We spend a tremendous amount of money on defence in this country, and we have to do that. We spend a tremendous amount of money on housing in this country, and we have to do that. We spend a lot of money on education for all the people in the country. However there is also a growing realization amongst all our people in all our population groups that if South Africa does not soon— and time is running out—pay particular attention to its population situation, then we, like many other countries, will be engulfed by sheer numbers. It will not only be a case of numbers, but the population will be crippled by inadequate standards and inadequate education.

I do not think the population development program has really come into its own as far as allocation of the financial resources of the country is concerned. Considerable progress has been made due to the R35 million we are receiving at present but it is R35 million out of a total budget of approximately R30 billion. That is only approximately 0,1% of our total budget, for a project which I regard as being one of the most important in the country. Incidentally, I want to tell the hon member for Parktown that this is what the hon member for South Coast said last year. He had no other criticism. All he did was to encourage the Government to go ahead with this matter as quickly as possible.

It is true that spectacular progress has been made concerning the acceptance of the importance of a development programme of this nature. It is really interesting that ten years ago one would almost not have dared to discuss this subject. I remember very clearly that ten years ago I discussed certain aspects of family development and family planning in the Cape Provincial Council. At that stage it was a subject which was really regarded as being somewhat taboo. One was not supposed to talk about it, although at that stage, just like today, it had a bearing on the raising of living standards and the raising of the level of education of a people. Meanwhile, its importance has been emphasized by all sides. That is why I welcome our being able to discuss this important subject frankly and in all sincerity. Reference has been made to the scientific study by the President’s Council. The hon member for Brits referred to the State President’s speech on the occasion of the opening of the academic year of the University of Stellenbosch. When discussing the acceptance of this project, I think it could almost be regarded as the most important aspect that it is today a matter of concerned acceptance by not just the White section, but in fact, by all sections of the population, the Black section of our population in particular. I am convinced that we have now finally laid the ghost of family planning and population development.

Over a period of many years a great deal of research has been done on the best way of developing a population. I think there is a fairly significant degree of unanimity amongst experts today as to which factors are really important for the development of a people. I want to touch on four of these. The first is education. That, surely, is about the most important. The second is housing. The third is job opportunities. These three factors, together with family planning, lie at the heart of a healthy and balanced population development.

It is very interesting—and reference has already been made to it in this debate—that in most of the developed countries the first three factors have automatically led to the fourth. Training, education, housing and all their concomitant factors, have automatically led to family planning. As higher living standards have been achieved, the birth rate has begun to drop accordingly. Europe, where some countries even have a negative population growth, is a living example of this.

During the last decade the pattern of thinking in South Africa, too, has changed radically. In my opinion, what I want to say now is very important. In 1974 it was said: “The best form of contraception is development”. Today, after ten years, the converse is true: “The best form of development is contraception”. The hon member for Pietersburg and the hon member Dr Vilonel have referred to the briefing session held in the North last week, an event attended by leaders of all the different peoples and population groups in the country. I now want to quote three typical reactions of people present at that briefing session. The Minister of Education of Lebowa, for example, in response to a speech made by a very well-known gynaecologist in which he spoke inter alia on this subject, said, and I quote: “Why did he not make this speech ten years ago?” The Minister of Health of Bophuthatswana said that family planning, and particularly sterilization—I want to say more about that in a moment—is undoubtedly the most important form of development among the population of Bophuthatswana. The Chief Minister of KaNgwane, Mr Mabuza, spoke with pride about the success of the development programme, and in particular of sterilization, in his homeland. One thing emerged very clearly from the discussions on that occasion:

I think it is very important that we realize this.

A very interesting article on the population crisis imminent in South Africa appeared recently in Optima. Optima warned—and I should like to repeat it in this House as well—that if our population continues to double every 30 years, as is happening now, we shall fall into the same category as underdeveloped countries like Bangladesh and Ethiopia. Is it not terrible to hear that South Africa is being equated with a country like Ethiopia, where millions of people are dying due to the famine? We simply cannot afford to let this happen.

Optima makes this interesting point as well: It states that economic growth alone is not sufficient because, in the nature of things, economic growth will not result in absolutely equal economic distribution.

This third important point is also made in Optima. It states:

I have just quoted what some of our Black leaders are saying in regard to this matter. That is why I say that I envisage a wonderful future for this development programme.

What is the real purpose of this programme? It is to speed up the development of the peoples in this country; to raise the level of health, particularly of the mother and the child; to ensure the socio-economic upliftment of the whole family; and especially to improve the quality of the South African population, which is made up of a number of peoples. [Interjections.] Reference has been made to certain numbers. The ideal is 21 per 1 000. [Interjections.] A figure of 15 just manages to maintain a population; a figure of 25 creates over-population. I disagree with the figures used here by the hon member for Pietersburg. I want to tell him that the figures I have indicate that over the past two decades since 1960, the birthrate of the Whites has dropped from 23 to 17; that of the Coloureds from 46 to 25; and that of the Blacks from 45 to 38.

My figures are the figures issued by the department.

Good.

I think the hon member for Brits referred to the fact that 56% of women in their reproductive years are at present protected in some way by family planning. [Interjections.] The ideal figure is between 70% and 75%. Now we have to ask: What is wrong? What can we do to improve this situation?

One of the hon members has referred to the lack of co-ordination. I want to say that I think wonderful progress is being made, but I do think that at present there is still a lack of the necessary co-ordination amongst the three tiers of Government, that is to say, amongst the central, the provincial and the local tiers. It is not always a matter of merely establishing a service. The people who are using that service must also have the initiative. The problem in practice—and the doctors will agree with me here—is that the failure rate, particularly amongst the lower income classes, is still too high.

However there is a second way in which we can improve this situation considerably. I think we should develop our voluntary sterilization programme in South Africa more positively. I want to say that I have not the slightest doubt that the demand is there; it is just that the service has to be provided. In my opinion, it is the key to ensuring that South Africa will succeed in having a controllable and high-quality population in the 20th century.

I have many interesting figures on sterilization and I want to mention a few of them briefly. There are 180 million married couples throughout the world today who have been sterilized in one way or another. In China there are 60 million married couples who enjoy the advantage of sterilization. There are 16 million in the United States. Incidentally, with that sterilization rate in China, their birth rate dropped from 30 per thousand in 1973 to 20 per thousand in 1983. India is another wonderful example. Mrs Ghandi jeopardized her political career, and lost her position of leadership, because she felt so tremendously strongly about the issue of sterilization. However, she regained her leadership after that. Five million sterilizations are being performed in India these days, and they have reduced their birth rate from 40 per thousand to 34 per thousand. I could also mention the examples of Thailand and Sri Lanka, but the point I really want to make is that in South Africa at the moment we are performing 25 000 sterilizations. This is hopelessly too few and we shall have to do a lot more in this connection. We have to provide the service, we have to motivate the doctors and everyone working with them to make this service available and we have to continue to gauge the need. The public must be made aware of the services which are available.

In conclusion, I want to say something about my own constituency, Paarl. A praiseworthy effort has been made over the past ten years to raise the standard of living of the community by convincing people that with smaller and more manageable families, they can be better cared for and a great deal more progress can be made in their training. A praiseworthy effort has been made in regard to family development. Nearly 7 000 voluntary sterilizations have been performed done over this period of ten years and at the same time the birth rate plunged dramatically. Ten years ago women had an average of 7,6 children and now they only have four. But it is not merely a matter of numbers. It has also lead to a dramatic drop in the mother and infant mortality rate. Doctors will concede that maternal deaths occur in the categories of too old, too young, too often or too many. Let me say here and now that there can be no set rule for how many children each family may have. It depends on what the parents can in fact afford. The whole endeavour is therefore an issue of education and persuasion. Reference has been made here to what is being done in Eastern countries. In some instances, housing is only given to families who can prove that they are participating in some form of family planning. There are other examples of cases where only the first two children are allowed to attend a state school and the rest have to fend for themselves. In South Africa today it costs R50 000 to raise a child until the age when he starts working. That includes housing, education and everything that entails. Thus it is not difficult to work out that over 10 years, 7 000 sterilizations in a small area like Paarl probably prevented the birth of 15 000 unwanted children. Calculated at R50 000 per child over a period of 17 years, this means a saving of R750 million in one constituency. In 1984 there were 25 000 sterilizations in South Africa, which means a saving of R1,25 billion over a period of 17 years until those children would have started to work. This is a large amount when we have to try to balance a budget next week.

Finally, I think we have to try to find some way, to an even greater extent than we are doing at present, to motivate our doctors, the medical officials, the district surgeons, the matrons, the sisters, the motivators and everyone who is involved in this situation, to make this service available. The demand is there; the service just needs to be extended. I have wondered whether, instead of having an expensive infrastructure, consideration should not be given to other ways of making it worthwhile for these people to take such an additional task upon themselves. It can be done in the form of additional monies, a tax rebate or whatever. It is precisely here, I think, that the private sector, to which the hon member for Brits referred, has an important role to play.

I conclude with these words: Through the population development programme, we are participating in one of the most important projects to create a happier future for all the inhabitants of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to respond briefly to one of the points raised by the hon member for Paarl, and that is the question of a sterilization programme. I am sure that the hon member will concede that many couples in South Africa have large families because this is the only form of security they have for their old age. In the absence of any sort of social benefits or welfare programme, it is going to be exceptionally hard to persuade couples voluntarily to go in for sterilization programmes. I am sure the hon member will concede that. [Interjections.]

One theme that has been evident in all the speeches in this House today, is that birth rates have declined substantially with improved socio-economic status. We have seen that socio-economic status also goes hand in hand with urbanization and with education. Many speakers have emphasized this. My concern is that, having recognized this, the Government is still following policies which run counter to achieving these particular goals and objectives.

I would like to deal with each one in turn, viz urbanization, education and rural development, which is also important. First of all, as regards urbanization, we have implemented for many years a policy of influx control. This has prevented urbanization to a certain extent, and where urbanization has taken place, it has taken place under the most unfavourable conditions. There has been no proper planning or proper urban layouts or anything of that nature. What we should bear in mind is that people who migrate to urban areas are the risktakers. They are the people who embody the elements of free enterprise and they are the people who can benefit from the urban environment and the opportunities it provides for the development of the informal business sector and job creation.

As regards the education system, there is no doubt that many Black people in this country—it is mainly Blacks who have this problem—have suffered under an inferior education system up to now. The education system determines, to a large extent, one’s socio-economic status. It determines what jobs one can get and what jobs one is qualified for. To date Blacks have suffered under disadvantages in this regard. I grant that the Government is trying to rectify this, but again I want to argue that it is easier to rectify it in an urban environment. It is easier to plan schools and it is easier to plan differentiated education programmes where one has a mass of people present. The informal sector of education is far better in an urban environment because of interaction with other people, and interaction with the modern technological type of civilization. Other media, such as television, are easier to use for educational purposes, because of the availability of electricity.

As far as quality of life is concerned, I would also like to discuss rural development. Rural development goes hand in hand with urbanization. To date, rural development has largely been hindered because, first of all, we have not had a proper urbanization policy, and secondly, because of the implementation of influx control measures. What has this meant? Many of our rural areas have been overpopulated, and it has been impossible to introduce a sound, ecologically based rural development programme; in other words, urbanization and rural development must go hand in hand. People must be allowed to move from the rural areas voluntarily to the urban areas. That will make it easier to implement a proper rural development programme and, of course, to uplift the quality of life in the urban as well as the rural areas.

Of course, such a programme would also eliminate one of the greatest evils in our society, namely the question of migratory labour. If we got rid of influx control and planned properly for urbanization and rural development, we could get rid of migratory labour, about which there is not a single good thing to be said. There is nothing that is more destructive of the quality of life than the migratory labour system that we have. I hope that the hon the Minister will give very serious attention to this in the population development programme.

There are other benefits which could flow from an urbanization and rural development programme. The hon the Minister may be aware of a few interesting studies which have been made on the input/output tables for South Africa. From these studies, calculations have been made of the employment multipliers for different sectors of the economy; in other words, the number of jobs created per million rand invested in various sectors. In agriculture and rural development, the number of jobs created per million rand invested is in the region of about 180. In the construction industry—we need houses if we are going to have urbanization and we also need housing in rural areas—the multiplier is something like 250 new jobs created, directly and indirectly, per million rand invested. That means that by following a policy of rural development and urbanization, we can stimulate two sectors of the economy, agriculture and the construction industry, which are large job suppliers. There is also not a very high level of skills required for the type of jobs provided in either of these two sectors of the economy.

I would like to end off my speech today by issuing a few notes of warning. First of all, I think we should take note that policies aimed at obstructing migration of the population do not work. In this country, influx control has not worked. There have been experiments with policies of this nature in other countries of the world. They have not worked there either. I hope the hon the Minister and his planners will learn from the failures in other countries, not only in our own country, that deliberate policies to influence population migration do not work. Influx control has not only not worked in this country but it has also aggravated the problem that we are discussing today. It has made it far worse than it actually should be.

Decentralization is another social engineering policy which we have in this country to influence the movement of people. Unless decentralization is based on a sound cost benefit analysis and not on ideological reasons, it is also not going to work. We simply cannot afford decentralization for ideological reasons.

One other issue which I believe we should abandon in this country, is this question of optimum city size. It is one of those holy cows that we have, like the other holy cow that I have mentioned, influx control— aimed at stopping people moving to cities because it is a bad thing. However, it is not a bad thing; it is a good thing and we should encourage it. Similarly, there is no such thing as an optimum city size. We should allow economic factors to determine the size of a city; indeed, they will in due course. Furthermore, based on world standards, our cities are still not all that big.

Finally, we on this side of the House do support this programme and we sincerely hope that it will work. This programme must, however, not be seen as something that is being imposed on people from above. The need for such a programme must develop in the communities. Many of the goals of this programme will automatically be achieved if we have a sound urbanization and rural development programme implemented in our country. Furthermore, the authorities should be there to provide the help and assistance when the need is expressed by the community itself.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point said that the CP was concerned about the unsatisfactory growth of the Whites. That is true. We are really seriously concerned about this. He then said that we should leave it to the NRP, but I want to tell him that that would be very risky. In so far as there must be an improvement in this regard, he can certainly leave it to the Van der Merwes; that is, to me and the hon the Minister. As I stand here—obviously still a young man—I am the grandfather of seven. [Interjections.]

You are far behind me!

There are more Van der Merwes than NRPs.

Order! I do not know whether this is the occasion to boast!

Mr Chairman, I just want to say this in all humility. Two of the seven children are named Willie. Everyone who sees them usually says: They are two fine little boys—and then after a while they say: They both look just like old Willie. [Interjections.]

I agree with the hon member for Brits when he says that food and water will be the decisive factors in the continued existence of man in the future. Not bombs and cannons, not medicine and the injection needles of the medical doctors, but water and food will be the decisive factor in the continued existence of communities and people in the future. Food and water. To these I want to add work; work for every breadwinner. The basis of this is water, and again, water. If there is no water, one can have no food. If there is no water, the wheels of industry cannot turn; work cannot be provided in the field of agriculture and industry, in mining, and so on.

What I am therefore trying to say is that the co-ordination between population numbers and the various areas must fit in and harmonize with one another. There must not be more people in an area than the natural resources can carry. That is of the utmost importance. In this regard I am thinking of the large metropolises in the Republic of South Africa. I am thinking of my own area, the PWV area, where we have been concerned for many years about the availability of water in the Vaal River. We have been concerned for a long time about the question of whether the main artery of the economy of the Witwatersrand, where half of the people of the Republic of South Africa are settled, the Vaal Dam, will be able to continue to meet our needs.

For this reason it is necessary that controlled—I want to emphasize this—urbanization takes place. Only this morning I read a report in Die Burger about this. I do not want to make a political issue of this, but it amounts to controlled urbanization. According to the headline, Mr Timo Bezuidenhoud says: “Stuit instroming by die bron”. I quote from this article:

Uncontrolled influx therefore also causes valuable agricultural land to be lost. The article goes on to say:

Surely one cannot allow this. Surely one cannot allow uncontrolled influx, since those people who are illegal lay claim to the essential resources. It cannot be done. These things must simply be controlled. If influx should take place in an uncontrolled manner, we will reach the situation I want to present to hon members now. I quote from Omgewingsake of April 1984.

Gedurende 1975 is bereken dat ongeveer 350 miljoen kinders nie eens oor die mees basiese lewensnoodsaaklikhede beskik nie. Ongeveer 590 miljoen het nie toegang gehad tot skoon en veilige water nie en dít terwyl water die oorsprong is van nagenoeg 80% van alle siektes.

I could continue in this vein, but my time is limited.

According to the latest figures from the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development a few months ago, the population growth was as follows: In 1980 there were 4 551 000 Whites, and in 1984 there were 4 807 000; in 1980 there were 2 624 000 Coloureds and in 1984 there were 2 870 000; in 1980 there were 819 000 Indians, and in 1984 there were 887 000. In 1980 there were 17 022 000 Blacks, and in 1984 there numbers had increased to 18 238 000.

This afternoon I want to plead that all leaders of all the population groups should strive for a uniform population growth in future, for the same population growth for Blacks, Brown people, Indians and Whites. That is the ideal.

Furthermore, I want to appeal to our White married couples who can afford to have children and do not have any. I think the time has come for those people to realize that they must make a contribution to South Africa and see to it that they have a family.

However, there are also young White married couples who want children, but who cannot afford to have them because of the rising cost of living. I want to ask the hon the Minister—and I know that it is a difficult request to comply with—that the Government must in future give continual attention to ways of encouraging or assisting those White married couples who want children, but for whom it is financially impossible. The Whites are indispensable in Southern Africa, and all the other peoples would admit this. The Whites have the knowledge and experience and know how to give guidance in many fields of which the other less developed peoples have no knowledge. The Whites will have to see to this—and in fact, it is our task—and therefore all the Whites must see to it that the numbers of Whites in South Africa do not diminish, but increase.

Mr Chairman, I should very much like to thank all the hon members who participated in the discussion of this motion. In the first place I want to thank the hon member for Brits, who moved the motion. Then, too, I should like to thank the hon member for Parktown—he really enjoyed playing a bit of politics now and again; however, I do not begrudge him that because he does not often get the opportunity—the hon member for Pietersburg, the hon member Dr Vilonel, the hon member for Durban Point, the hon member Prof Olivier, the hon member for Paarl, the hon member for Prof Olivier, the hon member for Paarl, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, as well as my nice hon grandfather, the hon member for Meyerton.

I thank the hon members for their contributions. I do not intend to react separately to each one’s argument. Indeed, there is not enough time for that. You will, however, allow me certain observations, Mr Chairman.

In the first place, I believe it is necessary for us to point out once more that in terms of the present programme, not a single sterilization is to be done without the express permission of, and the exercise of an absolutely free choice by, the woman concerned. I think it is necessary for me to make that clear once again.

In the second place I should like to contend, with reference to the question the hon member for Parktown put to me—he wanted to know where we are going to get all the officials to do this work—that the hon member, I believe, does not understand how the programme functions. It is a programme that involves the whole public service and, we hope, South Africa as a whole. There are 166 hon members in this House altogether. I hope that they will all do their share in order to make this programme succeed. If that happens the programme will be able to work.

Sterilize them all! [Interjections.]

So much for the officials. All nursing staff at present undergo a four-year training period. Their training includes a course in community medicine. A delegation from the Nursing Council paid a call on me and the Director-General of Health and Welfare the other day. They had come to inform us that we had 10 000 nurses at our disposal for this programme and its eventual success. This proves to us how genuinely positive people feel about this programme.

In addition to that, at this stage we already have people participating in the programme by supplying information on family planning. Altogether 2 349 people in our service are in this, helping to conduct the programme in this way. We also have 65 developers. I shall, however, return to this later.

It is therefore quite definite that the necessary people will be there to help with the successful implementation of the programme. As long as the will is there, the necessary number of people will also be there. Reference has also been made here to influx control, accommodation, Black education, and so on. However, now is not the time to talk about that. There will certainly be other opportunities later to discuss those matters.

I know how the hon member for Pietersburg feels about this. I know how deeply he feels about this matter. As far as White family planning is concerned, I do not feel very differently from the hon member. I want, however, to voice the warning that we shall find ourselves on a dangerous path if we attempt to create a spirit and atmosphere of competition in this regard. If we do this, we shall be the losers. I therefore call upon the hon member to exercise caution. In this case I urge him to exercise caution.

For a number of years we conducted a family planning programme that worked. That family planning programme was particularly successful. In the years during which that family planning programme was in operation—years during which many people worked very hard at it—the birth rate of the Coloured population of South Africa declined from approximately 46 per 1 000 of the population to approximately 26 per 1 000 of the population at that time, which is, quite simply, a wonderful achievement. It is an absolutely phenomenal feat that has been achieved.

After that we found we had worked ourselves into a comer; that further development was not possible. The whole world then began an attempt to improve peoples’ quality of life. It was not so many years ago that the world thought differently about this. I want merely to remind hon members that the UN, particularly in its relief programme in Africa, adopted the approach that all that was necessary was to hand out money to people and everything would simply be all right. Money was pumped into Africa on an incredibly vast scale. Gold beds were even bought for some heads of state, and money was spent on all sorts of other amazing and ridiculous things. Peoples’ quality of life, however, did not improve at all. This is why I think it is very, very important for us to reach agreement in this respect. I am therefore delighted to be able to say that in this debate I have not heard a single discordant note. We must, however, always remember that nowadays peoples’ quality of life can no longer be defined only in terms of money. Quality of life is defined by a variety of factors. Part of it is this family planning programme. As the hon member Prof Olivier demonstrated, other important factors in this respect are included, inter alia accommodation, education, health services, provision of employment, and so on.

Accordingly the population development programme was launched on the basis of this point of departure. Basically it was launched on 16 February 1984. On that occasion I said I thought that 16 February 1984 would become an historic date in South Africa; not because I launched the programme but because on that day we tackled a task with great possibilities, a task that could only entail better days, better opportunities and a better future in South Africa for everyone. Therefore, when I am asked how that programme was launched, I believe I can answer with conviction that on that day the interdepartmental committee that controls the course of this programme met for the first time. The committee is under the chairmanship of the Director-General of Health and Welfare. Not a single department is excluded from the activities of the population development programme. In fact, every department is expected to have its programme of activities in this connection in written form. This, however, is not all that is expected of each department. It is further expected that each department will report on the stage it has reached with reference to the implementation of this programme.

In this programme—and I shall refer to it again shortly—provision has even been made for monitoring its course. In this way we want to determine whether there has been progress. The Department of Constitutional Development and Planning is in fact engaged in devising a method whereby we shall be able to determine—at least on an annual basis, but we hope more often— whether progress has been made, and what kind of progress it has been. If we did not determine whether we were making progress, we would not be able to determine where deficiencies existed and where, for example, advance planning was necessary. The time at our disposal is short.

I agree with the hon member Prof Olivier, and when it is a matter of demographic forecasts, one hears all sorts of things. At the moment the department is working on this programme over a period of 25 years. If in 25 years we cannot achieve what we have to achieve, we have problems. It could happen that 25 years would be too short a time, but rather let us set our target on the short side in order to see how far we get.

It will be expected of me to say what we have achieved over the past few years with this population development programme. The fact is that—to single this out first—we started in the rural areas. About two years ago we launched a rural foundation. That rural foundation is growing phenomenally. We are grateful to have prominent agricultural personalities serving on this committee on a purely voluntary basis. Here I have in mind the Western Cape, where Mr Frans Malan of Simonsig is the chairman of this rural foundation programme. He is very enthusiastic and we are very grateful to him. There is also Mr Jan Boland Coetzee, who is particularly enthusiastic. In the Transvaal there is the chairman of the Transvaal Agricultural Union, Mr Nico Coetzee. I could continue in this vein.

In this time we have already reached the stage at which more than 1 000 farmers have voluntarily joined this rural foundation with a view to improving the quality of life of their workers. We of the Department of Health and Welfare help them with developers. We supply subsidies, but the major percentage of funds necessary for this rural development is contributed by the farmers themselves. The feedback that we are getting is that they are happy to contribute because the relationship between them and their employees has improved so much and because the productivity of the community has increased so much. After this period of two years we have the situation that we have already introduced approximately 1 000 farmers to this rural foundation, which exercises control over roughly 80 000 people.

It is far too little, but I must point out now that what we have already achieved in this connection has up till now cost the State R1,2 million in the form of subsidies. Depending on the extent to which we can develop, we shall be giving a larger subsidy to the farmers this year so that progress can be made in this regard.

We understand that there are approximately 70 000 farmers, and 80% of the production comes from 20% of those farmers. We think further that it is a reasonable assumption that 80% of the workers are employed by those 20% of the farmers. Consequently, we hope to be able to achieve particular success in this case.

As far as the business community is concerned, both Assocom and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut were very enthusiastic about the programme. We have recently had interviews with both of these bodies and both have promised to co-operate. I shall be asked in what way they co-operated. One does not need a lot of money, but just think of the following; if a large mining company appoints a developer or an information officer in the compound one can achieve certain possibilities. People in business support our programme.

Interviews have been held with all the organized women’s groups in the country to ask for their co-operation. They were all enthusiastic about it. Once one has women enthusiastic about the programme, the battle is won.

I recently spoke to a woman from Grabouw, where there are rich farmers. She told me that there were 40 workers’ families on their farm, and that no baby was born without her permission. [Interjections.] The hon members laugh but it shows what can be achieved by an ordinary housewife. Because she believes in her cause she can inform those people that it is in their own best interests not to have too many children. If all the ladies’ organizations could just provide encouragement and help where they can, this programme would have a bright future.

I have already recounted briefly how we are tackling problems in the rural areas of South Africa. There are also the independent and self-governing states. As far as the TBVC states and the self-governing national states are concerned, the rate of population growth is particularly high. The average number of children of a Black woman in those areas is approximately 6,2, as against the figure of 3,9 for a Black woman in the RSA. The hon members will realize that an increase of 6,2 is very close to the highest growth in the world today. I am not saying it is a record, but I think it is tremendously high.

The hon members have probably already heard, through reports on seminars held in Pretoria, that we have indeed made contact with these people. Through the Department of Foreign Affairs we have held talks with them. All the leaders involved were enthusiastic. They grasp the possibilities and they realize what is needed to make this programme succeed. Through the Multilateral Development Council, discussions are regularly organized with all of these Black leaders. That meeting decided to give its full support to the population development programme. Moreover, regular talks are held with them organized by the Multilateral Technical Committee on Health. We provide information there and we try to help.

The following has been more or less decided: Firstly, that the principle of the population development programme is accepted by all the states. Secondly, it was decided that every state should create and implement its own development programme. Thirdly, it was decided that talks between the RSA and the TBVC states would be continued and a work group established, which would look at the population development programme for Southern Africa.

Let us admit that contact with the national states is not what it ought to be. We are looking at that seriously because there is still a deficiency in that regard. With the help of the hon the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education we hope to make further progress there too.

Contradictions have been mentioned, such as too much tax and too few children, and too many children and too little tax. I think that with the necessary experience we shall reach the stage where the committee in control of the programme will have to come back to the Government and make recommendations as to what should be done in this connection. I do not want to talk about that at this stage because I do not think it is necessary at this stage. It has also been mentioned that each population group should be dealt with on its own. I want to go further. The whole programme should be carried out at a regional level. Contact has already been made with all the regional development associations. Seventy-seven population development associations have already been established in conjunction with regional development associations. Before the end of the month, 102 will have been established. In other words, people should be given help at a local level and they must be taught to help themselves; they should not just stand around and beg. Decentralization is therefore being developed so that the whole programme can be dealt with at a local level.

Several of these associations have already been established, for example, in Bellville for the South Western Cape, in Port Elizabeth for the Eastern Cape, in Bloemfontein for the Free State, in Durban for Natal, and in Pietersburg for the Northern and Eastern Transvaal. Others are in the process of being established. In addition, as far as the programme is concerned, the developers who were placed there by the department are making contact with the regional development associations through the regional advisory committees of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. We are very grateful to have that connection and wonderful progress is being made in this regard. Under the circumstances a particular number—I do not want to say a large number—of developers have already been appointed, and 65 of them are in the field. I can say that these people are very enthusiastic. Not one of them does not have a degree. In fact, some of them have Masters degrees and it is sheer enthusiasm that brings them there.

I regret that my time has now expired but before I conclude I should just like to say that more people are applying for these posts than we can accommodate. Sir, I am sorry that my time has expired.

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