Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to clause 1(a), which deals with the definition of Director-General. This definition now includes not only the Director-General of National Education, but also the Head of the Department of Education and Culture: Administration: House of Assembly. The CP feels that this could cause confusion because there is only one Director-General in the Administration: House of Assembly, and not one in each department. In any case we feel the Government is trying to create the impression here that the own affairs department of White education is just as important as and equal to the general Department of National Education.

Order! Hon members must first settle down before we can proceed. The hon member for Brits may proceed.

Mr Chairman, for these reasons the CP will vote against clause 1.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments to this clause printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Mr Chairman, I should also like to refer to the amended definitions of “Director-General” and “Minister” inserted by clause 1 (b) and (d), respectively.

As I indicated during the Second Reading debate yesterday in this regard, I believe that these proposed amendments by the own affairs Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly present us with certain legal problems. The first of these problems revolves around the provisions of section 28 of the principal Act and the question of whether this particular section falls under this hon Minister or not. As far as one has been able to ascertain, on 17 September 1984 a “Staatspresidentshandeling” was dispatched which allocated the principal Act to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly. However, on the same date a “Staatspresidentshandeling” was also dispatched to the hon the Minister of National Education allocating to him control of section 28 of that same Act.

As I see it, there are two particular problems involved. The first is that in the principal Act itself there are sections 28, 28A, 28B and 28C. The first part of the amended definition of “Director-General” concerns the Superintendent-General. I think one must accept that fact. In fact, I do not actually see why the hon the Minister did not use the term “Superintendent-General”. Be that as it may, however; I am not quibbling about that.

As far as the second part of this amendment is concerned, however, for the purposes of section 28A, the definition of “Director-General” is used to mean the Director-General of National Education. However, Sir, do I surmise correctly when I say that that means that as far as section 28B is concerned, where the expression “Director-General” is used, it does not mean the Director-General of National Education, but, in fact, the Superintendent-General of this department? I want to indicate quite clearly that I do not believe it is within the ambit of this hon Minister’s authority to do that. Perhaps he has obtained different legal advice. If so, I should be pleased if he would tell us.

The second point I wish to make refers to both the definition of “Director-General” and the definition of “Minister”, both of which are now proposed to be amended by the hon the Minister. In terms of the new definitions, for the purposes of section 28A, “Director-General” means the Director-General: National Education, and for the purposes of sections 28A and 28C, “Minister” means the Minister of National Education. My contention is that as far inasmuch as this hon Minister is amending a law which it is in his power to amend—in terms of the Long Title, “insofar as it is applied as a law on own affairs of the House of Assembly”—this hon Minister cannot amend a section—section 28—which applies to the other two Houses. My argument is, therefore, that this hon Minister does not have the power to amend a section which has in fact to be amended by the general affairs procedure of being referred to a standing committee and then being passed by all three Houses.

I raised this point yesterday during the Second Reading debate and I have subsequently also had a brief discussion with the hon the Minister. I would be very interested to hear his views on these two matters.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer in the first place to the argument of the hon member for Brits. What it mainly amounts to is that through this amendment own affairs is now being placed on an equal footing with general affairs, also as regards the Director-General. This in brief is his argument. What a totally ridiculous argument! Yesterday in the Second Reading debate I tried to indicate that the Technikons Act, which was initially incorporated in the Statute Book by the Minister of National Education, had been transferred in toto into the sphere of authority of the Minister of Education and Culture, with the exception of certain sections, for example section 28, regarding which the hon member for Pinetown also presented an argument. There is therefore no question of equalisation here.

What is being contemplated in this clause is that the entire Act as it now stands here is going to fall under the authority of the own affairs Department of Education and Culture and therefore also under the Superintendent-General of the Department of Education and Culture, but sections 28 and 28A, which deal with the constitution of the Committee of Technikon Principals and their functions, is a general affair in terms of the Constitution Act, and this alone will now fall under the Director-General of the Department of National Education. That is all that is stated here. In other words, there is absolutely no suggestion of the two being placed on an equal footing.

The hon member for Pinetown was so kind as to discuss his problem with me yesterday evening. I did clear up with the State Law Advisers whether the House of Assembly had the authority to legislate on these provisions. I want to refer the hon member to the Bill he has in front of him; it contains the crux of the matter. In the long title to the Bill it is stated:

Followed by these words, in parenthesis—

That phrase authorises the House of Assembly to debate this legislation and to make the entire Technikons Act an own affair, with the exception of the specific sections. I want to convey to the hon member the information which I received from the State Law Advisers in this regard. From the phrase I have quoted, it is clear that this Bill is only applicable insofar as it deals with the own affairs of the House of Assembly. The effect of this will be that after the passing of this Bill the principal Act will contain two definitions of “Director-General” and “Minister”; one insofar as the own affairs Act is concerned—this concerns what I debated with the hon member for Brits—and one insofar as the Act is applied in respect of general affairs. The legal advice I was given was that it was possible for the House of Assembly to legislate on this entire matter.

What about section 28B?

Section 28 as a whole is at issue.

The Technikons Act was transferred to the Minister of Education and Culture with effect from 17 September, with the exception of section 28. It is therefore clear that with reference to the directive I have just quoted, the Act as a whole has become an own affair of the White population group, with the exception of section 28 which remains a general affair.

Mr Chairman, I wish to discuss further the point that the hon the Minister has been explaining. He indicated yesterday—I have his unrevised Hansard here—that the present definition of “Director-General” for the purposes of section 28A referred to the Director-General: National Education. On that there is absolute clarity; there is no problem whatsoever. However, section 28B of the principal Act, which deals with offences and penalties, refers in the first portion to the following:

In effect, the person whom the hon the Minister is proposing to define as the Director-General in 28B should be his Superintendent-General. I would suggest, therefore, that he amends the reference to section 28A in the definition to include sections 28A and 28B. That would be the answer.

Mr Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the Director-General is only addressed in this legislation in respect of section 28A and not in respect of the other sections. The other sections are substantive sections and the amendment here applies only to section 28A in respect of the powers of the Director-General. That is why only section 28A is at issue here.

Mr Chairman, with due respect, I have heard what the hon the Minister said, but when this Bill becomes law, as it quite obviously will now pass through this House to become law, sections 28, 28A, 28B and 28C in the amended Act, as it falls under this hon Minister, will not be his responsibility but the responsibility of the hon the Minister of National Education. The hon the Minister indicates that that is correct.

For that purpose this hon Minister is amending the definitions of “Director-General” and “Minister” to allow for that possibility. That is quite correct and I have no problems with that in a technical sense. All that I am saying is that, if he does not include section 28B in his amending definition of “Director-General”, the legal definition of a Director-General in section 28B will be the following, and I read it as he is proposing it:

If that is correct, then, in fact, section 28B does not vest under the Minister of National Education but under the own affairs Minister.

Mr Chairman, this amending Bill deals with section 28A. That is all that is at issue here and if it were to become apparent at a later date that it was necessary to make a further amendment in this regard, we would do so then. [Interjections.]

Surely I will not allow the hon member to prescribe to me when I must do these things. If it appears to be necessary, we can do so at a later date; this legislation deals only with section 28A.

Amendments agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, clause 2 makes provision for the incorporation of education and training institutions of other Government departments into the Department of Education and Culture. We said yesterday that in principle we did not object to these educational institutions being incorporated in a technikon as subdivisions, but we do object to the educational institutions of general Government departments being incorporated in a White department of education, the Department of Education and Culture, because this has certain implications for education.

I do not want to point out these implications again. I merely want to state briefly, in the first place, that own affairs education is going to be further prejudiced in the process; in the second place, that increasing numbers of people of colour are going to fall under White education control; and in the third place that this is also going to have financial implications for the White education budget, as we spelt out yesterday.

The hon the Minister replied to our first two arguments yesterday, but neglected to say what his standpoint was regarding the financial implications for the education budget of the House of Assembly in this regard.

We also said yesterday that we had learned from the Department of Environment Affairs that the Saasveld Forestry College had already been incorporated as a subsection of the Port Elizabeth Technikon even before the legislation had been passed. Can the hon the Minister give us clarity on this? We shall oppose this clause.

Mr Chairman, I shall reply to the hon member’s last question first. Clause 2 merely authorises this. Clause 4 must be read in conjunction with it. Then it becomes clear that such incorporation may only take place with the permission of the State President. Clause 2 merely authorises this so that if it appears to be necessary, certain further steps can be taken to implement this. This is the first point I want to make to the hon member.

As regards Saasveld, I want to point out to him that the college has not yet been incorporated in the technikon as an institution. This can only be done in terms of the procedure I have just explained. Nothing prevents students who have attended Saasveld from enrolling for classes at a technikon. This can be done now. Any student can apply for admission and then attend specific courses at any technikon. At present, in terms of the policy of the technikons, including the Port Elizabeth Technikon, they themselves decide to what extent they will admit White students, and to what extent they will admit students of colour. This takes place in accordance with the policy they themselves lay down. I hope that answers the question of the hon member.

As regards the financial implications, I think we must tell each other today that the State coffers are not only filled by the income tax paid by the Whites, but also by the income tax which is levied on precisely the same basis from members of all population groups who earn a salary. What is more, the indirect contributions which people of colour make to the coffers of this country are phenomenal. They do this, for example, through their services to the mining industry or to the manufacturing industry, which make tremendous profits from which the State eventually benefits greatly as a result of the taxes which are generated. People of colour also make contributions in the form of excise duty on the cigarettes they smoke, the liquor they drink, etc. For that reason I now want to tell the hon member that the contribution to the State coffers of any other population group in this country is phenomenal.

When we are dealing with a White institution which also has the opportunity to render services in terms of the Constitution Act, and we try to calculate precisely what is available for each specific student, I think that borders on pettiness. I want to tell the hon member that when we render a service through institutions falling under the Department of Education and Culture, we do so primarily for the Whites. When we have the opportunity to render a service to the training needs of the other population groups in the process, which will eventually benefit everyone in this country, we do so with the greatest of pleasure. It does not give anyone cause for concern.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister would appear not to have understood the argument I advanced. It is determined in advance by means of a formula—this is a formula which after two years has not yet been made available to the Official Opposition in this House—which amounts of money will go to White, Black, Coloured and Indian education. Last year the education budget of the Whites increased by 8,8%, that of the Blacks by more than 40% and that of the Coloureds by 16,1%. My argument is that after an allocation has been made in respect of White education, a further allocation is now being made for people of colour from these inadequate funds, as the hon the Minister admitted they were last week in the House, available for our education. That is what I am opposed to. If the hon the Minister says that it is petty to make such a calculation, I merely want to remind him of the argument I used here yesterday. As regards students enrolled at White universities—these are White universities which are receive funds from the budget of the Department of Education and Culture of the House of Assembly—there are more than 26% students of colour enrolled at these universities.

If one makes a simple calculation, of the R837 million voted last year in the form of State subsidies for White universities, R216 million from the White education budget was used for people of colour. That is what the argument is about, namely that after the allocation has been made for the Whites, the Blacks, the Indians and the Coloureds, some of the small amount of money which we receive for White education is being given to the other groups. That is what is at issue. I did not say that the Blacks, the Indians and the Coloureds were not also entitled to an education budget. That is not the argument.

Mr Chairman, I want to reply to two arguments. In the first place, the hon member is conveying an incorrect perception to the people outside when he says that the budget for Black education rose by a specific percentage whereas the education budget of the Whites rose by a lower percentage.

That is correct.

Yes, what the hon member said was correct when he said it that way, but he also agreed that this conveyed an incorrect perception to the general public. What is the point? If one was is first given R1 and then a further R2, the percentage increase is 100%. However, if one has R10 and one only gets 10%, the increase is R1. That is the truth. The hon member knows that just as well as I do. It is with this kind of argument that the CP makes it their task to confuse the people outside. [Interjections.] I take this amiss of the hon member. The fact is that the A value of the Whites is higher than it is for the other population groups. In other words within the formula in respect of the Whites, per capita a higher amount is still being spent—for very good reason which I do not want to debate now—than is the case for the Blacks, Coloureds or Indians. The hon member must take this into consideration. He must take my word for this. He must therefore not keep on with these arguments in order to tell the public that money is being taken from the Whites and given to the Blacks because the increase in the subsidy for Blacks is more in a specific year than it is for the Whites. That is not the whole truth, and the hon member is not giving the full perspective. [Interjections.]

I now come to the second part of the hon member’s argument. The fact is that when it is decided to make a specific sum of money available to a specific university or a specific technikon, it is up to that autonomous body to decide for itself how it is going to use the money and what students it is going to admit. Theoretically it can happen that a specific technikon can decide that it is not going to admit any students of colour. It is entitled to do so. Another technikon may decide only to admit 1% or 2%. It is entitled to do so. However, the fact is that the latter technikon does not get more money for this. A certain amount of money is allocated to it, and in terms of this it, as an autonomous body, must run its university or its technikon.

Mr Chairman, I want to put a question to the hon the Minister regarding the formula in terms of which the allocation is made for the various departments of education. He said that in a certain sense the Whites were benefitted by the formula. That is what he said. That is at least one thing we know about it. The Whites were being benefitted by this formula. [Interjections.] Why is the formula not made available to the Official Opposition and the other opposition parties in the House so that we can debate it with the hon the Minister and his department and with the hon the Minister of National Education. Why after two years has it still not been made available to the House?

It is a secret.

Why are secret formulas being used which this side of the House knows nothing about?

The second point I want to make is that if the hon the Minister argue as he did here this afternoon, they are then are then guilty of what they are accusing the CP of, namely that we want to do something prejudicial to people of colour. He must pursue that argument to its logical conclusion and make an equal division of funds for education because they accept a unitary state. The hon the Minister is therefore going a little further than the CP, but he is still giving undue preference to the Whites in his unitary state.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect I want to say that what the hon member wants to debate now does not fall under this clause. If the hon member takes another look at Hansard he will see that there are specific good reasons for this. I never said that we were giving undue preference to the Whites. In this House it has frequently been debated that when, for argument sake, schools have a large percentage of pupils in matric, this results in a higher expenditure per child for the State than when the largest percentage of pupils are, for example, in standard one or two. The hon member can surely understand that. This is a consideration which must be taken into account when funds are allocated. The same applies in respect of the different technikons and universities, where specific matters which are unique to the specific institutions are taken into account when funds are allocated. I shall not debate this matter further with the hon member.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 6:

Mr Chairman, arising out of the point that I raised with the hon the Minister yesterday, I would like to ask him if it is envisaged at all that there will be further changes in the structure of the councils of technikons with regard to the number of ministerial representatives. I would also like to know whether it is likely that academic staff will be given some representation on these councils and whether students will be given representation as well.

Mr Chairman, clause 6 deals solely with the fact that past students have the opportunity to designate a member to serve on that council. What clause 6 is now providing here is that the past students of a division of an institution, which is transferred to a specific technikon, will have an opportunity, in conjunction with other past students, to appoint a representative of the past students. That is all that clause 6 entails.

The other matters which the hon member touched on yesterday were not at issue in this clause. For that reason I am not going to reply to them.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister made a comment in his address yesterday on a point raised by the hon member for Durban North. The hon the Minister has done exactly the same again here today. However, this hon Minister will acknowledge that in clause 1 which has just been approved by the Committee the entire transfer of the principal Act has now been placed in his hands. What this hon Minister is in fact suggesting is that the principal Act, having been placed in his hands, is not open for discussion. What we in these benches suggested yesterday during the Second Reading debate— which was not denied by the Chair when we brought it up and, in fact, discussed it—was that in the transfer of the principal Act from the Minister of National Education to the Minister of Education and Culture the whole orbit of that principal Act is open for discussion. Accordingly we in these benches believe that the hon the Minister has a responsibility to answer the question of the hon member for Durban North and to indicate whether changes in the composition of the council are envisaged.

Order! The hon member for Pinetown will appreciate that it is very difficult for the Chair to determine in detail everything that may be discussed in terms of the Bill under consideration. However, I have to point out to him that he may not discuss the principal Act at this stage.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask you for reasons for that ruling?

The hon member may not discuss the principal Act in terms of an amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on a point of explanation in connection with that matter? The definition of the word “Minister” in clause 1 has already been discussed in this House today. The definition has been altered from “Minister of National Education” to “Minister of Education and Culture: Administration: House of Assembly”. In effect the implications of that are to transfer the whole of the principal Act from one Minister to another Minister who has never administrated that Act before. We would aver that in transferring this Act from a general affairs Minister to an own affairs Minister or between any two Ministers, the orbit of the principal Act is open. What we are discussing, is whether this Minister should administer the principal Act.

Order! The hon member must confine himself to what he can construe in terms of the Bill under discussion. He may not go beyond that.

Mr Chairman, I am satisfied with your ruling, because I have the same feelings about this matter. As I have indicated, the amendment is not presently applicable to this clause, but should any technikon, or for argument’s sake any council, at any stage have problems with its composition such technikon or council will consult the Minister concerned in this regard, and this matter will receive attention.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr Chairman, we take note that the hon the Minister is amending section 25 of the principal Act which is concerned with the payment of moneys voted by the House of Assembly for the maintenance of technikons. I have one particular question relating to the point raised by the hon member for Brits in connection with the calculation of the payment of moneys to either technikons or universities. We confine ourselves to technikons in this case. We want to know whether the totality of student numbers at any particular technikon is taken into consideration for the payment of those subsidies or whether any restriction is made in the payment of moneys on the basis of race. Are all students considered for the subsidies or is the subsidy reserved only for the White students at technikons?

All students are taken into consideration.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon the Minister for that reply. It was a reply I had hoped for and expected.

Arising out of the hon the Minister’s reply, as I have said, he is amending subsection (1) of section 25 of the principal Act. I wonder whether the hon the Minister would indicate whether it is his intention to amend section 25 (2) in any way in order to delete the quota provision which he quite clearly no longer applies to the technikons as he stated in an answer to me several weeks ago.

Mr Chairman, when this matter is raised we shall give attention to it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr Chairman, this clause amends section 29 of the principal Act which is concerned with the delegation of rights and powers.

In the principal Act itself which is now open for discussion under this particular clause, the delegatory rights of the Minister were given to any officer in the Department of National Education or, as in terms of this amendment, to a council.

They were confined, however, to those powers entrusted to him by, and I am quoting from section 29 of the principal Act, “the proviso to section 3, the proviso to section 10(2), section 10(4), section 13(1), section 15 and section 16(1)”. There is no indication in the amendment contained in this clause as to why the Minister has extended his delegatory powers from the named sections in the principal Act to include everything, excluding section 30 which deals with regulations. Why has the hon the Minister deemed it necessary to so alter section 29 of the principal Act concerning the delegation of powers?

Mr Chairman, the first point I want to refer to is that what is stated in clause 15 is “the Minister may”, and not “the Minister shall”. In this connection it is our experience that in order to streamline the administration it is sometimes desirable in a large administration like this for one to be able to delegate powers to specific persons, whether it be to the institution itself or to competent persons in the department. I am convinced that the hon member for Pinetown will agree that this is a very good principle, as he does from Natal. We are now merely creating the possibility here, if it is deemed necessary to for the administration to work better, for powers to be delegated so that no bottlenecks crop up. The opportunity is therefore being created for this to be done, but this excludes the regulations as such, and that is actually what this clause provides.

Clause agreed to

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The application of the Wine and Spirit Control Act, which has as its objective the orderly marketing of wine and spirits, is vested in the “Kooperatieve Wijnbouwers Vereniging van Zuid-Afrika Beperkt”, better known as the KWV. The KWV must therefore constantly keep abreast of new trends in the industry which may have an effect on its control function. Where necessary amendments must be made to the Act from which the KWV derives its powers, functions and duties, to ensure that it can always act in the best interests of all interested parties.

The provisions contained in the amending Bill, which has now been submitted to Parliament for consideration, resulted from those developments in the field of production and marketing of wine and spirits. As a result of these developments the KWV is experiencing problems in carrying out its control functions properly. The amendments under discussion were therefore incorporated in the Bill at the request of the KWV and in consultation with all interested bodies.

Although the reasons for the proposed amendments are explained in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, I should like to elucidate and emphasise a few of them further.

The provisions of the Act relating to the fixing of minimum and quality prices for wine are very rigid. Taking into consideration various other provisions of the Act which also relate to minimum and quality prices, those prices can be fixed only in accordance with the alcohol strength of the wine. Under specific circumstances and in respect of certain classes, types and grades of wine this method is still the most satisfactory one. Because the alcohol strength is however not the decisive factor when it comes to the quality of wine, and the production of quality wines is therefore not promoted in this way it has become essential to introduce more flexibility into the relevant provision in the Act.

The area where the wine is produced, the class, type or grade, as well as the purpose for which it is produced, play a far more important role in the quality of wine. The provision proposed in this regard will therefore result in more market-related prices being laid down for different categories of wine.

†The power to allocate a quota to each winegrower in respect of the quantity of wine which he may produce and to impose levies in respect of the wine produced by each winegrower is granted to the KWV by the Act. The revenue collected from the levies is used by the KWV, in the first instance, to defray the costs incurred in respect of the application of the Act and secondly, to expand and stimulate the wine industry by way of promotion and research. It is therefore only right that every winegrower to whom a quota has been allocated should contribute towards the costs of the actions taken by the KWV in the interests of the wine industry.

The relatively narrow basis on which the levies are imposed has the result, inter alia, that a winegrower who enjoys the benefits and protection of the quota system but produces little or no wine contributes very little or nothing towards the expansion and promotion of the industry. Such growers, however, retain their quotas and may at any time begin to produce wine, which the wine industry will then have to accept and process. It may therefore be expected of winegrowers who enjoy the advantages of their unused quota also to make a contribution towards the funds applied in the interests of the wine industry as a whole.

*The quality of all wine and spirits is regulated by the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act. Control is also exercised over the importation of liquor in terms of that Act. The quality requirements with which imported spirits in particular have to comply, differ substantially, however, from those laid down by the Wine and Spirit Control Act in respect of locally produced wine and spirits.

It has come to light that imported spirits which need not comply with the strict requirements for local products, are being sold on the South African market at substantially lower prices. In order to protect the local industry, it is proposed that a provision be inserted in terms of which imported spirits must at least comply with the same requirements as the local product.

Taking everything into account it is therefore in the interests of the wine industry and the continued orderly marketing of the products produced by this industry for the provisions of the proposed amending Bill, which enjoys the support of all interested parties, to be agreed to.

Mr Chairman, when I inform the House that the CP supports the Bill under discussion, I am not doing so in my capacity as a winegrower. I am not a winegrower. I do this as someone who grew up in the Boland and therefore has the privilege of supporting this legislation.

There are two provisions in the Bill that have reference to wholesale traders. In the first place I want to refer to the definition of “wholesale trader”, as well as the provision that a certain quantity of wine that is purchased in one year has to be of one vintage. This definition causes certain practical problems. These practical problems are obviated completely by the deletion of the words “of any one vintage during one year”.

Secondly there is another provision that also deals with wholesale traders. That is the provision which enables the KWV to exercise effective control over the delivery of wine in bulk. Certain provisions that have reference only to wholesale traders at present are now being made applicable to all traders who deal in liquor.

Thirdly provision is being made that the KWV may sell spirits to winegrowers.

In the fourth place the amending Bill provides for differentiated prices for different categories of wine.

In the fifth place I should like to point out that regulations are now being included to authorise the imposition of levies based on respective quotas whether any wine is produced or not.

The question arose as to whether the KWV could incur liability in cases in which it acted in good faith. The Bill provides that should the KWV act in good faith in a certain case, it cannot incur any liability should any mistakes occur.

There are also cases in which certain information and certain returns have to be made available to the KWV. If the KWV requires such information, but it is not obtained, the Bill contains an enabling provision in terms of which that information and those returns can be obtained. In addition, all reasonable costs in this regard can be recovered.

Just as one has some liqueur to conclude every good meal that is enjoyed with good wine, I want to conclude with liqueur by mentioning that the labels of liqueurs made from other spirits often contain misleading indications. Provision is being made enabling such malpractices to be eliminated by means of regulations.

With these few remarks, whether the saying in vino veritas is true or not, it is the CP’s privilege to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, like the previous speaker, the hon member for Losberg, I come from the North, and I am no winegrower either. If the hon member could attempt to solve the winegrowers’ problems, I want to join him in trying to see whether we cannot provide relief for them. [Interjections.] I thank the hon member sincerely for expressing his party’s support for the Bill.

I only want to talk about clauses 9 and 10. Clause 9 deals with the levy that has to be paid to the KWV. There is nothing wrong with that, because it is in order. Unfortunately irregularities developed in the process in that when it was still the fashionable thing to do years ago, some farmers did what many enterprises did and formed their enterprises or farms into companies. Many people did this because it constituted great financial advantages.

There are also winegrowers who converted their operations into companies, but wanted to buy the grape harvest back for processing in their own cellars because they wanted their names associated with the final product—the wine we get in the bottle. When a person buys back his own harvest as a company, a book entry and a purchase transaction have to be registered on which he, as a company, has to pay a levy to the KWV. He then processes that harvest and makes wine which he sells under his personal name, but once again he has to pay a levy. This means that certain grape farmers sometimes have to pay two levies, and we do not agree with that. Consequently we should like to suggest a rectification in this connection. In fact, that is what has been requested, and we should like to see this implemented.

Clause 10 is less problematical. It deals with the returns that all grape producers have to fill in from time to time. This is done in many other industries as well, and it is a very good thing. It is done for the KWV because, as the hon the Minister put it, they have advertising and research costs which have to be covered by levies.

Returns are necessary to determine the levies, but many of the people who have to submit such returns—I do not think it is only the wine or grape producers who are guilty of this—do not do so, and the KWV has seen fit to appoint inspectors. If producers neglect to send in those returns, the KWV will send these inspectors to fetch them. These people also cost money; they do not work for nothing. The cost involved in collecting that information will then be recoverable from the producer who has not submitted his return in time. That is another rectification that we are proposing.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Meyerton raised a couple of technical points on which I will not comment.

This Bill is largely a technical measure amending various provisions of the Wine and Spirit Control Act, 1970, and of the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act, 1957. Perhaps I might be allowed to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister and to wine farmers to be very careful about the marketing of their product these days. It is pretty horrifying to see the prices at which some of our local wines and brandies are being sold. I believe, seeing that we are in any case producing a surplus, that the producers should not kill the goose that lays the golden egg, but should try to keep our products for our people as reasonably priced as possible.

We have no quarrel with most of this Bill, but I would like to refer the hon the Minister to clause 11, which inserts a new section 56A into the 1970 Act. The clause is headed “Restriction of liability” and reads as follows:

That refers to the KWV—

We in these benches believe that this is a disgraceful provision. Why should the KWV be given this blanket indemnity? There are many similar provisions on the Statute Book with regard to limitations on the liability of the State or any servants of the State, and this party has always opposed these provisions on the grounds that the State and its employees must be prepared to abide by and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Now this legislation is elevating the KWV and all its employees and committees to a situation in which they are above the law which applies to us ordinary mortals. We cannot support this and take the strongest possible exception to it.

I may say that we considered opposing the whole Bill because of this single objectionable clause, but I shall content myself with placing on record our strongest possible opposition to clause 11.

The rest of the Bill does not appear to be controversial. It is largely technical in nature and we will not oppose it.

Mr Chairman, I will return to the hon member for Bryanston later in my short speech. He referred to the liability provision, clause 11, and I intend to discuss that.

*In the first place I want to thank the hon member for Losberg for the support he expressed on behalf of his party. I also thank the hon member for Meyerton for his support and contribution. It is a pity that the PFP singled out only one little clause for the sake of opposition, but I shall come to that.

This Bill is of a technical nature, as the hon member for Bryanston rightly said. One can actually classify this Bill into three categories. In the first place the objective of the Bill is to facilitate things administratively, to make matters run more smoothly and actually to deregulate things to some extent. Clauses 1 to 4 and clause 7 and, of course, clause 9, to which the hon member for Meyerton referred, are examples of this.

In some cases it is also a matter of better control, as in clauses 5, 12 and 13. With reference to clause 12 one can say that the imported products should at least be of the same quality as the local products. Some of the things that are imported remind me of an anecdote in a book called Eksamenflaters about what a Std 5 girl wrote. She had to write something about alcohol and wrote:

[Interjections.] We want to elevate those beverages to the standard we maintain here in South Africa.

I think the hon member for Bryanston should read the clause correctly. Perhaps I should give him some motivation to do so first. This provision was included to protect the KWV and its directors and employees. This happens in any ordinary business enterprise or company.

The clause is applicable to those cases, and only those case, in which a bona fide mistake is made in any particular task, but not in the case of mala fide mistakes. I think that should solve the hon member’s problems. The KWV does not want a completely blank cheque to cover the KWV totally; this is only in the case of bona fide mistakes. The hon member should take a look at any company’s insurance portfolio, and he will find exactly the same preventive measures. In fact, any company that does not have this provision is stupid.

Hon members referred to two matters in respect of the price differences that we want to introduce. In determining the price of a good wine, we should like to have a quality price, a good wine price and a standard price legalised so that we can render a product to the public.

One person does not mind paying a lot for the best quality and another, like the hon members and I myself who enjoy a glass of wine in the evening, would like to have very good quality at a low price. [Interjections.] When one thinks of quality wine, for which one pays R5 and more in a bottle store, one must realise that the farmer’s share is approximately R1. Ordinary good wine is sold at approximately R3 of which the farmer’s share is approximately R0,53. Standard price wine, which we should like to offer the general public, and which sells at approximately R2 or R2,50 per bottle provides the farmer with R0,40. We are reducing the price so that we can offer people what they want in all price categories, but always wine of good quality.

Then there is the question of misleading practices. On a bottle of “brandy wine”, one will see or understand that the “brandy” is in large print and the “wine” in small print. The unfortunate person who does not read all that well buys it as a brandy liqueur. In reality what he is getting is a blend of brandy and wine and he is being misled as to both price and quality.

In conclusion I want to express my thanks for hon members’ support. I do not want to return to all the points the hon member for Losberg mentioned, because the CP is supporting this legislation, but I do want to ask the hon member for Bryanston to go and see what companies do to safeguard themselves. The KWV is doing this too, but the KWV is subject to an Act of Parliament. That is why we should like to have this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I am very grateful that hon members are so sympathetic towards this Bill, which rectifies certain administrative arrangements.

I wish to thank the hon member for Losberg, who replied on behalf of the CP. I cannot permit something he mentioned to pass without comment but I intend nothing serious in this. He said he had been raised in the Cape Province and had then moved to the Transvaal. This reminds me of what my mother always said: “Child, beware of growing up well and then going to the bad!” [Interjections.] The Transvaal seems to have that effect.

Did you listen to your mother?

I am still trying to. [Interjections.]

In any event thank you very much for the support. I think the hon member did justice to the most important aspects of the legislation that were changed by indicating them here.

As regards the hon member for Meyerton, who in his case was raised in the Transvaal, I can say in terms of this definition that he was raised badly but turned out well later because he sits on the right side of the House. He spoke about the elimination of the double levy and I thank him for doing so.

If I take the hon member for Bryanston and apply the same definition to him, he grew up badly and remained that way, because he grew up in the Transvaal and remained there! [Interjections.]

†That was just a jest in general, Mr Chairman.

I read the clause again because what the hon member said was quite relevant. I do not think anybody can tolerate people taking wrong decisions. If one looks at the clause correctly, one will find a qualification there, namely—

That is the qualification. One has to do with bona fide and not male fide actions.

Yes, but one must still be responsible for one’s actions.

Yes, even in good faith. That is when one has to judge whether a person acted in good faith, or whether he had other intentions. This is the difference and that is why we are amending the Act in this way.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he does not feel that the KWV should be responsible in the instance of somebody who makes a wrong decision, although he does so in good faith? Such wrong decision might have very serious effects for the people concerned.

The problem with restricting employees in that way will in the end limit all decisions. Any decision taken in good faith, with the relevant facts in front of one, may have some negative results. The fact that such a person will then be held responsible for such a decision will restrict employees in deciding on the basis of the facts before them and then coming to a logical conclusion in that specific case. That is why we are leaving some scope in this clause in regard to making a decision.

*When a person has a set of facts before him and has to take a decision about them, and he acts within the framework of the instructions of the people who employed him, evaluating the situation according to the facts at his disposal, he is then taking decisions after consulting with others. He may then act in accordance with such a decision and the outcome may be a negative one and a mistake may be made. This may cost that company money or may be detrimental in some way. In such circumstances his action was not deliberate and the legislation is now providing for this. If he had acted deliberately, or to further his own interests, that would have been a different matter. If one were to limit that employee in exercising his judgement, however, by holding it against him if he should make a mistake, it would be to the detriment of everyone.

One finds this type of wording throughout, in private firms as well as in the Public Service. The person must be allowed room to manoeuvre in taking decisions. Although I share the hon member’s concern about this, I think there is adequate provision in the legislation for dealing with this matter. [Interjections.]

I am grateful too that there are members like the hon member for Wellington who, if I may apply the definition further, grew up in the Cape Province and therefore grew up well. He also sits on the right side of the House so he has remained that way in adulthood. It is pleasant to have an hon member in the House who knows the industry thoroughly and is capable of solving any problems that may arise and of making a good contribution to the wine industry.

I thank the hon member for his support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The amendments contained in the Water Amendment Bill which is before the House today are small in magnitude and have the chief objective of facilitating the administrative processes and expediting the flow and finalisation of the functions within the Department of Water Affairs. With the exception of clauses 2 and 4, the clauses can be divided into two categories. I shall deal with them as such, because the clauses in the two categories share the same background and objective.

I shall deal with clauses 1, 6 and 8 first. Sections 58, 157 and 162, which relate to the construction of Government water works and water works to be constructed by irrigation boards or water boards with Government assistance in the form of loans or subsidies, require the submission to Parliament of reports on water works if the estimated construction cost exceeds the amounts laid down in the respective sections. The funds for this are provided for separately in the Appropriation Act. These reports are known as White Papers and usually contain a description of the works, what purpose the water is meant to serve, what the cost of the works will amount to and further particulars of a technical nature. Due to escalating construction costs, these amounts were in the past repeatedly adjusted by means of amending legislation. To obviate routine legislation of this nature in future, provision is being made in the Bill to empower the Minister of Finance to use his discretion in adjusting these amounts from time to time in the light of the prevailing circumstances.

†In respect of section 162(1)—clause 8—a further amendment is proposed which will avoid delay in the commencement of the construction of a waterwork already approved for subsidy purposes by the Minister, pending final approval of the subsidy. Such delays can in some instances cause a considerable increase in the cost of a waterwork due to escalating construction costs. Here, once again, it is the administrative procedures that are being facilitated, and the allocation of funds for the payment of any subsidy will still be vested in Parliament.

I come now to clause 2. Section 69(1) of the Act authorises the Minister of Water Affairs to delegate his powers of control over a Government waterwork to a number of statutory bodies. In order to open the way for the development of the recreational potential of Government waterworks to private enterprise, it is proposed that this power of the Minister be extended to include delegation to any person. Conditions to which such delegation is subject, will require the prior approval of the Treasury in terms of section 179(1)(c) of the Act. There are several dams that can be developed for recreational purposes which, however, the statutory bodies, for example the provincial administrations, do not have the funds for or do not see their very clear to undertake.

*The private sector and individuals are now being granted an opportunity to undertake such development. This proposed amendment is also in line with the Government’s purposeful campaign of privatisation.

In order to enable irrigation boards and water boards to take advantage of fluctuating interest rates in the capital market, it is proposed that these bodies be authorised to take up loans for the redemption of existing loans. At present this is not possible in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act. This proposal will make the “rolling of loans” possible by these institutions, which is a generally accepted procedure in loan management.

If this amendment were accepted, it would mean that such a board could redeem its loans that had been negotiated at high interest rates, with loans which it could negotiate at lower interest rates at a later stage. This would mean lower costs for the water consumer, and is in line with the Government’s policy of passing on the advantage of lower costs to the consumer.

I now come to clause 4. Instances often occur in which a water board is in a position to render its services to a particular consumer, but may not do so because the consumer does not fall within the area for which the board was established. It is not always justified to extend the area of the board concerned just for this purpose, and it is now being proposed that section 110 of the Act be amended to enable the Minister to authorise a water board to render such services in exceptional cases. The placing of this amendment on the Statute Book will ensure that parties outside the supply area of a board will be able to enter into agreement with the board to receive water from the works of such board. This will be more cost-effective for the consumer and once again the consumer will receive the benefit.

This, Mr Chairman, brings me to the end of my speech. In conclusion I should like to thank the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Fauresmith, and the chairmen of the respective standing select committees, as well as the members of the standing committee for their contributions.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I merely want to say that the Official Opposition supports this Bill. I should like to single out a few of the clauses that we regard as the crux of the legislation.

A provision contained in the 1956 legislation requires that reports on Government water works and other works that are constructed with the aid of Government loans and Government subsidies have to be submitted to Parliament from time to time if the estimated amounts are exceeded. It has often happened, especially as a result of the high inflation rates which have prevailed during the past few years, that certain adjustments have had to be made, and the only way in which those adjustments could be made was by effecting amendments to the legislation from time to time. In our opinion this was a cumbersome process, and it is being amended so that the Minister of Finance can determine and amend the amounts in future. As I have said, we regard this as a great improvement on the previous arrangement, and we should like to support it.

A further provision is that the authority of the Minister of Water Affairs is being extended with reference to the transfer of control over Government water works. The development of the recreational element of such works can be transferred to the private sector, for example.

A further provision in clause 3 is that the irrigation boards and water boards may, with the approval of the Minister, raise loans in order to redeem existing loans so as to benefit from prevailing low interest rates. According to clause 4, water boards can render services outside the areas for which the boards were established and can undertake the purification of water in such areas. Clause 8 provides that no subsidies on waterworks will be granted unless the Minister has approved such works.

We as the Official Opposition should like to support all these provisions. I conclude by saying that these amendments also have our official support.

Mr Chairman, I thank the Official Opposition for their support. I think there is very little to add to the explanation given by the hon the Deputy Minister in respect of this legislation. My speech will therefore be brief.

Clause 1 mainly concerns procedural changes that are being facilitated. This clause deserves one’s wholehearted support. In the present legislation the Minister limits the transfer of control and the management functions of Government water works. The purpose of the amendment in clause 2 is the transfer of this control to extend other functions to other institutions and even private institutions.

It is interesting that the Njelele Dam and the Goedertrou Dam, for example, were built in South African territory, whereas the basins of these dams are situated in national and self-governing states. It makes sense therefore, to have a degree of control in respect of the areas of the dam basins. This control must be made possible by legislation so that it can be transferred to these people under certain conditions.

I want to comment briefly on clauses 3, 5 and 7 which provide that irrigation boards and water boards may redeem old loans and negotiate new loans at lower rates.

The hon member for Nigel has referred to the specific advantage to be derived from this, and that is why these clauses have our full support.

Clause 6, which has reference to loans to irrigation boards, amends section 157 of the principal Act so that the fixed amount can be deleted and the amount adjusted by the Minister of Finance so that the effect of inflation can constantly be taken into consideration. This is a meaningful amendment which prevents us from having to give attention to this provision year after year. We should like to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is interesting that we now should be discussing a water Bill straight after discussing a wine Bill. I do not know whether this has any significance. I regret that the other hon Deputy Minister has left, because I was going to take the opportunity of saying to him that two good things come out of the Cape—the wine and the road to the Transvaal. [Interjections.]

This Bill seeks to amend certain technical provisions of the Water Act and we have no problems with most of the clauses which are before us. We do, however, have a major quarrel about clauses 1, 6 and 8(b), and I voted against these on the standing committee.

With regard to clause 1, in the past Parliament has had to be consulted and has had to give its agreement before construction could commence on any water work with an estimated cost of more than R10 million. That R10 million envisaged a certain level of work and with inflation that amount has obviously had to be upped from time to time over the years, so that the same level of work could be carried out. Upward adjustments have been made with parliamentary approval, and this happened relatively frequently because of the fall in the value of the rand as a result of inflation. Each time the figure became too low, Parliament had to legislate for a higher figure. Clause 1 of the Bill now seeks to change this and to remove Parliament’s supervisory discretion. If this clause is approved, in future the Minister of Finance must decide on the value of work which needs parliamentary approval.

In the first place we believe that this envisages continuing inflation on a fairly massive scale. It seems to indicate that there is very little confidence in the hon the State President’s anti-inflationary measures as far as this hon Deputy Minister and the department are concerned. If inflation is going to continue to run rampant we believe it will be a good thing for the Government to have to suffer the embarrassment of coming back to Parliament to show up their failure each time they have to up the value of work that can be carried out.

Secondly, and more important, we do not like this clause because a right which Parliament itself has exercised is being removed. If this measure is approved the Minister of Finance in future will have the say and no parliamentary approval need necessarily be required, because he can make an arbitrary decision. It is tied to no particular yardstick.

Clauses 6 and 8(b) have similar implications and do not have our approval. When large sums of public money are being spent—R10 million is no small sum—we believe that Parliament itself should be in a position to veto a project before a commitment to go ahead is made. As the hon the Deputy Minister knows, estimates on water works tend to be much lower than the final costs, but once a project has been commenced it is very difficult to stop it, because one has already invested so much in it.

The remainder of the Bill has our approval and, having made our attitudes to those particular clauses a matter of record, we shall not oppose the Bill.

Mr Chairman, arising out of the opening remarks of the hon member for Bryanston, I can only presume that Bryanston is in the Transvaal.

I would just like to extend my compliments to the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Fauresmith. I must say that he conducts the meetings of that standing committee competently and it gives me much pleasure to have that fact recorded in this House.

Mr Chairman, the contents of the Bill have been dealt with adequately by previous speakers and it is not my intention to repeat much of what has already been said. I do want to emphasise, however, two particular aspects of the Bill. In the first place I welcome the fact that the Bill attempts to overcome delays and to reduce the red tape associated with the construction of water works which cost in the excess of R10 million.

In the past one was only too aware of the fact that protracted delays occurred which resulted, as the hon the Deputy Minister has indicated, in escalating costs.

Clause 3 is possibly the most positive clause in the whole Bill. Provision is now being made whereby irrigation and water boards are now to be empowered to obtain finance to replace existing loans which may have been raised during the period when high interest rates prevailed by raising new loans at a lower rate of interest. I feel this is particularly pertinent at the present time when the irrigation and water boards face enormous costs to restore the many works which have been damaged so severely in recent floods. It is obvious that the direct costs of restoration to these boards will be enormous, in spite of the flood relief measures that have been made available in their various forms.

I appreciate the fact that the provisions of this Bill will materially assist in alleviating the additional burden that the relevant boards will have to carry as a result of these recent disasters. With that, Mr Chairman, I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House are grateful to the hon member for Mooi River for supporting the Bill. I would like to return to the hon member for Bryanston a little later.

I am pleased to be able to speak in support of this Water Amendment Bill. What pleases me most, is the motive which is addressed, namely deregulation with the objective of streamlining the process of management functions or certainly to promote better government. The initiative will from now on be vested in the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Water Affairs, and also the members of the irrigation and water boards. The flexibility created within the laid-down parameters will go a long way towards eliminating often justified complaints about State bureaucracy.

Cumbersome legislation lies at the root of the public’s perception of bureaucracy. Allow me, Sir, to mention a few practical examples where the process of streamlining achieves our goal.

With reference to the proposed amendment of section 58 of the Water Act in clause 1 of the Bill: If an irrigation board intended building a dam and the cost incurred exceeded the amount voted by Parliament, say five years ago, even by a small amount, then the project would be delayed until such time as Parliament tabled an amending amount. To obviate this cumbersome and timeconsuming procedure, the Minister of Finance is empowered to determine the amount from time to time. This allows the project to continue if he approves.

The amendment to section 69 of the principal Act in clause 2 of the Bill should be welcomed as vast tracts of inland waters can now, with the consent of the Minister of Water Affairs, be utilised by the entrepreneur for recreation, generation of power or any other purpose to which the situation may lend itself.

The new Inanda Dam on the Umgeni River which will supply Durban with water in due course, is situated in KwaZulu. This dam, so close to hundreds of thousands of people, should become a recreational mecca. This legislation should allow all parties involved the freedom of decision-making to attain this dam’s potential. It should of course contribute immensely to relieving the pressure on our beaches.

The proposed amendment to section 93 will relieve boards of the adverse effect of high fixed interest rates. Boards are now being placed in a position to apply their minds to the matter, with obvious financial benefit.

We have a good example in Natal of the application of section 110 of the principal Act, where the pipelines of the Umgeni Water Board supplying the metropolis run through KwaZulu. The board in time commenced supplying water to the local population serving not only to develop the people and the quality of their life but also to improve sound human relations. Although this was not the board’s primary objective this new legislation will promote this type of development over a much wider region. By the adoption of this Bill water boards will be placed on the same footing with irrigation boards. We are looking forward to some very exciting development stemming from this exercise.

The amendment in respect of section 121 of the Act is similar to that in respect of section 58, allowing the Minister of Finance to make certain decisions. Although the parameters are set for when a scheme exceeds or deviates substantially from its original capacity, the Minister has to apply for parliamentary approval of his decisions.

I should like to return now to the hon member for Bryanston, Sir. I fail to understand the reasoning behind the PFP’s objection to more initiative being granted to the Minister of Finance. Surely a wider delegation of authority is essential in any successful business enterprise. Why should this not apply also to the management of State?

[Inaudible]

Sir, I maintain that it is sufficient to have the Minister of Finance report to Parliament on a regular basis. Are the PFP in favour of hamstringing or bureaucratic delays? That is exactly what this side of the House is eliminating with this legislation.

[Inaudible.]

No, Sir, I believe the PFP’s fear is that a good government will govern them out of existence. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by thanking the hon member for Nigel for the support he pledged for this amending legislation. The hon member pointed out that important aspect of the adjustments which normally have to be made by means of legislation and which, of course, have been a very cumbersome process. Adjustments which had to be made in the past were due to inflation and the escalation of costs. In this new manner they are now being facilitated. The hon member also referred to the privatisation programme. It has now become the general policy of the Government to privatise as far as possible in order to afford private enterprise the opportunity of also developing recreational resorts etc in dam basins. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

Next I want to thank the hon member for Fauresmith. I have already thanked the hon member in my Second Reading speech for the lead he gave in the standing committee also in respect of other legislation which has a bearing on agriculture and on water affairs. I also want to thank him for the contribution which he has now made here in respect of this legislation.

†I should just want to point out to the hon member for Bryanston that Parliament is still the only authority that can approve any Government expenditure by way of approving its budgets. If this amending legislation is passed the Minister may, without an amendment to the Act, determine the limit below which a White Paper need not be tabled. In the case of Government water works this figure is at present R10 million, and for irrigation and water works, as well as in respect of individuals, this figure is R2,5 million.

Regarding the second objection raised by the hon member for Bryanston, I should like to explain to him that the present situation is that a local authority cannot commence the construction of its water works until the main Budget has been approved. This amendment provides that a local authority can continue with its work as soon as its application for a loan or a subsidy has been approved. This will save local authorities a lot of money, Sir.

I should also like to thank the hon member for Mooi River for his support. He remarked on a very important fact, namely the obtaining of loans at lower interest rates. This will also save local authorities and individuals a great deal of money. I thank the hon member again for his support.

The hon member Mr Redinger pointed out the numerous benefits to be derived from the passing of this Bill. The hon member also dealt very effectively with the hon member for Bryanston and I thank him for his contribution.

*Mr Chairman, I thank all hon members who have given this amending Bill their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Rand Water Board Statutes (Private) Act, has been on the Statute Book since 1950 and prior to that there were other laws which governed the activities of the Board or its predecessor. This Act is not one which needs to be amended frequently, but it is now necessary to facilitate the administrative processes in the powers of the Board and to incorporate new developments in the sphere of water resource management in the relevant Act.

I should therefore like to deal briefly with the proposed amendments and when the clauses can be grouped under one category, I will deal with them simultaneously.

Clauses 1 and 7 are related and they can therefore be dealt with as a unit.

Section 49(2) of the Act at present makes provision for a three-tier tariff structure which distinguishes between foundation consumers, pre-ferent consumers and other consumers and affords a preferential tariff to foundation consumers vis-á-vis preferent consumers and a preferential tariff to preferent consumers vis-á-vis other consumers. The establishment of several new local authorities in the supply area of the Board, which previously formed part of the area of jurisdiction of a foundation local authority, has resulted in practice in these new local authorities having to pay more for water supplied by the Board in terms of the Board’s prescribed tariff structure. In order to eliminate this anomaly, it is proposed that the present tariff structure be modified to provide for a two-tier tariff which only distinguishes between preferent consumers and other consumers. This will mean that foundation consumers will pay approximately 2,9% more for water, but will at the same time also have the effect that existing privileged consumers and the new local authorities will enjoy an advantage of approximately 6,1% on the present tariff structure. The difference in the positions of the two groups of consumers is due to the difference in the quantity of water consumed by them; in other words, the current foundation local authorities are the largest consumers of water at the moment.

An amendment was also made by the Standing Committee so that regional services councils could also be placed in the category of privileged consumers. I believe that this is another step in the right direction and consequently I support that amendment. The role of regional services councils is increasing in importance and cannot be ignored.

†Clauses 2, 4 and 10 are a further group that can be dealt with as an unit for purposes of explanation.

In the standing committee a substituted clause was accepted. I have no objection to this either. The amendment is that the provisions of section 21 of the Water Act, 1956 (Act 54 of 1956) are also made applicable to the Rand Water Board. The board has its own laboratory that monitors water quality and I believe the board has an excellent record in this regard. I believe that the board has always maintained a high standard regarding quality requirements, as it realizes only too well that millions of consumers are affected by its activities.

Water recovered through the purification or treatment of effluent constitutes to an increasing extent an important source of water which can be utilized. In order to optimize the utilisation of water resources on a regional basis, the Water Act, 1956, was amended in 1981 to vest the power to purify, treat or dispose of effluent, in water boards established under that Act.

In the amending Bill that is before the House it is proposed, for the same reasons, that the same powers be vested in the Rand Water Board, which was established by its own Act.

These powers, which are already vested in other water boards, are now also made applicable to the Rand Water Board so that it may undertake such works as well. I wish to stress the word “may”, as a regional services council may also decide to establish such a works or to have it established within the supply area of the Rand Water Board.

*Clause 3 deals with an increase in the number of members of the Board. In terms of section 5 of the Act, the controlling body of the Rand Water Board currently consists of nine members appointed by the Minister of Water Affairs, after this power had been transferred to him by the Transfer of Powers and Duties of the State President Act, 1986 (Act 97 of 1986), with the object of achieving a reasonable representation on the Board of its different consumer sectors, of which local authorities are an important component. The gold mines and industries are of course the biggest consumers.

In view of recent developments as regards the local authorities within the Board’s supply area, it is proposed that the membership of the Board be increased to not more than 12, to provide more scope for even better representation.

In clause 5 an attempt is being made to place the Board’s administrative powers on a better and easier basis. Section 33 of the principal Act compels the Board to appoint a finance and executive committee to regulate and control the finances of the Board, and this requires that estimates be submitted to the Board by the committee before any cost, debt or liability in excess of R10 000 may be incurred.

Measured against the cost of services nowadays, this limitation places an unnecessarily heavy burden on the activities of the Board as such. In order to eliminate routine amendments of this nature in future, it is proposed that section 33 be amended to enable the Board itself, from time to time, to determine this amount that has to be submitted to it, as circumstances require.

The Board as such still remains responsible for its conduct and actions, and because the Board has always acted with great circumspection, I believe that it will continue along these lines and that it will act judiciously. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, it is very difficult to operate efficiently with a Whip standing or, for that matter, sitting next to one.

Clause 6 deals with interest rates. Where interest rates are subject to frequent changes, it is essential that the provisions of the Act applicable to interest rates be flexible. Section 48 of the Act prescribes a fixed rate of interest that must be charged on any amount which is due to the board for water supplied by it and which remains unpaid on the date determined for payment.

This inflexible provision has an excessively penalising effect on consumers during periods of low interest rates in the capital market on one hand and acts to the detriment of the board during periods of high interest rates on the other. A more flexible approach is proposed in clause 6, in terms of which the board will determine the rate of interest from time to time taking the prevailing rates of interest in the capital market into account.

This brings me to the last two clauses, namely clauses 8 and 9, which also have a bearing on the financial administration of the board. Sections 64 (1) and 97 (1) of the principal Act place a limit on the borrowing powers of the board by way of overdrafts from its bankers or the issuing of bills. These limits are presently expressed in fixed amounts which, due to the declining value of money, are no longer adequate. In both instances a flexible mechanism for the determination of these limits is proposed, which will obviate the necessity of adjusting these limits in future by means of amending legislation.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

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

I shall be doing the spadework around this subject in broad outline only because the end result will be a team effort, made together with my hon colleagues on this side of the House.

On 1 April 1986 the administration of White education was rationalised so that there would be only one policy-making, supplying, financing and co-ordinating head office, with four executive education departments under the hon the Minister of Education and Culture: Administration: House of Assembly. The Minister determines the policy after consultation with statutory bodies and the Committee of Heads of Education advises the Minister on an ongoing basis.

Adapting or terminating the historical conventions and forms of institutions, financial allocations, provision of staff, post structures, whether or not institutions will continue to survive, etc. could be or become traumatic.

When an education structure as established through legislation for the present situation in South Africa produces an end result such as the one being discussed today, one realises that a decision such as this one is taken only after intensive and in-depth consultation and inputs by responsible educationists, and after responsible fixed norms, which will have to be adhered to faithfully, have been specified throughout South Africa.

In my short life I witnessed the closing of farm schools in the late thirties. In my teaching career I had the traumatic experience of witnessing the closing of a teachers’ college in the Transvaal, the Heidelbergse Onderwyskollege. With all the tears, heartache and nostalgic sentiments of exstudents and people who had gone there over the years, it was regarded as a lamentable factor in the history of education.

At the same time I, as executive head, concede that every financial allocation to a school that does not come up to expectations has an effect on education. [Interjections.]

Were the Government of the day nevertheless to govern without taking into account the given situation, it would not be worthy of the name of government. I am therefore not apologising in this House that today we are doing exactly what is under discussion here. We are of course not excited about it; at the same time, I am not in the least unconcerned about the subject under discussion.

However, what does a government do if in a particular area or neighbourhood there are no longer enough children to justify a school? What does a responsible government do if the demand for educationists, teachers and academic staff decreases as a result of this? What does a government do if there is an oversupply in institutions of learning or if it sees that the training it is engaged in would ultimately result in highly qualified staff being out of work? Can a government then allow students simply to follow a particular course, whether or not there will be opportunities or places for them in the economy?

For the sake of perspective I want to mention that from 1910 to 1967 an educational system developed to form the root of the then mainly primary and secondary education, as well as tertiary education, which developed mainly around the university institutions. Except for the last-mentioned all these facets were under the control of the four provinces.

Vocational education, commercial education, special schools, education for the handicapped, technical colleges and other forms of these institutions developed from time to time in places where they were needed, but were joined under the unaccountable name given at the time, higher education.

In this way divided education in South Africa has developed over the past 70 years or more. The legislation of 1967 had in fact already started to effect fundamental changes. In the course of time technical and commercial education were also placed under the control of the provinces. A great fuss was made about this, too. Fortunately this fuss has already died down and today there is general satisfaction with regard to this matter.

Special education and technical colleges, however, remained outside. Then followed the HSRC report of 1981 which contained important recommendations, including the one that a single ministry fulfil the need for a national education policy. This was accordingly embodied in the Constitution. A further recommendation in that report was that a South African council for education be created which could advise on matters falling within the purview of the hon the Minister of National Education. This has been done. This council is in operation. It was further recommended that a macro-policy determine the central policy, while at the same time the executive provincial education departments implement their education policy and accept responsibility for it. This recommendation has also been put into effect and is working well.

It has been recommended that the highest possible level of autonomy be given on the local level, and that local parent associations and the local teachers and management obtain a meaningful share in decision-making. This, too, has already been put into operation. For that reason, and after thorough study of foreign education systems, one massive unitary education system has been found to be undesirable, all the more so because the multinational population structure of the RSA gave further support to this same principle.

In the midst of this and thereafter—even after the publication of the HSRC report—the Government still persisted in adhering to its standpoint that education itself is always specific because it has to be in accord with the specific parental homes and communities served by it. Furthermore, the Government undertook—and is still doing so today—to make co-ordinated resources available to the system, to carry the basic and essential financing, but with a view to the promotion of the highest management autonomy and administrative efficiency to decentralise in order to ensure that every rand is correctly spent—all this while equal standards are being pursued, and while giving a substantial basis to the education of the communities to enable them to deal with the new demands of the future towards which we are working.

The teaching profession as a whole tackled this idealistic task with zeal. We have also come to realise that the financial demands entailed by auxiliary, supplementary educational programmes, in terms of cost, with the State as the sole financial provider, have developed disproportionately. The provision of staff, essential aids, administrative and extramural requirements, integrated cultural programmes, buildings, the maintenance of buildings, new schools at new growth points, universities, technikons and so on, while in the older areas the supply and demand are diminishing, demanded drastically new approaches. Rationalisation, adjustment and community involvement supplementary to the basic provision have become not merely essential, but urgent. We have already united the diversity of education legislation into a single piece of legislation. The regulations of the four provinces will soon be replaced by a single set of regulations which will be binding on all four provinces.

The designations, composition and powers of divergent statutory boards is being made uniform. Appointment procedures, conditions of service and disciplinary measures for staff are being made uniform.

Regulations regarding the control and management of schools and boarding houses are being made uniform. When I add up all of these things I have just mentioned to hon members, one sees that the professional advisory boards, the statutory boards of our education that assist the hon the Minister, have done a tremendous amount of work over a period of less than two years. I think this is a very great achievement.

Savings have been, and will have to be, brought about when we look at the financial demands regarding what I have already mentioned. Savings could be effected by suspending the maintenance of sports grounds, by curtailing temporarily the in-service training of teachers—I am talking about in-service training—by keeping teacher training strictly within the bounds of expected demand, with the associated stricter screening. Investigations have established that these are areas in which we can effect savings without lowering our standard of education. Specific courses at the universities and technikons that were not effective, have been rationalised or phased out. Departments of institutions are being consolidated rather than expanded, and the stricter screening of students must ensure the better spending of public funds.

Being the first speaker in this debate, I trust that there will be a responsible discussion and that it will lead us to the achievement of fruitful results in the course of the year. My appeal is that we see in this the hand, the heart and the intellect of our chief educationists throughout the RSA. I want this to be taken cognisance of with appreciation because great sacrifices are called for by the everyday demands. I am making an appeal for us to approach these matters with appreciation, since it was in fact they who told us they had been instructed to do this. Although this was an instruction, they also eventually accepted it as a task on which everyone would co-operate and which everyone would then dispose of as an activity of the immediate present.

I want to thank most sincerely the hon the Minister and his department, his advisory board, his very capable superintendent-general and his staff, the provincial executive committees and the teachers in general that were involved in this for the hard work they have done in this regard.

Since in the rationalisation process we also have to deal with the financial situation of the day, let me say before resuming my seat that when we pluck the fruit of our labours—we are indeed going to pluck the ripe fruit of these labours—we should not forget the exemplary dedication, loyalty and zeal with which these men and women of the teaching profession have themselves rolled up their sleeves and acted as one massive body when their country asked it of them. [Interjections.] With this I introduce a very broad subject for discussion.

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

1. (1) to supply basic needs;
2. (2) to make sufficient funds available;
3. (3) to maintain educational standards; and
4. (4) to carry out rationalization according to educational principles.”.

We on this side of the House observe that there is only one hon Minister and one hon Deputy Minister present in the House. They are the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and his Deputy Minister, who of course have to be here this afternoon. We want to ask whether this is indicative of the interest the Cabinet has in this extremely important matter being discussed here today. [Interjections.]

The amazing thing about the motion moved here this afternoon by the hon member for Brentwood, is that the Government dares to discuss White education at this particular juncture. They dare to say that this Government is maintaining standards of education and they do so after the Federal Council of Teachers, the mouthpiece of the 75 000 White teachers in the country said only a few days ago that they seriously doubted whether it was within the means of the Government to do so. They dare to praise the hon the Minister by implication because he ostensibly managed in financially difficult times not to cause White education to suffer. That was said here in this House last week after he had made an admission which was unprecedented in the history of White education in this country. I want to quote the hon the Minister:

Again I say it is amazing that the NP dares to come here this afternoon and discuss education after making such a blatant admission of incompetence. [Interjections.] Their behaviour reminds me of the whale’s strange behaviour pattern. Sometimes it happens that a school of whales simply beach themselves. Nothing can stop them and one cannot get them back into the water. They have, as it were, a death wish and want to destroy themselves. Scientists say it is possible that they beach themselves by following their leader that wants to commit suicide. [Interjections.] The NP’s behaviour reminds me of this inexplicable death wish that whales have.

Last week the hon the Leader of the House risked his political life on television. He got a thrashing which was strikingly reflected in the two byelections. But would you believe it, here the hon member for Brentwood has swum along after his leader and beached himself. [Interjections.] He spoke about the most embarrassing issue for the NP at the moment, namely White education. [Interjections.]

This side of the House wants to tell the Government frankly and straight from the shoulder this afternoon that they have failed to provide the basic needs of White education. By basic needs I mean, apart from proper physical facilities which keep abreast of the needs of the times, the following as well: A competitive remuneration package for teachers, lecturers and administrative personnel; the proper training and in-service training of personnel in order to meet the challenges of education effectively; educational planning; and so on. It is very clear to us that the Government is no longer capable of providing these needs. They are so caught up in the web of their power-sharing policy, which of course also means a redistribution of Government funds for education, that they can no longer give White education what it is entitled to.

A secret formula now determines what the Whites will receive for education, and no one can negotiate with anyone about it. All that we on this side of the House know about that formula is what the hon the Minister of Education and Culture told Beeld on 17 February this year, namely that it was based on the number of pupils in the various departments.

That is self-determination!

Evidently that is also the reason why money is so tight in White education at the moment. The number of White pupils is at present approximately 1,055 million. On the other hand the number of Black pupils alone, is approximately 6,5 million, if the independent states are included. The Head: Public Relations of the Department of Education and Training says the number of Black pupils is increasing every year by 250 000. In order to accommodate those pupils, 300 large schools have to be built and 8 000 teachers trained annually.

That is the reason for the drastic cut-backs that are at present being made in White education. Last year all four provincial education departments had to cut costs drastically. I want to mention one example to hon members.

On 15 January the Cape Education Department issued an instruction to the effect that a 25% cut had to be made on reference works, prescribed works and supplementary teacher’s manuals. On 14 April a further instruction was given, namely that a 10% cut had to be made on all consumable items, and on 18 May an instruction followed that a 25% cut had to be made on water, electricity and telephone accounts. That is the situation developing in White education in this country. [Interjections.] These cuts were not only limited to schools; they affected tertiary education. This year the Pretoria Technikon, according to newspaper reports, has had to abolish 24 posts because it is receiving R5,3 million less in Government subsidies for lecturing staff. University subsidies have been cut by 25%, to the great detriment of research and the retention of academic staff.

I also want to refer to the salaries of teachers, which at present is a very topical matter. The CP finds it alarming that a conflict had to develop between the authorities and the organised teaching profession. It does the image of education no good. We believe the teaching profession has been forced by the Government into a position in which they could not but confront the Government. The consequences for education inherent in the loss of key personnel has compelled responsible educationists to call the Government to account.

This afternoon I once again make an urgent appeal to the Government, in the interests of quality education and therefore the maintenance of standards in education, to reconsider those well-motivated submissions made by the Federal Council of Teachers. It remains the standpoint of this side of the House that teachers and lecturers are entitled to at least the same remuneration package as those of equivalent positions in the rest of the Government sector.

We consider it to be in the interests of education that the proven 11% backlog with respect to the rest of the Government sector has to be eliminated. The Federal Council of Teachers enjoys the support of the CP, the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, to negotiate this. We are seriously concerned because the Government is not providing what in our view is a basic need, namely a competitive remuneration package for teachers. We warn the Government that if they proceed in this vein as far as White education is concerned, we shall experience a day in which we in this country shall have to be satisfied with Third World educational standards. In all earnest we want to tell the Government, for whom White education is no longer a high priority, that the education of our children most intimately affects our future in this country.

Shame on you!

For that reason we as Whites will not accept that for the sake of the upliftment of other peoples, our own children’s education must suffer and that their basic needs are not being provided. The hon members on the other side who shouted “shame” must remember that the Federal Council of Teachers said that it was so.

Remember you are an exclergyman.

Order! The hon member for Benoni is making too many remarks. Other hon members of the NP will also participate in the debate and can state their points of view at that stage.

With its policy of parity, the Government has saddled a horse they will not be able to ride. According to the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid they must at this stage already sell the country’s assets in order to finance Black education.

This afternoon we want to tell the Government on behalf of the Whites that we are a developed community, and we demand, as people who last year paid 92% of the personal income tax in this country, to have First World standards in our education.

This afternoon the hon member for Brentwood assertively claimed that White educational standards were being maintained in this country. Who ought to know better? The hon member who was active in education years ago or the organised teaching profession? I quote what they say about that:

What are the educators telling the Government with this statement?

They say the Government’s assurances are at variance with what is happening in education in practice, and surely that is exactly what we have been telling the Government for years now about many other things—what they say does not tally with what is happening in practice.

This afternoon there is something I have to get off my chest as far as the hon the Minister of Education and Culture is concerned. He has left his people in the lurch. He could not stand firm when he had to bargain for the education of his people. He conceded at the expense of his own people. He is asking how we know that? His own colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Training, let the cat out of the bag this week in the House of Representatives, and I quote him:

A bit further on he says:

Blacks!

Here the cat is being let out of the bag, Sir.

Quite a cat!

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture is playing an important role in the redistribution of State funds for education, to the detriment of the White community.

Disgraceful! That is disgraceful!

This man who is responsible for bargaining for his own people, is apparently bargaining for non-Whites now, when it comes to that. Such a testimonial does not suit this hon the Minister, who is responsible from first to last for White education in our country.

I also want to say something about rationalisation in education. Rationalisation is not a new concept in education, and we are not opposed to it. There are, however, certain important requirements which have to be complied with in this process. Rationalisation may not lead to a lowering of standards, it should at least guarantee the maintenance of existing standards.

Rationalisation must not merely be aimed at saving in terms of rands and cents, regardless of the consequences for education. It should assist in utilising available funds in the most advantageous way to the benefit of education.

Furthermore regard should be had in the process of rationalisation, to certain important education principles such as national (volkseie) education until the tertiary level, and the decentralisation of educational facilities, especially at primary school level, so that a child can attend his school from his parental home.

Despite everything that is being said, we are at present gaining the impression that the rationalisation process is simply aimed at depriving Whites of certain facilities. Recently this concept has been given a new content, namely the redistribution of State funds for education.

In conclusion I also have to point out an example of bad management in regard to rationalisation, and I am referring now to the closing of the PTTC. It is not for me to say, Mr Chairman, whether the teachers training college in Wellington or the one in Paarl or both, or neither, of these teacher training colleges should have been closed. I do, however, want to express my opinion of the way the situation was handled.

Reliable people have made the following allegations to me, and this afternoon I want to give the hon the Minister the opportunity of explaining the matter to this House. Firstly, the decision to close the Paarl Teachers’ Training College instead of the Wellington Teachers’ Training College was simply read out to those involved without any sound reasons being advanced. The hon the Minister himself was not overly impressed with the decision.

Secondly the Cape Education Department recommended that the Wellington Teachers’ Training College be closed instead of the Paarl Teachers’ Training College.

Thirdly, politicians outside the Department of Education and Culture played a decisive role in the decision to close the Paarl Teachers’ Training College instead of the Wellington Teachers’ Training College.

The hon the Minister has continued to avoid furnishing us with educational reasons why the Paarl Teachers’ Training College was closed instead of the Wellington Teachers’ Training College. He now has an opportunity to inform this House about that, to inform the public about that and to clear up some of those allegations that were made to me.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this party we certainly welcome to this debate the members of the Teachers’ Federal Council who are enjoying the privilege of experiencing a debate on own affairs in which we are—I think—certainly going to find the NP lacking in arguments in support of this motion.

The PFP finds the motion before the House totally unacceptable. It smacks of the fatuous self-centredness of NP politicians intent on preening their rather straggly feathers in education. [Interjections.]

There is simply no way this House or any South African can express support for the inept and incompetent way this hon Minister is carrying out his functions. [Interjections.] I make an obvious and an essential distinction between the political head of this department, who, after all, must in terms of our political system be the one to bear responsibility for the department, and—this is where the distinction lies—those many, many thousands of highly committed officials and teachers who work for the department. No criticism can, in even vaguely general terms, be implied of any official, from the Superintendent-General to the first-year teachers. This debate is not about how they do their work, but how poorly this hon Minister is doing his.

The motion is divided into three parts and concerns, firstly, essential rationalisation, secondly, maintaining educational standards, and thirdly, broadening parental and community involvement. I shall deal with the first of these, my hon colleague from Durban North with the last, and both of us will speak on educational standards.

It is also essential to make a caveat that we shall quite deliberately not be discussing those items which we know will be coming up in the Educational Affairs Bill which will be before us in due course.

“Rationalisation” is defined in The Concise Oxford Dictionary as meaning, “to make more efficient by scientifically reducing or eliminating waste of labour, time or materials”. The reduction has to be done “scientifically”. [Interjections.]

The essential comment that must be made about rationalisation is that this department has been driven to it—not by choice, but by the severe cut-back in funding imposed because of changed priorities in State spending. The hon member for Brits has said exactly that. We have reiterated again and again that without knowledge of the formula, without knowledge of factor A and factor B and their significance, this House has not yet had an opportunity of discussing funding for White education with any logical sense. Not only have funds for this department not increased in real terms, but there has also been a positive decline in comparison with the inflation rate. I would merely remind hon members of the NP that in last year’s Budget this department’s spending on schools increased by 2,2%, which is some 12,5% below the inflation rate.

On fewer scholars!

There was a 1% decrease in scholars, the hon member for Germiston might observe.

The hon the Minister is bound by the confines of his own budget in that between 80% and 85% of the budget is spent on personnel related matters. There has been a very real decrease in the funds available to him. Therefore he has two options: Either he cuts into the personnel base and cuts down on the number of teachers in order to ensure that more money is available for educational activities, or he cuts into the amount of money made available to schools and other institutions for educational purposes. This hon Minister has done and is doing both, and the effects of this so-called essential rationalisation are being felt throughout the education system.

Let us look at the funding this hon Minister provides to technikons and to universities, because it is his responsibility. Is this essential rationalisation? He cannot shy away from the shattering subsidy cuts which he has imposed over the past two years, and which we understand will this year run at between 25% and 30%. Is this essential rationalisation?

This hon Minister cannot duck the Press reports of technikons now considering the firing of staff, or universities desperate concerning their research projects, of dramatic cut-backs in bookbuying for libraries at these institutions, with the concomitant effect on student and staff research. Certainly in the realms of the autonomous tertiary institutions there is no place for this hon Minister and his behaviour.

Rationalisation for these institutions has proved staggeringly harmful. From their position this hon Minister does not deserve a motion of praise but a severe motion of censure. Within the past day the rector of the University of Stellenbosch has drawn attention to the effect of the hon the Minister’s cuts at that institution. I wonder what some of the alumni of that institution, including the hon member for Stellenbosch, will have to say about cuts at the University of Stellenbosch.

Secondly, we turn to the colleges of education and look at the effect of rationalisation over the three-year period between 1986 and 1988, where the potential capacity of colleges of education in South Africa under this hon Minister has changed from 13 450 in 1986 to 13 000. These are figures the hon the Minister supplied to me.

The actual enrolment at those colleges, however, has decreased from 11 003 to 8 863. At the present moment, therefore, there are 4 137 empty places at colleges of education, according to figures supplied to me by the hon the Minister.

What has the hon the Minister’s choice been in terms of “essential rationalisation”? He has chosen the path of closure for these colleges rather than the most obvious and educationally justifiable path of utilising them for the training of teachers for all the children of South Africa. I want to deal with two of these colleges, namely Natal Training College and the Paarl Teachers’ College.

Before I do so, however, it is worth noting that the motion before us today was originally due for debate three weeks ago. The evening before that debate was due to take place, funnily enough, the Netwerk TV programme featured an item on the rationalisation of the teachers’ colleges—how coincidental!—in which the hon the Minister supplied certain comment. As is its wont, Netwerk did not explore the opinions of other political parties regarding the use of those colleges and, according to my information, the hon the Minister remarked to all the South Africans watching that there was no way that the Paarl college would be used for the training of Coloured students.

Let us look at the case of the Natal college, which was not even mentioned in that edition of Netwerk. This, the longest established training college in Natal, based in a historically significant building, suffered closure at the end of last year as a full-time institution. Its staff members have been dispersed to other colleges or are used in that building as members of Natal’s correspondence college for teacher-upgrading.

The hon the Minister knows that college, and he knows what it is being used for. Let me ask him if the Natal teachers’ college is to be used for the training of KwaZulu students, as is publicly and openly discussed in Natal. If that is so, the hon the Minister must stand up and say so, and we will praise him for making that decision. I know what these hon members on my right will say, but he will have to endure them. [Interjections.]

Secondly, is the programme of co-operation with the House of Representatives, which has been taking place in Natal since before the hon the Minister took over education in that province, to be extended? Are we going to carry on that correspondence programme? Has the hon the Minister ever seriously considered opening the Natal teachers’ college to all race groups? I can assure hon members that there is no support in Pietermaritzburg for a motion praising this Minister.

I have a brief comment concerning the Paarl teachers’ college, about which, as the hon member for Brits said, the last answers have not yet been heard. I wonder whether this hon the Minister and his department negotiated with the college councils of the two institutions concerned before closing one of them. What was the role of the ministerial representative in the negotiations? Why has the college at Paarl, eminently suitable as a college of education, been handed over to the SAP for training purposes and not been kept in use as a college? Why did this Minister feel it necessary to comment that it would not be used by Coloured students?

Essential rationalisation certainly does not follow the inept path the hon the Minister has taken with regard to the Paarl and Wellington colleges.

Let us turn to schools, because rationalisation needs to be brought about at school level too.

The hon the Minister has several options in this regard, including opening schools. What is unfortunate is that the hon the Minister appears to have prevaricated and, even at this stage, there is no clarity on the policy he is adopting with regard to unused schools or vacant places at schools.

In reply to a question earlier this year, he indicated that 19 schools in the Cape Province were totally unutilised, while another eight were being used by bodies other than education departments. At the same time, however—one must give the hon the Minister his due on this point—10 empty primary schools had been let to the Administration: House of Representatives, no doubt to be used as schools, and one to the Dutch Reformed Church for use as a mission school. Good! We are glad about that.

We also note that, of the six applications to purchase schools in the Cape Province, one is from another education department. We have this very vague and obscure situation; 19 closed, some let, one to be sold … I trust the hon the Minister can give a logical and reasoned reply as to his policy regarding the disposal of unutilised buildings or their lease to other bodies, and indicate whether any preference is given to education departments above that of disposal to outside bodies and—I hope the hon the Minister is listening—not to inside Government departments.

The vacant spaces in schools remain extraordinarily large in spite of this. In the Transvaal there are at the moment 642 000 potential school places. The actual number of students is only 497 000. In Natal the potential is 151 000 school places but the actual number is 100 000. This leaves a vacant space total of 145 000 in the Transvaal and in Natal 51 000 school places stand empty. That amounts to a staggering 34% empty places in the latter province. This is happening in a province that is crying out for educational facilities! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister could not supply the 1988 figure of actual pupils for the Cape Province and therefore I have used the 1987 figures to compute a figure for the whole country. These, in effect, make the number of school places fewer than is really the position. Based on those figures the total figure for the whole country is that there are 278 000 empty school places under this department today. Is this essential rationalisation? This motion is a mockery!

They should be ashamed of themselves!

It is disgusting!

The figures the hon the Minister has given me over three years indicate such wide variations that I suspect that even they are open to doubt. I suggest that he looks at them again.

As far as hostels are concerned, there are 23 000 empty places while the country is crying out for educational resources.

We believe that schools should be open to all South Africans. We believe that the educational decisions concerning admissions to schools should include language, to answer the hon member for Germiston who asked this the other day. Language certainly is an educational criterion. It should affect a decision regarding admission to school. Colour, however, or race, as the De Lange Report quite clearly points out, is not an educational criterion. We believe that the hon the Minister is simply dogmatically following the racial policies of his party. We reject this motion.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to support the motion under discussion but it is a pity that I have to speak after the previous two speakers. I should like to tell those hon members a little story which I think is applicable here.

A young man went off to study for the ministry. His mother even had to take in washing and make all sorts of other plans to enable him to continue his studies. Eventually, he invited her to listen to his first sermon. After he had finished preaching, he asked her: “How was it, Mom?” She replied: “No, Johnny, it was alright, but are you sure you were called?” To which he replied: “Yes, Mom, I am sure I was called.” His mother then asked: “Are you sure it was not some other kind of noise you heard?” [Interjections.]

I want to say in all seriousness that I did not expect a speech in the vein and rhetoric of the nature that we have experienced here this afternoon from an ex-clergyman. [Interjections.] I shall deal with some of the arguments in due course. I was amazed that so many wild statements could be made so easily. Of course, they do not have to be substantiated in a debate such as this.

Where, for example, mention was made of key personnel resigning and leaving the profession, and of backlogs, it must be remembered that the authorities are dealing with these backlogs and considering the reports and representations submitted to them. Who are those key personnel? What is meant by key personnel? How many have resigned? It is not that we are not sympathetically disposed towards the teachers. In fact, we have a great deal of sympathy for them.

I could also be very popular with the education profession today by asking here for higher salaries. There is, of course, a backlog here and there and it is also true that there are many people receiving a low salary. I was in education all my life and we always struggled in any case. At no time did things go completely our way. It is also true that there are problems in regard to the salary structures at the tertiary level. That we admit. This situation will, of course, be dealt with as soon as we can afford it.

I should like to confine myself to a sphere which I know somewhat better than what I can remember about education, the profession I followed for 25 years. Hon members of the opposition can quite correctly accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about. Nevertheless, I want to give hon members a number of facts and not just make a few general statements that I cannot substantiate.''

In the first place I want to express the appreciation of hon members of this side of the House to the teaching staff at universities, technikons and teachers’ colleges who have succeeded in bringing our tertiary education up to a level which compares favourably with international standards. It is in fact no small achievement that in the circumstances and with the material at their disposal these people were able last year, for example, to produce a total of 4 452 published items, and these in international periodicals and periodicals that are regarded as being of an international standard in South Africa. For this the Government rewarded them with a further R25 million after the cuts that have been referred to. The universities must be congratulated in this regard because it is indeed an achievement.

Universities are autonomous institutions. It is not for the State to interfere in their affairs other than to ensure that the money allocated to them is well spent. I have no doubt that the money is in fact being well spent. It is possible that problems have arisen from time to time. It is usually because of a historical development that such a situation arises. This cannot be denied. The universities are aware of these problems and they are also rationalising.

One would, however, be wrong simply to cry out each time that the Government is curtailing its expenditure on universities and technikons and that they cannot keep their heads above water; that the Government is closing teachers’ colleges and similar things without at least looking at the other side of the picture. I think it is a good thing for one always to look at the other side of the picture as well. When we consider, for example, that the position in the Cape not so long ago was that the student-teacher ratio at teachers’ colleges was 6:1, we realise that this is a ratio which we cannot at all afford. We simply cannot afford it. The universities know what their problems are. They are doing something about them and I believe that they will be able to solve these problems.

I should like to point out the following to hon members: Firstly, there are too many White students at the universities. When one considers the percentage of Grade 1 children going to university, one finds that it is more or less 31 %. It is even a little more unfavourable now. One can compare this figure with those of developed countries …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member dealing with the motion under discussion? In my opinion universities are not involved. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

*Prof S J SCHOEMAN (Walmer): One can compare this situation with that of developed countries where the corresponding percentage is between 17% and 18%.

Our situation is not precisely the same as that of developed countries. The Whites have still largely to provide the leadership corps and the high-level manpower in the country.

If, however, we read this high percentage together with the high failure rate that we have, it gives cause for concern. The failure rate of students at our universities averages 24%. This means—I am speaking now only of White residential universities—that we are paying a subsidy of more or less 10% in respect of students who are making no progress and who are not progressing from one year to the next. The additional amount that it costs the country to train students because of this fact amounts to R80 million per annum. When one divides this amount by the number of full-time students one sees that it makes for a very expensive education. Moreover, 14% of all students at university leave the university without having obtained any qualification. The State pays half the subsidy in respect of these students who fail. If the student passes, the other half is paid. This 14% of students who fail means a loss to the State of 7% of the total subsidy which amounts to about R70 million per annum. This is a considerable amount of money.

There is further problem that arises. Although at the moment there are too many White students at universities—their numbers will certainly drop when, as is hoped, the standards are raised—it is true that according to the incremental figures for the period 1990-96, there will be a drop of between 17% and 18% in the student potential. In other words, universities that are struggling and seeking to grow by increasing the number of students will experience very great problems indeed in 1996.

Moreover, it is also true that the students are completely overprovided for as far as staff are concerned. I want to make this categorical statement. If one wishes to make sums and takes the subsidy formula as a norm—this has been accepted as workable by the universities and is based on information obtained over a long period of time—one finds that there are about 20% more lecturers at universities than there ought to be in relation to the number of students. This fact holds far-reaching consequences for the lecturers at the universities.

Universities are at liberty to pay their teaching staff more than the usual salary package. However, the universities now say that they do not have any money because the Government is curtailing their funds too much. If one extracts the total amount spent on salaries out of these reports I am referring to—they have been tabled and are available to every hon member of this House—and one divides this amount by the number of teachers the universities ought to have, one finds that each of those teachers would receive R54 480 instead of R46 162. There is therefore certainly an overspending. The possibility of singling out certain categories is actually bogged down in this total overprovision that there is at the universities. Universities will have to attend to this matter because as the number of White students starts dropping after 1990 they are going to find themselves in even greater difficulties.

I want to point out further to hon members that when one looks at this overprovision of teachers in detail one sometimes finds no pattern in it. If, for example, there was a superfluity of teaching staff in a basic science which was of great use to the country and to which high priority could be given nationally, one could still justify this to an extent. However, in the case of a technical subject one finds that the student-teacher ratio varies between 4:1 and even 4:32 at various universities.

In agriculture, for example, which is a very necessary subject, one finds that the ratio at one university is 4,36 students to one teacher, while at another university the ratio is 15,65 students to one teacher. In the arts, which from a cultural point of view is certainly a very important subject to which one would imagine high priority could be given, the ratio is in only one case more favourable than 10 students to one teacher. In all the other cases there are fewer students per teacher. Without wishing to detract from the arts, I really have difficulty in believing that we can afford this sort of training.

I also want to point out to hon members that when in this sort of situation one has to deal with an overspending of 18% in respect of salaries—always taking the subsidy formula as a norm because this is the norm accepted by the universities—one comes up against another problem which makes the situation even more difficult for the universities. Teachers may also in fact be dissatisfied in this regard because they have every right to be dissatisfied, but not with the State. Teachers have cause rather to be dissatisfied with the situation at their own university. In terms of the subsidy formula 63% of the salary package made available by the State has to go to the teaching staff, in other words, the academic staff. It so happens that there is only one university that receives 63%. The position at other universities varies between 51% and 59%. This therefore means that there is still greater overspending on the part of the administrative and other staff than on the part of the academic staff.

Hon members will therefore see that we have here an overspending for which money has to be found in other components of the subsidy formula for which the State makes money available. This will mean that money will eventually have to be taken away from categories like maintenance and the upkeep of buildings, libraries and similar categories. I do not know what they take it away from but what I do know—I have experienced this myself—is that money has simply to be taken away from other components in order to cover this sort of overspending. By this I wish in no way to give the impression that universities are not doing good work and that they are not tackling this problem. All that I envisaged doing by mentioning these figures was to indicate that when these institutions complain about problems—all tertiary institutions complain about problems—those problems must not simply be blamed upon the pruning of funds by the State. This problem has also to be dealt with by the institutions themselves and they must ensure that they get their house in order. I want to give hon members and the public the assurance—I think I have every right to do so—that if the universities get their own house in order the State will also be far more sympathetically disposed towards their problems.

Mr Chairman, it was noticeable that when the hon member for Brits made mention of how little interest there was on that side of the House in this matter of education, they even went so far as to appoint a doorman, namely the hon member Dr Golden. Hon members can see him carrying out that function now. He is acting as doorman to ensure that no more hon NP members walk out of the Chamber … [Interjections.] … so as to avoid the impression being created any further … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, will the hon member answer a question?

Mr Chairman, I do not have the time to reply to questions. [Interjections.] He was appointed so that the impression on the part of the people in education …

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

That hon member must please resume his seat. I am not prepared to reply to a question. [Interjections.]

Do you realise that there are fewer than 50% of your own members in the Chamber?

Order! The hon member for Losberg may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The NP had to appoint a doorman in the person of the hon member Dr Golden in order to give the impression that there was not a lack of interest in this important motion that is now before the House. [Interjections.]

When the stone finds its mark, Mr Chairman, as now, then the dogs yelp, as now. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member by implication refer to hon members in this House as dogs?

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

I had wanted to discuss another matter but as universities are now under discussion, I shall confine myself to that topic.

The hon member for Walmer made two very important admissions here. He admitted that thee were backlogs and unsatisfactory circumstances in regard to universities. This side of the House wants to know from the Government why these backlogs to which the hon member referred have not yet been eliminated. Why have the unsatisfactory circumstances that he admits to not yet been rectified?

I want to sketch the background to this motion for hon members. The NP have a heavy feeling of guilt in regard to the education profession. That guilty feeling has to do with the situation of the education profession in South Africa, the salary position of the teacher, both male and female, and the standard of education, particularly in regard to the Whites. These matters have now become chronic, and they are now trying to rectify that chronic situation by coming forward with a motion of thanks like this one of the hon member for Brentwood. [Interjections.] That is the true reason for this motion.

It is trite to say that no country, including a developing country like South Africa, which does not regard its education as being of the very highest priority, can expect to develop and progress. The standard of development of a country and the quality of its education system are bound up inextricably with one another. The university stands in the forefront of the education component of any country. The standard of education and research at university level does in fact determine the standing of any country in the world. [Interjections.]

Even Clem Sunter, with whose points of view and conclusions this side of the House does not agree, emphasises how important the standard of education is, and refers in this connection to Japan which owes its standing in the world to the high priority it gives to education and research.

In contrast, the universities in South Africa are in a crisis; no, far worse, have been plunged into a crisis situation by that side of the House that has revealed no proper policy in regard to our universities—if one can even talk about a university policy. [Interjections.]

Because of the multiracial university policy of the Government, the cultural task of our universities is prejudiced. As a training and research centre the university has to link up with the social and cultural values that are peculiar to that university and its supporter group.

The hon member for Walmer said that he would paint the other side of the picture and mention the facts inasmuch as all we had done was to generalise. Is it not correct to contend that the cultural task of our universities is being neglected; no, still worse, being ignored because an integrated, cultureless approach is being cultivated at our universities now to a steadily increasing degree?

But only a moment ago you were commending the harsh, cultureless Japanese ideology!

Order! There are a few hon members who are now taking too much pleasure in making remarks that are totally irrelevant. I make a friendly appeal to hon members to cease doing so.

Even mixed hostels are being planned at our universities, and we ask that side of the House whether one of the reasons why they are planning to amend the Group Areas Act is so that mixed hostels can be permitted at White universities. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister may turn his nose up at the statement that I have made but I want to know from him whether a mixed hostel is being planned at Potchefstroom University or not, and whether this is the way in which they want to prepare South Africa for the mixed, power-sharing policy which is going to be destructive of our future. I want the hon the Minister to reply pertinently to that question.

Reference has been made to the question of the salaries of university staff and I should also like to refer briefly to this matter. In 1977 the salary of a professor was 22% lower than that of a secretary of a Government department, and in 1985 it was 35% less than even that of a deputy director-general, and then we also have to bear in mind that the present gap between the salary of a deputy director-general and that of a director-general is 70,1%. In general the salaries of academic staff at universities are 50% less than those of people occupying corresponding posts in the private sector. And then the salaries of teachers, male and female, and teaching staff at universities are being frozen at this time while the private sector is increasing salaries! Then, as though they wish to wash their hands in innocence, this Government comes along with a motion of thanks. I want to ask how anyone can come along with a motion of thanks, if one is convinced of one’s case, when the realities of the country show the exact opposite. [Interjections.]

Last year the net salary of a professor was the same as that of a lecturer. What must of necessity result from this? The result is an exodus from our universities not only to the private sector but also from the country as such.

The hon member for Walmer referred to the numerical ratio between teaching staff and students. I want to tell him that the facts that he gave are not in conformity with the report of the CUH. The report of the CUH states that in 1980 this ratio was 1:13,7. In 1985 the ratio was 1:17,5. The hon member cannot refute those facts. We ask him why he does not give us the correct facts in this connection.

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

I cannot answer a question now; I have too little time in which to do so. [Interjections.]

What is so funny? You people are becoming hysterical!

… and this while the number of students increased by 5,1% from 1980 to 1985.

What is the position in regard to the increase in the number of teaching staff? In this connection too I want to say that once again the hon member for Walmer did not give this House the correct facts. What does the report of the CUH have to say in this connection? As far as professors and associate professors are concerned there was an increase of only 4,3%; there was no increase in the number of senior lecturers; as far as lecturers were concerned there was even a decrease of minus 0,1%; and as far as junior lecturers were concerned, there was also no increase. No wonder therefore, Mr Chairman—and we are addressing that side of the House because they are making poor institutions of our universities—that on page 33 of its report the CUH has this to say:

And then we have not even mentioned the research situation at universities. Let me mention just two components in this regard—that in regard to physical material and that in regard to libraries. In both cases the universities have fallen behind drastically. Let me mention just one example. Between 1982 and 1985 the number of books in university libraries fell by 34%. The position is so bad at present that universities have even to prune in order to purchase necessary books and professional periodicals.

I should also like to refer briefly to the position abroad as far as research is concerned. There is such a lack of funds for the financing of universities by the State, and the exchange value of the rand is so low that it is difficult for universities to afford to send bright young men abroad to do high quality research.

The position of our universities … [Interjections.] Whether hon members opposite make a fuss about this or laugh about it or whatever they say about it, the position of our universities has become parlous indeed. It has become parlous because of the policy the Government maintains in regard to universities. Education is and remains a matter of priority, and any nation that does not wish to recognise this fact is putting its future at stake. We contend today—we warn this Government—that if they do not rectify their university policy, if they do not make more funds available to universities for education and for training, this nation, this country is going to have to pay a very high price—a price that we cannot afford because our future is dependent upon research and education, and also with regard to our own White nation in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am extremely pleased to be able to participate in this debate today as well. I must state that to have a motion such as this one appear on the Order Paper is a little like manna from heaven because it underlines in a way indeed what the Department of Education and Culture should be doing. In actual fact, however, it gives us the opportunity of exposing this department for what it is and to express our concern yet again for what the hon the Minister is doing to education in this country.

I should be interested to know just what the hon member for Brentwood’s real intention was in moving this motion. I suspect his party intends to use this particular motion as a kind of psychological build-up for what they know is going to be an enormous scrap in this House when the new legislation on own affairs education appears on the Order Paper. From all accounts, Sir, that is going to happen very soon. I think the hon the Minister is probably looking at this stage for some very early support, and that that is really the objective of this motion.

He looks punch-drunk already!

It would, however, be of far greater interest to give this particular motion to the teachers themselves to debate. All we have heard, and all we are going to hear, from NP members taking part in this discussion is in fact again terms of endearment, back-slapping and “what-jolly-fine-chaps-we-are” type speeches—exactly the same type of speeches which we heard last week during the discussion of the hon member for Innesdal’s motion in relation to the Commission for Administration. We should, however, be asking the teachers themselves to take part in this particular debate. They are the people who deserve the praise in the Department of Education and Culture—not this hon Minister and his top officials. I suspect that the tenor of their debate would be different from the tenor of the debate in this House today, because the teachers, who are the important people in the whole process of education, are sick to death of being pushed around from pillar to post, having their representations on a variety of issues ignored, and seeing as well a gradual breakdown of their rights, their freedoms, their status in society and an overall worsening of their conditions of service.

I said in this House last week, in that very mother-love type debate on the Commission for Administration, that the morale of the teaching profession was low, not only because of the salary issue, which had been so badly handled by the Government and during which the Government had made the most unfortunate decision not even to make up the 11% salary backlog which the Teachers’ Federal Council had proved beyond doubt existed between the teaching profession and the rest of the Public Service, but also because of other reasons. Yes, Sir, there are other reasons, too, for the lack of morale in the teaching profession, not least of all the restrictions now being placed on teachers in relation to their political involvement, as we heard during question time in this House on Tuesday. I must tell this hon Minister he cannot treat one of the most dedicated and highly qualified professional groups in the Public Service in this way and still expect them to give and to give without demanding in the end, by any means available to them, a very much better deal than they are receiving at present.

What they are asking for is that the State should appreciate the importance of the job they are doing and the dedication with which they are doing it. This motion before the House today fails to take into account this particular point. Let the teachers discuss this particular motion. Let the teachers give their verdict on whether they believe that the hon the Minister is deserving of the accolades he is receiving from hon members of his party. I have no doubt we will hear a very different set of responses, as I have already said. If we want to move motions of this particular nature in this House let us rather move a motion of confidence in the teachers themselves and thank them for the amazing job they are doing under the most trying conditions. They are the people who deserve the praise; not the hon the Minister at all. [Interjections.]

I want to turn to the question of rationalisation and pick up where the hon member for Pinetown left off. He discussed the incredible number of vacant places in White schools which are being denied to people of colour. We believe that schools should be opened to all South Africans, and we also accept it as obvious that educational factors including language should determine the selection of one school over another for a particular child. As the De Lange Report clearly pointed out, however, colour is not an educational criterion.

We believe that in his approach to rationalisation the hon the Minister has ignored all logic and sense, simply and dogmatically following the racial policies of his party. Even so, however, there is no reason for underutilised schools, particularly in rural areas, not to be used by other education departments.

If we turn from the question of rationalisation to that of standards, we must ask what standards there are in education. Among those one could cite are teacher-pupil ratios, examination pass rates, buildings and finance and the level of a curriculum or written syllabus. Some of these are not within the orbit of this Minister’s dispensation. His actions fortunately do not have an immediate effect on the pass rate, but they do exert a key influence on teacher-pupil ratios, for example. A number of teachers were made redundant last year; 285 in the Cape, 29 in Natal and 19 in Transvaal. These redundancies will no doubt continue, one of the causes presumably being a fall in the White birth rate, but I am sure there has been a deliberate increase in the pupilteacher ratio as well.

Today, in Transvaal primary schools, the ration of teachers to pupils in standard 1 is 1:22 pupils, while in the Cape it is 1:21. If the 1:30 ratio is the ideal, as has been suggested by this hon Minister and as a report circulated in his department makes clear, several thousand teachers in that department stand to lose their jobs over the coming years. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must state absolutely clearly today whether he is moving towards a 1:30 dispensation, and what the real effect will be in schools throughout South Africa.

In financial terms, schools, like universities and technikons, have had their funds drastically curtailed. However, we have not yet seen anything of the parental tuition fees which were designed to alleviate the hon the Minister’s staggering financial stringencies. One suspects these fees would be politically dangerous for the NP, and consequently we find that their introduction is being held off for an ideal moment that will probably never come.

I want to contend too that the broadening of parental participation referred to in the motion is not actually taking place. What has happened, in fact, is that the Government has tried to lend the centralisation process some credibility by appearing to involve the parent body in the education process. It has done this by creating such bodies as the provincial education councils and regional councils and by apparently giving school committees greater power. These bodies are all advisory, however, and therefore have little relevance in the whole structure of education control.

This party is all in favour of greater parental involvement if through it we are able to protect the ethos of education in each province and the educational philosophy and standards of these individual provinces.

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

I am sorry, Sir, but I cannot answer a question as I have very little time.

This was stressed as an important prerequisite in the De Lange Report, and it is a reason given by the Government for introducing greater parental participation, but to date there has been no sign that this can or will be the case in reality. Provincial education councils have no powers other than advisory ones, and they may only advise the Minister. They have no legislative powers. They have to operate within the powers given them by the Department of Education and Culture.

The regional councils, too, have proven to be irrelevant to a large extent, particularly in Natal, with regard to their functioning. They have no money, they have no real responsibilities and they, too, are advisory only in nature. What is more—and the hon the Minister must note this important point—many people involved in these councils now have a growing disinclination to perform the few functions that they have been given. They know that they are really irrelevant in the broad administration of education.

School committees have been given extended powers such as involvement in the process of the appointment of principals and deputy principals to the schools. In the end their function is limited too. I want to stress again that it seems that all that is really happening is that the Government has given credibility to a system of centralised control by apparently involving parents more in the educational process. [Interjections.] In reality these parents have no real authority at all.

So, I contend, in conclusion, that this particular motion in front of the House today is little more than an attempt to soft-soap people. It is a soft-soaping process of the hon members of this particular House for the Bill which will appear before this House shortly, and which will give the hon the Minister the powers to drastically transform White education, as we know it. Quite clearly, we cannot support this motion.

Mr Chairman, it is not my intention today to give very much attention to the opposition parties and their arguments … [Interjections.] … and particularly not to the hon member for Losberg who had a great deal to say about our numbers in this Chamber while at that stage his own party could only muster a 40,8% representation. That is what I would call naked opportunism.

I was particularly interested in the fact that at the start of his speech the hon member stated that he had actually wanted to discuss something else but, in view of the fact that the hon member for Walmer had raised university matters, he had also decided to discuss them. He then read his unprepared speech! [Interjections.]

The NP has a responsibility to govern this country. [Interjections.] in order to be able to do so, we have to think responsibly and innovatively. The opposition parties have no responsibility. That is why they stopped thinking a long time ago. We just keep hearing the same old arguments any reaction to which leads to sterile debate of which we have now had enough.

Just look at the PFP. Their main speaker, the hon member for Pinetown, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and the hon member for Durban North dished up the same old arguments to us once again. That is what I call debate for the sake of debate, almost like a school debate. It is not a discussion with a view to progress.

Take the old story about the opening of schools and colleges and everything connected with it. This may be of political importance but it contributes little to the solution of the real problems in education in South Africa. It is a narrow, sectional and ideological approach.

These hon members take those of us on this side of the House to task because we do not want to accept the recipe which they were unable to sell to the electorate. That is, after all, why they are sitting there and why they waste their knowledge, experience and energy so fruitlessly. These are the hon members who support the Natal Indaba proposals and, speaking of rationalisation, those hon members must take note that the indaba proposals would bring about a 75% drop in spending on White education. [Interjections.] Let us at least be objective, please!

Provision of education with the recognition of group differences, whether hon members like it or not, is the only way in which the equal provision of education as a goal can be achieved within an acceptable time schedule. That is a fact.

I want to turn now to the motion under discussion. There is one particular aspect that I want to highlight and that is where the motion refers to necessary rationalisation that has to be carried out in education. There is so much reference to rationalisation these days and the word is used so much that it has actually become a cliche.

Like the hon member for Pinetown, I also consulted the dictionary. I consulted the Verklarende Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal because I wanted once again to acquaint myself with the meaning of the word “rasionaliseer”. I found two definitions of the word there. The first definition stated that it meant “in ooreenstemming met die rede bring”.

I like that definition. It means of course that in order to understand it, one must understand reason. Naturally that would exclude certain hon members in this House who do not have the ability to handle that concept.

The second meaning of the word is to set up something more practical or more economical by eliminating the loss in respect of labour, time and raw materials in order to make a product cheaper. That is according to the dictionary.

This second definition comes very close to the job the hon the Minister and his department are currently doing so well.

Now that we know what rationalisation means, let us see whether rationalisation is necessary particularly at school. My reply to that is an unqualified yes. I say this for two specific reasons, namely declining pupil numbers and limited financial resources, and I am going to motivate my reasons. Let us look first of all at pupil numbers.

These declining numbers are a direct result of the drop in the White birth rate. It must, of course, be borne in mind that the White section of the South African population is typically a First World community. A falling birth rate is a characteristic of First World communities worldwide. When one looks at Western Europe, one sees that the percentage population growth has already fallen to such an extent that futurity experts anticipate a negative growth trend for the whole of Western Europe within the foreseeable future.

Let us look at South Africa itself. Since 1951 the White population growth rate has consistently declined. It declined under Dr Malan and Adv Strijdom. It declined under Dr Verwoerd and Mr Vorster, and it is still declining. It is going to continue declining considerably. In 1951 it was 1,71%. At present it is in the vicinity of 0,8% or 0,9%. It is anticipated that within the next 20 years it will decline to as little as 0,3%.

In 1904 the Whites comprised 22% of the total population. In 1980 on the basis of the 1910 parameters the figure was 16%. At present it is about 15% and by the year 2010 it will be 11%.

This is the inexorable way of things. No political party and no political intervention can alter it. Of course, the same trend is reflected unavoidably in pupil numbers and, if there is a decline in pupil numbers, then surely fewer teachers are required, and then surely fewer teachers must be trained. If fewer teachers are trained, surely then fewer education bursaries will be granted. No reasonable government can afford to ignore this inexorable trend.

It is then to this Government’s credit that it is not doing so. It is further to this Government’s credit that it has a balanced approach to this situation. The training of young people has not been halted. The Government realises that education must not become an ageing profession. The flow of young vigorous teachers to the profession will continue unabated. This is a balanced, practical approach not only in conformity with reality but also in the national interests.

I come now to the question of limited financial resources. I could advance many reasons for this such as the results of imported inflation, the effect of successive droughts, the flood disasters, sanctions and so forth, but I shall not do so. Hon members are all aware of these facts and reasonable hon members will appreciate their impact.

I want rather to turn to the opinion of a highly respected body whose opinion is generally accepted as authoritative. I am referring to the report of the HSRC “Provision of Education in the RSA”. On page 116 of that report I read the following:

The report goes on to say:

These words were published in 1981, and no responsible government could ignore them. The careful, extremely judicious steps now being taken by the hon the Minister and his department are in complete conformity with this authoritative opinion. The suspension of the payment of water and electricity accounts in respect of, for example, sports grounds, surely does not detract from the standard of the education in the classroom. After all, such expenditure is in any case in respect of non-compulsory, non-curricular activities. To ask a school to pay as little as 10% of the cost of local telephone calls can also surely not harm the standard of education in the classroom. Incidentally, when we speak about telephone accounts, it must not be forgotten that the installation and rental expenses are still being paid by the department. Mischief-makers are inclined to keep that quiet. The fact remains that responsible management is a business principle; it requires the application of economy measures. As a result of rationalisation we were able to save considerable sums on the budget. As part of a complete Government strategy this holds out great hope for the future. When savings are effected, they are in any case effected with great understanding and sympathy.

The specific circumstances of rural areas, border districts, growth points and strategic areas are always considered. It is for this reason that the staff at many rural schools are still far above quota. It is for this reason that a far more generous pupil-teacher ratio exists in respect of education in general than was found by the De Lange Report to be educationally justifiable. In the light of the irrefutable facts in regard to population trends that I have given hon members, however, the necessity for the abolition of teaching posts is a fact. White education will have to adapt to it.

We do not shy away from the facts but what we do not like is a distortion of the facts. Reports of the abolition of posts are often of a sensational nature. Such reports refer mostly to the “retrenchment of teachers”. That is wrong; it creates the wrong impression. Teachers are not being retrenched as a result of an oversupply at specific schools. Where posts fall away, the teacher has the right to apply to another school. Then the department assists him. The education departments handle such cases with the greatest possible measure of responsibility and sympathy throughout.

The necessity for rationalisation is a hidden blessing. It also necessitates new thought; priorities have to be reconsidered and redetermined; essential aims have to be determined. The answers, namely deliberation and planning, are brought to the fore. The emphasis is placed anew on quality. Obsolete ideas, ideas that no longer fit in with the changed times, are thrown overboard. Non-essential services are eliminated. Efficient and productive procedures are developed. All these things result in more vigorous institutions. What is of particular importance is the fact that high level manpower is used optimally in this way.

New restrictive measures in respect of sporting facilities at schools also contain specific positive possibilities, not only for the schools but also for the communities as a whole. In all medium and large towns and communities there is a proliferation of tennis courts, swimming pools and other sporting facilities. To say that these facilities are underutilised is to underemphasise the truth. This is unjustifiable. These facilities are public property which the schools control and to which the schools obviously have first claim. I have no argument with that; that is how it must be. I have, however, felt for some time that those facilities ought to be made available to the community on a larger scale, in a responsible way and without affecting the interests of the schools. This will mean a source of income to the school and an inestimable asset to the community. Such facilities must also, of course, be shared more between and among schools.

We have gone much too far in duplicating this kind of facility which can easily be shared. There is really no doubt about the fact that we have become spoilt to the point where luxury has become a necessity to us and opulence a right. An approach of this nature is a threat to sound community values. All other considerations apart, it requires a common sense approach.

What is happening now in White education is in the national interest. The way in which this is being done is responsible, and that is why I have pleasure in supporting this motion.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Stellenbosch is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Education …[Interjections.] … and I shall not give him the treatment he meted out to me yesterday when he attributed things to me that I did not say. I think the essence of the speech made by the hon member for Stellenbosch was as disturbing as the policy of the NP on education matters, and specifically on White education matters. He made a plea for acceptance by Whites of lower education standards, lower standards with regard to amenities, facilities and manpower. That was the essence of his speech. [Interjections.]

Order!

He devoted his speech to the justification of his plea for the scaling down of standards. I am saying it was a transparent attempt which did not impress us, and the hon member ought to know it.

As for the poor hon member for Brentwood, who came forward with this motion, we have been accustomed to his fickleness since 1982. He is renowned for making the wrong decision at the wrong time. Therefore it is very appropriate that it is the hon member for Brentwood who is moving this very inappropriate motion in the House this afternoon. He could surely not have chosen a more inappropriate motion at a more inopportune time. If it were not such a serious matter, one could have thought that he was joking. [Interjections.] This afternoon, he wants to express support for something which is already recognised, inter alia by the organised profession, as just another blunder of the Government.

The hon member for Brentwood, and in fact all the White voters out there, would do well to take note of what was said by the Federal Teachers’ Council, the organised profession itself, by the hon the Minister of National Education yesterday evening, and even by the hon the State President. Of course they could also take note of the unforgettable, damning allegations that the hon the Minister of Education and Training made about the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Representatives. The hon member for Brits referred to it. Those allegations of the hon the Minister of Education and Training actually deprived the hon the Minister of Education and Culture of any credibility and trust that he could still have enjoyed in White education.

What is the reality? The reality is that the Federal Teachers Council passed an unanimous motion of no confidence in the Government’s management of this matter. [Interjections.] What is the further reality? In his statement yesterday evening, the hon the Minister of National Education basically admitted in his statement that the Government had handled the matter incorrectly, and he admitted that the organised profession was right on fundamental points. It was an acknowledgement of failure. What is the further reality? The hon the State President admitted to the profession that they had a case. He admitted that they had a good, strong case, but then he told them that unfortunately he could not help them. The hon the Minister of Education and Training incriminated even the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and said, that for all practical purposes, this so-called White Minister of Education was part and parcel of what I want to call “the mysterious formula conspiracy” to deprive White education of its rightful share of the funds. As if that was not enough, the hon member for Brentwood has now came forward with this ridiculous self-incriminating motion of support for a cause which has already been placed on record as having been lost.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to say that one hon Minister incriminated another hon Minister?

Order! The hon member for Potgietersrus may proceed.

It sounds, especially after the remarks of the hon member for Pretoria Central, as if the hon members on the other side do not want to see or understand the reality that exists around them here. Let us help them analyse it.

The hon member for Brentwood said he supported the way in which essential rationalisation was being implemented and education standards were being maintained. What are the facts? The hon the Minister of Education and Culture admitted that owing to a lack of funds, a backlog was building up as regards the maintenance—I am not talking about the expansion—of existing White school and hostel buildings.

I am mentioning a second aspect. Until a few years ago we were still building up White nursery school education. Educationists agree that it is a matter of cardinal importance. The result of the Government’s so-called essential rasionalisation—I have the statement of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in black and white—is that there are no funds available for additional posts and facilities for nursery school education. The result is not only stagnation, but deterioration, because coming to a halt means deterioration. [Interjections.] Yet the hon member for Brentwood and the Government are asking us and the White voters to support this motion. Things are so bad that the hon the Minister is saying that nursery school education is not compulsory education. Yet he complains when he is told that Std 9 and 10 education is not compulsory either. He has not said anything about the widely expressed plea that compulsory school attendance should be lowered to Std 4. The hon the Minister says that we should be satisfied that standards are being maintained.

We must be honest with one another and with the voters that we represent. This red herring argument of the Government that nursery school education is not compulsory education, is being proferred because the Government is unable to maintain the standard of White pre-primary education in departmental and Government-subsidised schools. Furthermore, he dare not maintain the standard, because if he were to attempt to include nursery school education in the financing formula, he would not be able to attain his ideal of equal education standards and opportunities for Blacks and Whites. His entire policy would then fall flat.

Define the age of a nursery school child!

The hon the Minister is welcome to tell us, and then he can also help the hon member who is talking so much at the back there, because there are a few basic premises that we accept for the purposes of the debate … [Interjections.]

Order!

You are a nursery school child, because you sit in the back row.

The hon the Minister is welcome to tell us whether nursery school education is included in that formula, and if it is not included, we want to know why not. White education standards must be lowered; otherwise there is no chance that the Government’s policy will succeed. That is how absurd the situation has become.

Let us consider primary and secondary education. I want to know from the hon member for Brentwood whether he admits that it is the Government’s intention to rationalise to such an extent that Blacks, Coloureds and Whites will enjoy equal education standards and opportunities within ten years, or as soon as possible thereafter. It is a simple question, and the hon member for Brentwood may as well answer it. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of National Education made this announcement quite some time ago, but the NP is so confused that the hon member for Brentwood has lost his tongue.

Go and read my statement.

In the second place I want to know from the hon member for Brentwood whether he admits that this ten-year plan is related to the as yet secret financing formula. That is the formula according to which funds are to be allocated to Black, Coloured and White education. Does the hon member admit it? The hon member is as silent as the grave.

Order! I must point out to the hon member for Potgietersrus that when the hon member for Brentwood or any other hon member remains silent, they are adhering to the rules of the House. [Interjections.]

But he is doing so so loudly that we cannot hear him at all!

In the third place, I want to know from the hon member for Brentwood whether he knows that this secret financing formula is related to with the so-called essential rationalisation in White education. [Interjections.] The hon member has just made an attempt, probably also in accordance with the Rules of the House, to say something, but I could not hear it.

I want to make the following statement to the hon member for Brentwood and the hon the Minister. The effect of this secret financing formula, whereby funds for White education are being drastically cut, in the name of so-called essential rationalisation, is that the White pupil density, the White pupil-teacher ratio and the average classroom size inter alia will have to deteriorate drastically.

That is a statement that I am making to the hon the Minister, and he has an opportunity in this debate to react to it. Along with that White education standards will be drastically lowered, and the hon member for Brentwood is still asking for our support for it. I am putting it to whoever wants to listen, that the price that the Whites will have to pay is that they will have to accept Third World standards in their education. According to Government policy, the Whites will have to depart from general Western standards, as they are also being led by the Government into departing from many other things that are important to our people.

I put it to hon members that according to the secret formula and the supposed rationalisation programme, the Whites are being led by the Government to a pupil density of approximately 27. After all, we are unable to ascertain the details from the Government! So we are making statements of our own, and the hon the Minister can now reply to them and give alternative figures if he does not like ours. It will lead to a pupil density of approximately 27, as opposed to the present pupil density of approximately 18. That represents a 50% deterioration.

The Government is leading us, according to its secret formula to a pupil-teacher ratio of approximately 27:1, as opposed to the present ratio of approximately 18:1. Once again that represents a deterioration of approximately 50%.

The Government is leading us, according to a secret formula, to an average classroom size of about 36, as opposed to the present 24. It is astounding that once again this works out to a 50% deterioration in the White’s position, and the hon member for Brentwood is asking us to support this supposed rationalisation programme! It is a deterioration of only 50%; that is probably not so bad!

Sir, we are predicting at this early stage that the acceptance of such a drastic lowering of standards for the education of our children will simply not be possible, not even by the Government, and that they too will have to be sufficiently realistic to simply adjust their goals.

However, let us dwell briefly on the position with regard to manpower. Manpower accounts for by far the greatest expenditure in the budget. I think it is correct to say that there are approximately 59 000 established teaching posts in both the school programme and the education control and auxiliary services programmes. We are putting it to the hon the Minister that on the grounds of and as a result of this secret funding formula and the supposed rationalisation programme, at least 35% of those personnel will have to be retrenched. The Government will either have to fire 20 000 educationists, trained people—these are our people in education—or drive them from their posts by means of the salary policy that the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of National Education are following, in order to achieve the aims that the Government has already formulated.

I want to conclude by saying that the Government’s gimmick of essential rationalisation means in concrete terms less money, fewer personnel and fewer services, and it spells out a progressive deterioration in the position of the Whites as long as this Government is in power. It is a privilege for me, Sir, to support with great confidence the amendment of the hon member for Brits.

Mr Chairman, yesterday afternoon the hon member for Potgietersrus took a severe beating in this House, but apparently he did not realise it, because he asked for it again this afternoon, and he is going to get it again.

Only little Red Riding Hood would believe you!

The theme which the hon member for Potgietersrus and his hon colleagues harped on this afternoon and in previous debates as well, was that money was being taken from White education and given to Black education, or, put another way, that a redistribution of funds for education had to take place at the expense of the Whites. In this regard, I want to quote from a little CP publication that is being distributed in our area and in which this theme is spelt out in plainer language. They quote anonymous so-called “aggrieved officials” who say the following in this regard:

In a further quotation from the same report we read the following:

Let me quote a final passage which reads as follows:

The CP has seen an opportunity in White education to score political debating points off the NP. Of course, they have every right to do so. I do not begrudge them that right. What I do reproach them for …

This entire motion is a political farce!

Order!

What I do reproach them for is that by saying that money is being taken away from the Whites and given to the Blacks they are by implication inciting racial conflict in South Africa, and they are also trying to make the NP the scapegoat. The CP cannot be trusted with racially sensitive issues and if the CP continues in this manner and does not come to its senses, that is how they will be known and remembered in history. On the other hand the NP is governing South Africa and handling education matters with the knowledge that one must do unto others what one would have them do unto you.

I should like to support this motion of the hon member for Brentwood, and am restricting myself to the third section of it, that part in which the House expresses its support for the way in which the Department of Education and Culture: House of Assembly is expanding the parent and community involvement. In the course of my speech I shall also reply in full to what the hon member for Durban-North said in this regard.

I shall begin by referring to the fact that the NP places a high premium on the right of the various population groups in South Africa, inter alia to self-determination by maintaining their own schools and a community life of their own. Therefore each group is given the greatest measure of self-determination, and according to this groups can maintain their own lifestyle and their own identity. It is important to note that White voters repeatedly indicated that they preferred an education system in which each population group had its own schools. We in the NP believe that education should be related to groups and language. Therefore education is an own affair, and for this reason it was embodied as such in the 1983 Constitution.

However, it is important to note that self-determination in education is not only manifested in structures, for example, in this House, or in the Department of Education and Culture, but especially in an involved, sympathetic parent community. The National Education Policy Act, 1967, as amended in 1986, makes provision for allocating a special place in the education system to the organised parent community. Accordingly section 2 of Act 39 of 1967, as amended by Act 103 of 1986, provides that the Minister of Education and Culture may not submit legislation to the House of Assembly before the organised parent community has been consulted.

Of course, parent involvement in education is nothing new, but the existing education dispensation for Whites is an extension and broadening, as well as a statutory embodiment of parents’ participation on the level of policy-making, and must indeed be welcomed. According to this dispensation, parents are able to participate in four matters: In the first place, the contents of education, in the second place, the nurturing nature of education—the values and norms that are imparted to our children—in the third place, the school’s function of imparting culture, and in the fourth place the quality of education—which subjects are offered and what standards are set.

Let us now consider the implications of having given this statutory recognition to the parent community. By this means an important facet of the education programme is shifted onto parents in that an opportunity is being created for parent participation which did not exist before. The hon members of the opposition parties must admit this. To sum up, parent participation is being structurally established on the following levels. Locally it is being established in control boards or school committees or management councils. On district level it is being established in school councils, and on provincial level, in the provincial education councils. On national level, it is being established in the statutory advisory mechanisms.

In my opinion the most important form of participation that is being given to the organised parent community in terms of the Act is the provincial education councils. I am saying that because these councils manifest the partnership philosophy of the Government sector most clearly. In addition to this, the provincial education councils are preeminently suited to preserving the unique character of education in a province by bearing in mind local circumstances in their deliberations.

We must remember that a provincial education council represents a variety of educational interests in each province, and that the parent component is the largest of these. This, along with the fact that the Minister of Education and Culture has to consult the relevant provincial education council on policy matters, is sufficient proof of the importance of this body.

What I have just said is best illustrated by the matters that the four provincial education councils dealt with last year. According to a media statement by the hon the Minister in November last year the provincial education councils, in addition to proposed legislation, gave consideration to a joint draft policy in connection with school sport, cultural activities in our schools and school uniforms.

The question must be asked why the Government considers the participation and involvement of parents and the community in schools to be so important. The answer lies in the basic point of departure of the department that parents are partners in education. Education is not the responsibility of the teacher alone. The Government would like to see everyone involved with the child taking a hand in education. Educationists agree that in a family in which the parents are actively involved in their children’s school activities, the children’s progress at school is better.

We must remember that traditionally the parent community helped mainly with fund-raising at schools. The present educational dispensation makes parents co-bearers of responsibility in determining the character, the line of development and the spirit of the school. It is a dispensation that must indeed be termed excellent.

I want to conclude by saying that I support this motion because the Department of Education and Culture, by means of this present educational dispensation, has made the parent an active participant in education and has given him a meaningful role to play. Parents are no longer just spectators who serve tea and listen to what the school thinks of their children. According to this dispensation, parents also determine the quality of the education in that they have a say inter alia in the appointment of personnel and the provision and utilisation of facilities at schools.

It is a privilege and a right of parents and the community to contribute towards and participate in the education of their children. However, involvement goes hand in hand with responsibility. The greater say that has now been given to parents also places a responsibility on them. Therefore the success of the system does not lie in the legal provision for this involvement alone. It depends on the degree to which the parent community is going to make use of what the system offers them.

We must remember that the active and constructive involvement of parents at each school in White education is not only essential, but will determine the nature and the quality of the education that the children are going to receive. We may not fail our children, and with that the future of our country, because of a lack of involvement on the part of parents.

The system of parent and community involvement is, as I said earlier, an excellent system, and this side of the House supports the Department of Education and Culture in its efforts to apply it successfully. In fact, we wish the department luck with the creation of such an extensive and educationally justifiable system.

May I express the hope that rationalisation in White education will have a positive result by being conducive to greater sympathy from and involvement of parents and the community. I gladly support the motion.

Mr Chairman, my time is limited and I shall therefore not discuss the same subject as the hon member for Bloemfontein East.

It is undoubtedly true that there is need for education as an own affair. Just listen to the CP of today and the NP of long ago when they say that the struggle for national education (volksonderwys) is a struggle for survival and liberation. As hon members know, that is something which sounds very patriotic.

†Hear the call of the disenfranchised that the struggle for people’s education is a struggle for liberation and a struggle for survival. That is something very patriotic to them.

*How ironic it is that in our divided country national education and struggle for survival of the one are seen by the other as weapons of domination. The “people’s” education and liberation struggle of the other are merely denigrated as a revolutionary onslaught. It is ironic on another level too that what is described by the introducer of the motion as the devolution of decisionmaking and greater involvement through own affairs is seen by others as centralisation and a suspension of one’s own involvement.

The people of Natal for instance believe strongly that education should be an own affair, not as defined by Pretoria but specifically as an own affair of Natal.

In addition I agree that education should be an own affair and not a Pretoria affair, but then I want to define “own” as determined by freedom of association and not by race. The part played by Pretoria should then be to ensure that every child ultimately receives an equal opportunity for education and that standards are maintained.

Surely those functions of education do not require different administrations and I therefore endorse once again the principle of one education department.

Education is obviously a very important modus—so it is said—of passing culture from one generation to another. This in no way presupposes that schools of mixed culture in mixed communities cannot pass on the diversity of culture. The parallel medium school at Greytown for instance is at least producing more bilingual children and certainly Afrikaners or English-speaking South Africans who are no worse than any others.

What is the source of this urge for own affairs? I think there is more to it than culture. I think there is a political motive attached because the Government believes that it is also a way of passing on the ideology of racial segregation, with self-determination as the objective, from generation to generation.

Unfortunately there is no assurance that the status quo in thinking patterns will be passed on unscathed. The hon member for Overvaal and I were both educated by the hon member for Gezina for example. Hon members can see the result. [Interjections.] It is unfortunate for own affairs education too, that such education as we know it cannot deal with change; that change which is essential if we are to talk about building a single nation with undivided patriotism.

Own affairs education, linked to the rhetoric of total onslaught from the other side, instils in White children such fear of their unknown Black contemporaries that one can hardly expect them to make common cause in regard to patriotism for example, the search for harmony, as well as generosity regarding the resources of the country and the fruits of joint industry, which one certainly does when facing the demands of real life in this country.

The sooner the present own affairs education disappears, the sooner South Africa will emerge the winner.

Mr Chairman, initially I was most grateful to hear of the motion proposed by the hon member for Brentwood. I was most pleased when it became possible for the House to discuss this motion, so that we could have the opportunity to engage in discussion on this extremely important matter. Now I have to say that I began to ask myself, during the course of the debate, whether it was worth all the bother to bring a motion before the House if the Opposition dealt with it—I say this with great respect—as they dealt with today’s motion. I shall try to explain what I mean.

The fact is that this motion is worded as follows:

I leave it to any unbiased person to read the Hansard of this debate in future and assess the contributions all the opposition speakers made in respect of the motion. It is for this reason that I ask myself whether it is worth taking the trouble to bring a well-formulated motion like this one before this House. It gave us the opportunity to discuss a matter of importance, wide in scope and affecting the entire community; I am referring to the entire community of the entire country. This opportunity is important because the issue of education excites great passions in every country. Yet we are confronted with the kind of debating we witnessed today. There are those of us who are using this issue in an attempt to notch up a precious few political points and—I want to say this right now—are trying to hijack the organised profession for political purposes. Let me say here and now that I hope that the executive of the FTC will take note of the transparent attempts of the petty party politicians who, as they showed today, are trying to hijack the executive of the organised profession. [Interjections.] I hope that the organised profession and its executive committee will take cognisance of this. [Interjections.] I shall return to this point later.

Let me without further delay express my gratitude towards the hon member for Brentwood for—if I may put it like this—doing the groundwork as far as this motion is concerned. His account of the historical course of events was most clear in respect of the constitutional development of education, but was particularly so regarding the burning issue which was the subject of this whole discussion. I am grateful to him for that, and not least for the way in which he went about it.

I also want all those who sat and listened with genuine objectivity to know—I say this without fear of contradiction—that I convey my sincere gratitude and appreciation, together with my congratulations, to the other three hon members on my side of the House, namely the hon members for Walmer, Stellenbosch and Bloemfontein East. Hon members can have a look at their Hansard. They discussed this subject in a thorough, well-reasoned and motivated manner, and presented their arguments logically. They did not allow themselves to fall into the temptation of dragging a lot of minor political matters into the debate. I want to thank these hon members.

I want to assure the hon member for Walmer that it was very clear, in spite of the attempts of the hon member for Losberg to suggest that he had not told this House the whole truth, that he was speaking not only from experience, but also from his sound academic grounding in the subject, when he referred to rationalisation at tertiary institutions and the universities in particular. I thank the hon member for that.

The hon member for Stellenbosch focused precisely on the wording of the motion. He succeeded in giving us a clear explanation of rationalisation, standards and the realities we were dealing with. Yet he too did not lapse into party politics, even though it would have been very easy for him to do so. It would be very easy to respond to each of these hon members on the party political standpoints they took. [Interjections.] That is not, however, what we are about. I shall return to those hon members.

This motion has been proposed not so that we can get these generalities of our chests, but rather in order to stimulate discussion on a compelling issue, and to elicit positive standpoints on the part of the opposition parties as well. I am afraid, however, that this has not happened. The contribution of the hon member for Stellenbosch was clearly relevant to this motion.

The hon member for Bloemfontein East mentioned a matter of indisputable importance on which no one could possibly take issue with him, namely the exceptional advantages which community involvement holds for the parent, as part not only of the process of rationalisation, but also of education throughout the years. If the process of rationalisation has in fact provoked parents and the community into becoming more involved in education than they might have been decades ago, then it is a good thing that it is taking place now. That is exactly what the hon member indicated here, namely that because of the involvement of the community and parents, the result of rationalisation is an improvement in standards and not a deterioration as the hon members would have it.

When are you going to give recognition to the various parent associations?

If there is one thing for which I thank the Lord, it is the fact that I am not the leader of a party which includes such an infant. [Interjections.]

You cannot answer. [Interjections.]

I do not want to get involved in discussion with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition now, and I have just as little desire to discuss with that hon member in the back benches a matter which has nothing to do with this motion. [Interjections.] When the matters raised relate to this motion, we shall discuss them. How did the hon member for Losberg put it? If the stone hits its target, the cat or the dog will howl—or what was it he said? [Interjections.]

Order! I think hon members have discussed this aspect for long enough. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I want to come back to the motion as it stands. What is the factual position? The hon member for Stellenbosch referred to that aspect. Rationalisation is a necessity as a result of one very important factor, and that is the decline in population growth. That is not this Government’s fault; it is not the fault of the opposition parties; it could not be blamed on any government. I do not have to elaborate. The fact is that the growth rate of the population has declined. I think the hon member for Pinetown also referred to that. A decline in population growth brings about a decline in school enrolment and, of course, in the degree to which existing facilities have to be used. Naturally this also results in a reduction in the demand for teachers, as well as of the number of teachers who have to be trained, and in this respect too the demand for facilities might well fall.

There is another reason for rationalisation. Any responsible government, like any responsible business, strives for responsible, cost-effective management and administration. As the hon member for Walmer very clearly indicated, if these circumstances have resulted in all the various focuses, whether the CS sector, the technikons, the universities or even my department running education more cost-effectively, with a resultant improvement in standards, it was necessary for us to go through this period. The principal of one university told me that he had approached his staff, after they had been shaken by the news that once again the subsidy was not going to be paid out in full, and told them they had to rationalise within their departments. His professors and lecturers asked him what was going to become of them. At the end of that year they told him that in spite of the fact that there had been fewer lecturers, they had provided instruction of a better quality.

That is true, and it happens on various levels. It is therefore incorrect to base one’s argument on the supposition that rationalisation only has negative effects. That is not true; it can also have positive effects, and I shall come to those in a moment.

The question that has been raised is what rationalisation, which is a necessity, entails in practice. I want to answer that question. Briefly, it obviously has to involve in practice the closing of certain schools and teaching colleges. Such a school or teaching college can either be closed or rationalised by means of the amalgamation process. That also entails of necessity the stricter application of personnel provision scales. Let me say immediately that it is not entirely valid to argue that the quality of education suffers when there are fewer teachers. The personnel provision scale remains as it is. In other words, the pupil-teacher ratio remains the same. Fewer teachers are required because there are fewer pupils. The argument of the Official Opposition that there is an inevitable lowering in the standard because there are fewer teachers is not valid. It is not true because the pupil-teacher ratio remains exactly the same. Surely that is logical to anyone who is prepared to use his common sense.

There is a further practice which flows from rationalisation, and that is the restriction on the growth of universities. I want to say today here that I have the greatest gratitude and appreciation for those university councils and professors who have perceived the wisdom of the growth restriction as being the result not only of economic circumstances, but also of the necessity to offer training on the basis of what is required. This is what we call occupationally oriented training. If, for that reason, it is necessary to limit the growth of universities so that students will be encouraged to enrol at technikons as well, it is in the interests of the country. Today I express my gratitude to those university principals who accept this and give their co-operation.

Rationalisation also results in the optimal utilisation of existing accommodation. Because the PFP spokesmen have so strongly emphasized that this available accommodation should immediately be used by people of other colours, I want to react to that point. I have made a statement on this issue and repeatedly stated in the House the policy of this side of the House in respect of vacancies which arise at schools, universities or colleges. In respect of schools, we have made it very clear that we do not simply insist on keeping for ourselves a facility which used to belong to Whites and is now empty as a result of rationalisation. That would be senseless. We have, however, a certain policy, which is also subscribed to by the Ministers’ Council, in terms of which we first establish whether or not we can utilise that facility to satisfy another requirement within the Department of Education and Culture. Surely it is logical and responsible not to erect a new building if an existing building can be used. If we do not have a requirement for such a building, that facility will be offered to the Administration: House of Assembly for use by any of the departments on the same basis. If not one of the departments has a suitable requirement, we can, of course, offer the facility to any Government department, and this obviously includes the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates.

As the hon member for Pinetown indicated, we have already put such facilities at the disposal of the Department of Education and Training. There is no doubt that more of these will be made available in future. I must also state categorically that no one must expect us, when a school has, let us say, 50 empty places, to fill those 50 empty places with 50 pupils from the Coloured, Indian or Black population groups. We have a certain philosophy and certain principles in respect of separate peoples’ (volksgebonde) education. We on this side of the House stand by this approach. [Interjections.]

It is also true that we have, in fact, made provision in our Constitution—we make no apology for this—that enables us to provide services under certain circumstances. We shall specify those circumstances. Members of other population groups are able to enrol at private schools, the CS sector, universities and technikons.

As I have just said, the results of this rationalisation are not only negative, but can also be positive. Why positive? Rationalisation does not have to mean a lowering of standards, for when parents become more involved in their children’s schools and, as the hon member for Bloemfontein East said, assume joint responsibility, the expansion of facilities takes place more quickly and expeditiously. This is definitely not a lowering of standards. On many occasions the opposition made a fuss about the fact that standards have declined, but not one hon member of the opposition offered scientific proof to indicate where standards had declined. [Interjections.] Not one of the hon members who are now shouting like that proved to this House that rationalisation had resulted in a lowering of standards. I challenge them to point out to me now where the standard of instruction at any of these schools has dropped, and to prove it.

What is more, I believe that rationalisation can have a positive result, because standards are not lowered if our educational institutions are made more vigorous and high-level manpower is utilised where it can make a worthwhile contribution. The pupil-teacher ration is not necessarily adversely affected when teachers leave simply because posts have fallen away. The ratio remains the same. If this all leads to a teacher performing his duties with more commitment—I say this openly—it is just as well that it has happened. A further positive consequence may be that creative ideas, the elimination of outmoded methods and greater involvement on the part of those associated with education will lead to higher and not lower standards. Since a specific pupil-teacher ratio is still applicable, we shall take care to maintain it in future as far as possible.

One of the hon members asked a question about the pupil-teacher ratio. I think it was the hon member for Potgietersrus, who became so entangled in his little sums after telling us that he simply wanted to mention a certain figure. That sort of thing is done with the aim of bandying it about outside this House and not of conveying the full truth to the public. [Interjections.] The fact is that a pupil-teacher ratio of 30:1 is accepted overseas as quite a reasonable ratio. The De Lange Report points out—the hon member for Pinetown conceded this—that the pupil-teacher ratio can rise to that level and still sustain a high standard on scientific and educational grounds. [Interjections.] Despite that fact, we do not intend to increase the pupil-teacher ratio to 27:1 or 30:1 in the near future. We shall, however, be able to consider it within the available funds and what the State can afford, without risking a decline in the standard of instruction.

Let me be quite categorical about this today. If we have a pupil-teacher ratio of 8:1 and, in theory, it has to rise to 20:1—I am not saying that this is our intention—it will not represent a lowering of standards, because the determining factor is the person standing in front of the class. Today I want to pay tribute to the teachers, men and women, across the length and breadth of this country, who find themselves in classrooms where the pupil-teacher ratio is 30:1. They are faced with 30 children in a class, and yet they do outstanding work.

It is also true that not all teachers have precisely the same abilities. Of course not. However, I want to pay tribute to the teachers for the work which they do perform.

I say here today honestly and forthrightly that this Government and this Department of Education and Culture regard education as a very high priority. I say this notwithstanding the fact that the FTC suggested in a statement that there were doubts about this. I want to say this today, and I shall continue to say so, and I shall provide proof that this Government has over the years regarded education as a tremendously high priority.

Of course my colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education, referred in his statement to the fact that there was, in fact, a backlog. The hon member immediately took as his point of departure the fact that there was a backlog of 11 %; that is what the FTC said. My hon colleague said we admitted that there was a backlog, but that it was not necessarily of such an extent. Obviously it has been the policy of this Government over the years, when backlogs have occurred, to eliminate them within the limited abilities of the Treasury. This has often happened. The undertaking has been given that this will be done in the shortest possible time on this occasion as well, and I am very grateful to note that in their statement in reaction to the statement of the hon the Minister of National Education, the FTC executive indicated that they had taken note of that and would continue discussions in the various structures that exist.

I also want to say today that we—I am referring to us as politicians, but of course this applies to any other body—will have to guard against creating restlessness in education in this country. We must not do that. Obviously education must be allowed to proceed in an undisturbed atmosphere …

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

I do not have the time now.

… to fulfill its primary task. I think it is up to us and everyone else who has anything to say about education, to do so in such a way that we recognise the fine work which is being done and not to create uneasiness.

Who is creating the uneasiness?

I do not mean by that to deny the organised profession the right to negotiate on teachers’ benefits. I grant them that right and they exercise it in a particular way. Here and there we clash. Of course that happens, and it does not help to argue it away! Naturally we come into conflict here and there, but we continue to put the interests of education first, and for my part I would not like to suggest that the organised profession does anything which harms education, and I expect precisely the same from the organised profession as far as the Government itself is concerned.

Put your money where your mouth is!

I would like to go further by saying that when we talk about education standards—there have been many references to that subject here today—we should really ask ourselves what we mean by educational standards. Educational standards are a scientific and defined concept about which we cannot simply generalise. I want to mention an example. When I refer to the quality of education in a particular classroom, it has nothing to do with the football field outside. This point was also raised by one of my colleagues. Of course we would like to create good educational facilities outside the classroom as well, as far as possible, but the fact that we have to ask the parents and the community to give a contribution for the maintenance of sports facilities, for example, does not mean a lowering of standards in the classroom. I also want to say that quality is determined in the classroom …

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

Order! I have to announce that in terms of Standing Order No 15 Mr Speaker has nominated the following members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees: Messrs T Abrahams, D W N Josephs, D H Mateman and A Williams.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

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

1. (a) the Group Areas Act, Act 36 of 1960, should be repealed; and
2. (b) all proclaimed Coloured areas should immediately be declared open for occupation and acquisition of immovable property by all people of South Africa, irrespective of race.

This is nothing new. On Monday, 11 February 1985, the hon member for Swartland moved a similar motion to that which is contained in (a). On 12 June 1987 the same hon member once again moved the same motion, viz that the House was of the opinion that the Group Areas Act, Act 36 of 1966, and related legislation should be repealed. On both occasions the motions were fully motivated. I remember that on 12 June 1987 the history of this Group Areas Act was traced back to an Act of the Transvaal, Act 3 of 1885, when Pageview and Vrededorp were set aside for Malays, Blacks and Coolies.

We refer to Act 41 of 1950 and the amendments thereto. This Act was repealed by the Group Areas Act, Act 77 of 1957 which in turn was repealed by the Group Areas Act, No 36 of 1966. We spelt out what has happened since 1966. In the previous debates we referred to the amendments made by Act 69 of 1969, Act 83 of 1972, Act 72 of 1974, Act 22 of 1975, Act 96 of 1977, Act 46 of 1978, Act 113 of 1979, Act 62 of 1982 and Act 101 of 1984.

We took great pains to point out that the Group Areas Act, No 36 of 1966, as amended, was oppressive. It would appear, however, that the people we addressed lack the intellectual ability to recognise that this law is, in fact, oppressive. I want to pause at this point for a moment. We have been debating the repeal of the Group Areas Act since the days of the old CRC. I make bold to state that it would appear that those in power lack the intellectual ability to grasp the fact that this is an oppressive law.

*The hon the Deputy Minister is a former clergyman, and certain Bible texts were quoted. I should now like to quote from Micah 2:1-3. We shall quote this repeatedly, because it has to sink in. It reads:

Sir, the time of evil has come. We have been living in a state of emergency for some months now. We are living in a time when members of the Police, who should be protecting us, are being charged with murder in our courts.

†We are living in a state of emergency in this country. In fact, we are living in a state of siege. We are being ruled by decree. We are living in an era in which the NP have defied the world and dared the world “to do its damnedest”. We are living in a time in which this Government has intensified repression in its endeavour to protect its white skin.

I do not wish to regurgitate all the arguments that have been raised in this House over the years in support of the motion that the Group Areas Act be repealed. However, instead of the Act being repealed, what do we find? We detect a new hostility on the part of the Government to implement the Act with renewed vigour and intensity. Here I want to refer in particular to a report by Mr Anthony Doman in the Argus of 26 February 1988. He reported that:

These words have been attributed to the hon the Deputy Minister. It has been reported that he intends enforcing the Group Areas Act so that residential segregation can be enforced “very, very strictly”.

But why?

He went further in that article and quoted the hon the Deputy Minister as saying that this Act will not be repealed. Today we want to know from him why this Act will not be repealed. He has undertaken to keep Maitland “White”. He has asked the residents of Maitland to report all illegal residents. Sir, I ask with tears in my eyes: How can one be an illegal resident in the country of your birth? [Interjections.] Sir, what is an illegal resident? The hon the Deputy Minister will have to answer us today.

According to this article the hon the Deputy Minister “stated that the application of the Act was an emotional question”. He was further quoted as having said that the Act “had come under pressure especially from the left”. Do we in this Chamber represent the left, Mr Chairman? We have been hammering away for decades for the repeal of this Act. Yet suddenly the hon the Deputy Minister regards us as being from the left too.

The old bogeyman theory.

The hon the Deputy Minister emphasised that certain tricks were being employed whereby White nominees obtain properties and allow other people to occupy these. I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that he is making criminals of decent people. He told his audience that he has problems with the law and that changes will be coming in the second half of the parliamentary session. Today, we as MPs would like the hon the Deputy Minister to tell us what changes he envisages. Why must we read about it in the Press? Why can the hon the Deputy Minister not tell us today what changes he envisages? I will tell the hon the Deputy Minister why. According to an article in Business Day of 7 March 1988 a city councillor, the deputy leader of the NP in the Transvaal in the city of Johannesburg, one Johan Fick, said: “We have no standpoint on the Act at the moment.”

If the NP is no longer adopting a standpoint on this Act, why is it being retained on the Statute Book? The NP’s own deputy leader in the Johannesburg City Council has stated that the NP is no longer adopting a standpoint on this Act. We want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister today whether he endorses Mr Fick’s view that the NP has no stand on this matter, or whether it is indeed adopting a standpoint. If the NP is adopting a standpoint, why does Mr Fick say otherwise?

I also want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to one fact in particular. He once mentioned that “once grey areas are permitted…”. Does that mean grey areas are going to be permitted? Is the hon the Deputy Minister going to tell us today that Mayfair, Hillbrow, Bezuidenhout Valley, District Six, Woodstock and all those other places are open areas? We want to know today. We do not want to read about it in the second half of the parliamentary session. We want to know about these things today.

*I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that the time of evil is upon us. Let us pause for a moment to consider the situation in South Africa on this particular day. Let us forget the past for one moment and consider the situation as it is today. What do we find? We find that there is a state of emergency in this country at the moment.

†Many organisations have been silenced and are still being silenced. The police are being used more and more to repress genuine grievances in this country. More and more people are streaming into the NP’s so-called White areas. It is a de facto situation that the NP can never reverse. Hillbrow and Mayfair can never be made White again. We dare the Government to try to do it; we dare them “to do (their) damnedest” to make Hillbrow and Mayfair White again. They cannot.

Order! The hon member is saying that it is the Government who should do their damnedest, is he not?

Yes, Sir. In the same sense that this Government challenged the world to do its damnedest, we are challenging them to do their damnedest to make those two areas White again.

Order! I was trying to make sure that the hon member was referring to the Government and not to the hon the Deputy Minister as an individual. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, the hon the Deputy Minister is the Government’s representative and so we are addressing him on this issue today.

The hon the Deputy Minister has argued that the Group Areas Act was devised to bring about order in the multinational society of the Republic of South Africa as well as to achieve an equitable dispensation. We also want to remind the hon the Deputy Minister and the Government, therefore, that this Act has caused nothing but hate and injustice. This Act is depriving those who are in need of homes at this point in time of the opportunity of acquiring those homes. The hon the Deputy Minister’s Government has arranged matters in such a way that before one can acquire a home anywhere in this country, the Group Areas Act first has to be applied. Before people of colour can apply to buy even the tiniest portion of land on which to build a home, the Group Areas Act first has to be applied. By having this Act on the Statute Book and by applying it, the Government is directly responsible for the backlog in housing that we are faced with in this country.

All those people living in tin shanties today and who can afford a home, all those people who are living in abject misery out there, must, therefore, blame the hon the Deputy Minister’s Government for their misery; and they must point in particular to the retention of this particular Act on the Statute Book.

We do not accept that we are a multinational society, as the hon the Deputy Minister is prone to argue. We have analysed the arguments presented to us here in the past, viz that we are a multinational society and that that is the crux of the problem we have in this country. That, however, is precisely the problem we have in this country, for the more the Government insists that we are a separate “nation” the more they insist that people of colour should be lumped together, and the more they insist that there should be these various groups as defined in the Group Areas Act, the more conflict they will have in this country. That Government’s protection of White identity is but a mask. I shall explain later why I say it is a mask. We believe in a South African nation; and as members of the South African nation it is our democratic right to choose where we want to live, whom we want to marry, and where we want to have our children educated.

It is also one’s democratic right to be represented in one parliament by a representative of one’s choice. We also want to address the CP on this matter today, because we believe that the NP and the CP are bedmates. The CP, with its incestuous child, the AWB, is bent on causing confrontation in this country. By the very act of trying to preserve the Group Areas Act identity, the Government is causing this friction. If the Government needs a law to protect its identity, is its identity worth protecting? The Group Areas Act, we find, is not dependent on the Population Registration Act for the identification of groups, as it defines its own groups. There are basically three groups. Firstly, there is the White group, secondly there is the Coloured group, and thirdly—which is a laughing matter—there is any other group of persons declared to be a group by the hon the State President. At a previous debate we asked the hon the Minister of Home Affairs on what he based this White group of his. We accused him of basing it on sheer, naked racism and on the colour of a person’s skin. That hon Minister of Home Affairs assured us, however, that skin colour was not the determining factor but that culture, religion and language amongst other factors were also taken into account. The Government is prepared to share whatever it has with the Portugese Catholics.

*An Afrikaans-speaking member of the NG Church is prepared to share his church with a Portuguese Catholic, and now I want the hon the Minister to tell me why they are not prepared to share it with a Coloured Afrikaans-speaking member of the NG Church too?

†Where does this criterion of culture, language and religion come in when they use the argument but deny the validity thereof by making these groups exclusive on the basis of colour? This grouping is based on skin and on nothing else. The Government cannot defend the indefensible in this Chamber. The argument that culture, language and religion also play a part has been proved to be without foundation. We are telling the Government again today that by retaining the Group Areas Act, they are supporting sheer, naked racism in their endeavour to uphold this evil Act. They cannot defend this morally indefensible, repulsive Act. We believe that the right of the individual is paramount and that is the difference. The Government believes in its group identity, while we believe that the right of the individual is paramount.

*I should like to make it clear to the hon the Deputy Minister that by clinging to their identity, they are leading this country to ruin. They are the minority here in Southern Africa.

†They nevertheless believe that this is their paradise, that they are the chosen people and that this is the promised land. I want to assure them that this is not the promised land and that they are not the chosen people. The CP, through the hon member for Ermelo, wants to introduce a motion whereby they want to make it obligatory for landlords to evict a tenant who has been charged and convicted of contravening the Group Areas Act. Our courts have determined that a person cannot be evicted if he has no alternative accommodation to go to. We are waiting to see whether the Government will support the CP on this issue. The hon the Deputy Minister must please tell us today whether they are going to support the CP on this issue and say that people of colour, once they have been convicted in a court of law for contravening the Group Areas Act, are to be evicted. That is what we want to know. The hon the Deputy Minister must not hide away or shrink from this question. We want to know whether they are going to support the CP.

*Is the Government going to share the same bed as the CP now? During the recent by-election the NP accused the CP of being the AWB’s bedfellow. We want to hear from the hon the Deputy Minister today whether they are going to share the bed of the CP and the AWB by supporting the motion of the hon member for Ermelo.

†The Government renders the majority of South Africans non-citizens, and then expects those very non-citizens to perceive the existing order as legitimate. Sir, those people who have been denied political rights will not regard this order as legitimate until the Government opens these doors of Parliament to all the people of this country. Only then will Parliament and its laws be considered legitimate, and this is an argument based on fact.

*The Government’s main consideration is group identification, and it is prepared to let the rest of the country go to ruin, as long as it is able to reap the fruits of this Act. The hon the Deputy Minister must stop fostering that attitude.

Order! The hon member should rather refer to the Government.

Sir, when I address the hon the Minister I do not address him in his personal capacity. I address him as a representative of the Government and, as I said earlier, as a disciple of apartheid.

Order! The hon member must refrain from making such personal remarks.

Sir, a disciple is a person who advocates something.

Order! Yes, but “disciple” may also have a derogatory meaning.

Let us say then that the hon the Minister is a disciple—in the good sense of the word—of apartheid.

†As a result of circumstances beyond the control of this Government, numerous properties in so-called White areas have been occupied by citizens of this country whom the Government, through this Act, has converted into criminals. It is time that the people whom the Government classifies as Coloureds say bluntly how they feel, because their words have so far fallen on deaf ears.

*Sir, when one attends a funeral, one will hear the minister say—the clergymen in the House must please correct me—“Death, where is thy victory? Grave, where is thy sting?” This is more or less what they say. Today I want to ask: “Reform, where is thy victory? Reform, where is thy sting?” I am asking this question, Sir, because reform has come to an absolute standstill in this country. The reason it has come to a standstill is this Government’s fear of the right wing. They are calling the tune now. We want this hon Deputy Minister to tell us today where they are leading us, because we have begged and pleaded here for the repeal of this Act, but thus far our words have fallen on deaf ears. Sir, what must we do to open those ears? We have made it clear here that we are not going to follow the ANC’s method of shooting those ears open. That is why we have come here today for the third time with the same motion, viz that this Act be repealed. Sir, today we are going to try to talk your ears open instead of shooting them open, because we have decided to take part in the system, to follow the course of negotiation and not the course of violence.

I see the hon the Deputy Minister is laughing. He is not taking the matter seriously. [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon the Deputy Minister was not laughing at the hon member. [Interjections.]

Sir, thousands of people are forced to contravene this law because there is sufficient land on which they can be accommodated and because, through this iniquitous Act, the Government controls that land which they are supposed to be able to obtain. Through this Act the Government denies them the right to procure land on which they can build.

However, the Government cannot stop the inevitable. There are more than 37 000 housing units vacant in the so-called White areas, whereas we have thousands and thousands of people on our waiting lists—people who are desirous of obtaining homes. Our people are going to move into the Hillbrows, the Mayfairs, the District Six’s, the Woodstocks and all the other places—despite this Government’s law, Sir. We will also tell the Government that they can do their damnedest because, in terms of an Appellate Division decision, they cannot throw us out until they can provide us with alternative accommodation.

Sir, South Africa belongs to all of us. South Africa should be shared by all of us. We can no longer sit quietly in this Parliament whilst the hon the Deputy Minister and the Government, on account of their White identity, suppress the aspirations of the majority of people. We can no longer sit back and allow them to polarise South Africa, so that the ultimate choice will be between the AWB and the ANC. We cannot allow them to do that. The time has come for them to mend their ways. Since the hon the Deputy Minister is the only representative of the NP Government in this Chamber today …

They must be converted!

The time has come for them to be converted.

†We want the hon the Deputy Minister to take the message to his Government in no uncertain terms that we are standing up here today on behalf of all those oppressed people and that if the Government is not prepared to repeal this Act or any of the other oppressive Acts that we have specified and identified in the course of many debates, we can no longer support this tricameral system. We all came here because we perceived this tricameral system as a point of departure, and not a point of arrival.

As of late the Government has made this tricameral system, and particularly this House, a point of arrival through their “verkrampte” speeches. Or were those speeches made with the by-elections in Schweizer-Reneke and other places in mind? Those elections were lost, and today we want the hon the Deputy Minister to spell out where he is standing now. He is almost a fixture as he has no standpoint on this matter, but today we want to know where he stands.

Our participation in trying to bring about reform is meaningless, because there can be no meaningful reform unless this Act is repealed. If the Government wants to see any reform in this country, the Act must be repealed. This Act is not negotiable. One cannot reform this Act. It must be repealed entirely. One cannot improve something that is evil and bad. The Government is too stubborn to visualise a new South Africa, and that is why they are painting the picture in this Chamber of this country as one that is a free country—free from racial prejudice and free from oppression. The Government still insists on craving the retention of their White identity.

By the Government’s failure to see the writing on the wall, they have brought upon themselves the evil that Micah speaks of.

*The hon the Minister and his people are religious people. Perhaps I am not as religious as they are, but the Bible explicitly says that this is a time of evil. It is a time of evil because our people are being abused.

†It is a time of evil as a result of the NP’s failure over the past 40 years that they have been in power to bring about a truly meaningful system in this country under which justice can prevail for everybody.

*The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said the other day that the Government should mend their ways. Hon members in this House are trying their best.

†They are trying their best, not in a religious sense, but in a political sense. The Government’s conversion, too, must be a conversion in a political sense. When they are what they ought to be and we are what we ought to be, all of us will be free. That does not apply only to hon members in this Chamber, but to every one of the millions of citizens of South Africa.

*How can the hon the Deputy Minister expect a person living in a shack among the sand dunes in Khayelitsha to obey the Government’s laws? How can he expect them to be obedient if the Government is doing everything in its power to place obstacles in their way? The hon member for Bonteheuwel told me this morning that Bonteheuwel was built to accommodate 42 000 people. Today there are 84 000 people living in Bonteheuwel. How many people does the hon the Deputy Minister think there will be in five years’ time? Can the hon the Deputy Minister see what this Group Areas Act is doing to our people? Our people have to hatch like chickens, but these chickens will grow up. Then the Government will reap what it has sown.

†I want to quote from the apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians, chapter 3:3:

Order! When the hon member quotes from The Bible he must always have it at hand.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, there are so many clergymen present in this House that one of them would have jumped up to correct me long ago if I had misquoted anything.

†The most important point is that one should start with the spirit. That is the essence, but the Government has now started with the flesh.

*There are many hon members who will elaborate further on this motion. Having spelt out to the hon the Deputy Minister exactly where we stand, I now want to come to the second part of the motion. It is obvious that when this Act is repealed, all areas will have to be opened. That should be clear. Let us start with our own areas.

†We believe in a non-racial South Africa; they believe in a multiracial South Africa. They are going to have endless problems with trying to sell their concept of multiracialism in this country, whereas we, who believe in a non-racial South Africa, will not have problems, because the vast majority of South Africans also believe in a non-racial, democratic South Africa.

I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister directly whether he has the power to have these areas proclaimed in terms of section 1 of the Group Areas Act. The hon the State President once challenged us to say whether we wanted certain areas to be opened. The Government can open them and open their own areas as well. They should open every area in South Africa to all the people of South Africa.

We did not come here to beg the Government for Coloured rights and Coloured crumbs or to beg them to build Coloured houses, hospitals and schools; we came to this House because we believe, firstly, that we are South Africans and as South Africans we are rightly entitled to all the obligations and privileges of South Africans. There should not be White exclusive rights.

We believe in a South Africa in which there will be no racial fear. Because the Government’s philosophy is based on racial greed and fear they cannot see this new vision. They lack the capacity to see the new South Africa we want to explain to them. It is a South Africa in which love will be the key, not hatred. However, by trying to force their multiracial system down our throats they are only generating hatred.

*Mr Chairman, can this hon Deputy Minister tell me whether it is possible for him to walk around in any of our areas barehanded? He can no longer do that, because there is fear in the hearts of Whites due to the laws the NP has placed on the Statute Book over the past 40 years. Why should there be fear? Because people are being prevented from hearing the truth in this country. The media—the newspapers, the radio and television—are being used to prevent people from learning the truth. We see the violence in Israel, because that appears on the television screens night after night. Why should we be allowed to see the violence and the unpleasant things that are happening in Israel, while the violence and the unpleasant things happening in this country are being hidden from us?

†The Government is indoctrinating the South African nation to believe that as a result of the state of emergency, we have no problems in this country. If they lead us to believe that we have no problems in this country, why do they ban all these organisations?

*Besides, what are they doing in Angola? They must tell us why they are in Angola. They must tell us how many people there are in Angola. Why should we carry on with the struggle in Angola when it is in this country that the struggle should continue so that we may become equals as South Africans?

That is another group area.

It is one of their export products. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he wants these hon members to resort to violence too. Does he want the hon members who are present in this House to resort to violence? If the Government is going to stick to its standpoint that this Act will not be repealed, some of us will have to reconsider the matter, as surely as the sun is shining outside.

†The Government has organised this tricameral system in such a way that we are in a master and servant relationship. That is not our concept of freedom. Our concept of freedom is not to sit in a Coloured Chamber, debating little Coloured rights, while they retain the power. That is not our concept of freedom. If they want to share power, that power must be shared in terms of a democratic process which involves all the people of this country, and not only the NP Government.

*The systems created by the Government will not work any more, and this House is one of those systems that have become obsolete.

†The Government must not think that because we are here today we support them. We do not and we never have. All of us as we sit here belong to the oppressed group. Our philosophies do not coincide. Against the same background we envisage a completely new South Africa. This is the message we want to give to the hon the Minister and his Government: Please come down from your mighty ivory tower and see the new South Africa that we see, because if you insist on retaining the South Africa that you want we are going to make sure that that South Africa which you visualise is destroyed.

Mr Chairman, we have spoken about the Group Areas Act a great deal, and this will probably not be the last time we shall do so. We shall raise our voices in opposition to this Act as long as we can breathe or as long as this Act remains on the Statute Book.

The intention of the Group Areas Act is to prohibit land ownership or occupation by unqualified persons in group and controlled areas. With this legislation the Government accepted the policy that legal force is necessary to separate population groups.

I should like to refer the House to what the hon the State President said in this House on the subject of group areas on Wednesday, 19 August 1987. I quote from Hansard, col 2288:

Sir, to us group areas is a reality which can be seen by everyone. We have experienced the pain, the suffering and the sadness of this law. Is the naked reality a fabrication? Does this Act not exist on the Statute Book? The Act exits and the consequences have been and are being felt by thousands of South Africans. If that is a fabrication, we are experiencing a terrible nightmare.

The reality is that people were evicted from their homes. In the eight years until 1977, 121 104 homes were demolished; this further aggravated the housing need. The Act has created an artificial housing shortage for our people.

This Act is the symbol of the rejection of people. It is one of the most discriminatory measures aimed at people of colour and it elevates racism to something holy. I quote from the hon the State President’s speech in Hansard, col 2288:

Let us take a look at the “disorderly conditions” that supposedly existed in South Africa. I was born in Graaff-Reinet and grew up there. We were evicted from the White area there. I find it very strange, however, that the house I was born in is still standing today. It has not been changed and even the pepper-tree at the back door is still there. Whites are living in the house now. What disorderly conditions prevailed here? I can also look at other streets in Graaff-Reinet such as Murray Street, River Street, Carolett Street and Strech Court. I can look at the NG Sendingkerk which was taken away from us and is the Hester Rupert Art Museum today. What disorderly conditions were prevailing when the Act was first implemented? The houses in Murray Street and those in all the other streets I mentioned are still standing today. Those houses have not been changed very much, and today Whites are living in them. Is the hon the Deputy Minister telling me that Whites are living there now because of the disorderly conditions that prevailed before we moved from there? No, Sir, that is not the truth.

This Act also wastes the time of the police who have to investigate reports of offences. I want to quote from The Citizen of Wednesday, 24 February, 1988:

I merely want the hon the Deputy Minister to tell me how many reports he submitted for investigation by the police. [Interjections.]

The President’s Council was instructed to investigate the question concerning the Group Areas Act. I want to quote from the Report of the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council on the Report of the Technical Committee, 1983, and Related Matters, as follows:

I now want to quote from the Preamble to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, No 110 of 1983:

Sir, if we look at this section in the Preamble, I want to ask: Where is the recognition and the protection of my freedom of faith and worship if I am not permitted to worship in the church in which I was baptised? Surely this is an unchristian Act which is inconsistent with the Preamble to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act.

I quote:

If my property is denied me, how can my material welfare be promoted? I quote:

This Act denies me my human dignity. It denies me the freedom of choice to live where I want to and where I can afford to live. This Bill does not respect and protect my property, because the area I am living in at present can be declared a White area at any time. The Preamble goes on:

In terms of the Group Areas Act, I am prevented from displaying private initiative and from competing effectively on the open market. I am referring specifically to the case of someone wanting to buy a farm. A non-White man who wants to buy a farm has to apply for a permit first. And heaven forbid that one person should object to such a permit being issued! Then he might as well forget it. How can one compete? The hon the Deputy Minister must reply to us on this point.

The Group Areas Act has denied me the right to vote and has denied me direct representation on local government bodies, because in terms of the Act I can vote only in my own area in a management committee which cannot make or implement decisions. The sooner this Act disappears from the Statute Book, the better it will be for South Africa.

I now want to discuss the second part of the motion and should like to read it to hon members. It reads:

1. (a) the Group Areas Act, Act 36 of 1960, should be repealed; and
2. (b) all proclaimed Coloured areas should immediately be declared open for occupation and acquisition of immovable property by all people of South Africa, irrespective of race.

This second section reminds me of what the hon the State President said in this House on 19 August 1987. I quote from Hansard: House of Representatives, 19 August 1987, col 2288:

This then is my question: Who does the hon member for Border represent in this House? Why did he include this second part of his motion? Was it to satisfy the hon the State President, or what? I have no dispute with the hon member for Border, but the second part of his motion makes one think, because in his own motivation of his motion the hon member refuted that second part. After all, he said we were caught up there; that one could not move, because there was no land. He said we were hatching like chickens. He asked where those people could go to.

My question, as I said, is why he included this second part of the motion; after all, it contradicts the first part in which the hon member is asking for the Group Areas Act to be abolished. If that is done, all areas will be open. One wonders why only the Coloured areas should be opened. Who will that satisfy? Must we help the NP out of their predicament by giving them the opportunity to tell us we must open our areas—areas in which no land is available—or what? The hon member refuted the second part of his motion with his own motivation, therefore. I do not know whom he wanted to embarrass, but he is not embarrassing the LP.

Since there are inconsistencies in the two parts of the hon member’s motion, Sir, I want to move an amendment. I feel paragraph (b) should be scrapped.

I also want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that the sooner this Act is abolished, the better. I move this amendment, Sir, because I do not believe the hon member for Border is serious with his motion, because the (a) section tells me he wants the Group Areas Act to be abolished, but then he stops short and says all proclaimed Coloured areas must be declared open immediately. He does not believe in himself, therefore, and his own motivation that the Act should be abolished. That is why he says that if the Government does not want to abolish the Act, they must declare the Coloured areas open.

For this reason I cannot support the second part of the hon member's motion. Consequently I move as an amendment:

Mr Chairman, right at the outset I want to say that there was no intention of embarrassing anyone with the hon member for Border’s motion. Nor was it intended to oblige the hon the Deputy Minister. After all, you heard his motivation in this connection, Sir.

My colleague, the hon member for Border, said a great deal had been said about this Act. I trust, however, that we shall not talk about this particular Act again, but in future we shall discuss the amending Bills in this House in this manner.

The hon the Deputy Minister must not tell us today that the Act must be adjusted, as the Government did in reaction to the report of the President’s Council. To adjust the Act is just as good as sprinkling lavender on a pile of cowdung. The meaning we attach to the concept “abolish” is, in fact, to abolish. I hope the hon the Deputy Minister is not going to get up and say that people are being protected by the Act and that the so-called Coloured population in particular is being protected by the Act. As far as we are concerned, when it comes to protection—and the old CRC as well as the Erika Theron Commission proved this—we have suffered most because most of the removals have taken place among our people.

This motion addresses a broad spectrum and a wide-ranging philosophy of life. One school of thought—I am referring to the Government—feels that an own community life is required and that those who require it, are entitled to it. What is meant by an own community life is never spelt out, however. I shall try to pay some attention to this in my argument. This implies that the Act should provide for the preservation of an own community life. It is true that the propagandists of this philosophy or dogma see this in the narrow sense of racial or ethnic separation. This is not a matter of an own community life; it is a matter of racial or ethnic separation. The emphasis on language, cultural and religious differences further entrenches this view. The inclusion of that concept in respect of the implementation of this Act passes one’s comprehension; it is like being in a desert and not knowing which direction to take. There are so many similarities in respect of language and religion that I cannot see how this approach can make sense. One would not be able to find anything wrong with this under normal or natural circumstances, but in this country the concept is being absolutised on the basis of colour. Earlier speakers referred to this as well. Let us take a closer look.

The Whites are all united under one umbrella—despite language, cultural and religious differences as well as differences in respect of the origin of their respective countries. Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Moslems, Judaists, Afrikaners, Englishmen, Greeks, Italians, Germans, Netherlanders, Portuguese, French, even Russians, Spaniards, Lebanese, etc—there is even a Lebanese in the House of Assembly—are all joined together. There are no separate areas for them. One wonders then what has become of the concept of an own community life which is preached to such an extent. A possibility seems to be that the impression is being created that the Whites are Westerners and that is that. It is also clear from the way in which the Group Areas Act is handled that the other population groups are regarded as part of the Western World on the one hand, and on the other as part of the Third World, depending on how and by whom these two concepts are interpreted. One generally finds proof of this view in the kind of homes that are built for people in the designated group areas. Those who are regarded as members of the Third World get matchbox-type houses or terracehouses consisting of two to twelve units.

All the groups I mentioned here are thrown together in our community as well. There are three main groups in our community, however, viz Coloureds, Griquas and Malays. This takes place by means of race classification, and everyone still has a separate identity and a different identity card or identity document in his possession, which does not apply in respect of the White population. There is no system of classification for Greeks, Jews, and so on. One finds the same phenomenon among the Indians. There is no question of an own community life there either. Hindus, Tamils and Muslims are thrown together in one group area, whereas that is not the case among the Whites. The strangest position can be found in the Black community, where there may be more serious differences. Xhosas, Zulus, Tswanas, South- and North Sothos, Ndebeles and Swazis have to live together in the same area. Once again this leads me to the question: What about the so-called own community life that such a fuss is made of?

In addition there is a broad spectrum of problems in respect of this Group Areas Act. For example, there is the question of the control over and development of these demarcated areas. With regard to the control of areas, the authority, which is in White hands, is divided into two. On the one hand we have the Minister of Education and Development Aid, who is responsible for the areas in respect of the Black population; on the other we have the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, with two Deputy Ministers. The latter Ministry is responsible for the proclamation of areas for the respective population groups.

An interesting fact, Sir—it is a fact, and it is unfair—is that not a single member of any of the other population groups, who are intensely emotionally and heartrendingly involved in the Group Areas Act, have been involved in any of these executive posts. The Government, which consists of Whites, decides on this alone. I know the hon the Deputy Minister will tell me immediately that that is not quite correct, and I want to give his reasons for saying that. The other population groups—the Coloureds and the Indians; I do not know what the case is in the Black community—render inputs in respect of proclamations only by way of requesting more land, or by appearing at sittings of the Group Areas Board either in support of or in opposition to the proclamation of a particular area. The problems result from the control and authority over such areas. Once an application has been made for an area, proper advertisements have to be placed in this connection and the Group Areas Board investigates the position in the relevant area. Sir, it takes months and even years before the proclamation takes place. I want to illustrate this by referring to four areas.

Approximately two and a half years ago the Group Areas Board met to discuss the proclamation of Noordgesig in Johannesburg. As yet not a word has been said about when the area will be proclaimed. The people in that area have been living there since 1935, but not a word has been said about when they will obtain right of ownership.

There was a request from the Indian community two and a half years ago that Villa Liza be set aside for them. We—their neighbours in Reigerpark—supported them. The Group Areas Board discussed the matter, but there were all kinds of sinister movements concerning this question. This concerns Windmill Park and Finaalspan, an area which we, the so-called Coloured community, requested should be proclaimed for us. Initially part of this area was advertised for proclamation for the Indians. We requested in July 1986 that under the existing Act, this area be incorporated into the extension of Reigerpark. Not a word has been said about that, however.

I struggled for more than 11 years—as the hon the Deputy Minister knows—to extend the boundaries of Reigerpark. The Group Areas Act did not permit this, however, because the Cabinet had decided that Reigerpark should be restricted to its present boundaries. When eventually a proclamation was promulgated in 1981, we had to hear that the land had been proclaimed for mining land. We were in the same situation again.

Worst of all was the kite-flying done by the Government with the possible proclamation of a Norweto for Blacks in Johannesburg. That must be the most terrible situation I have ever experienced within the framework of the Group Areas Act. TV interviews were held as never before. Ordinary people objected to this, and it appears that the Government has shelved this possible development and proclamation. It would probably have encroached terribly on the privacy and security of the people in that area. Perhaps they thought their lives would be endangered.

In addition these areas are administered, controlled and developed by own affairs. That is the irony of the matter. The areas are proclaimed by the general affairs Ministries, in which we have no real say, but the own affairs Ministries have to administer them.

I now come to local authorities. We are being faced by a dilemma even as far as White management committees and local affairs committees are concerned. We have the unacceptable situation that own affairs can be extended in this way. I also want to say something about members who are to be nominated for management committees. When management committee members are nominated—I am not blaming hon members for this, because they have inherited this situation—these members may only be members of the LP, no matter what the local community may wish.

I quoted one example, viz Rabie Ridge, in the no-confidence debate. The same situation exists in Hanover in the Karoo, however. The local community elected people to serve on a management committee, but this was overruled. There is a movement afoot at present to have only members of the LP serving on that committee. This is leading to dissatisfaction in that area. [Interjections.] If the hon member does not know anything about it, I shall quote letters from members in the area to him, and even give him their names. These irregularities in respect of the administration, development and control of group areas under own affairs extend further than I have mentioned. Let us take a look at what is happening in the Bokkeveld and especially in Ceres and Touws River. In that area voters have been told by the LP that if they do not vote for the LP, they will lose their homes, their pensions and their disability grants. [Interjections.]

I want to repeat that, because I have sworn statements in this connection … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members will get an opportunity to repudiate that.

They can repudiate it if they like; it is their right to do so, but I have sworn statements in this connection—to the extent that six voters wanted to vote again as a result of this state of affairs. [Interjections.] I want to repeat what I said: This Group Areas Act has even led to voters’ being told by the LP to vote for the LP if they did not want to lose their homes, their pensions and their disability grants. Surely that is untrue. [Interjections.]

What are you whining about?

Order! I merely want to tell the hon member for Border that a person does not whine. Will the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tell me what that has to do with group areas, because we are discussing the removal of group areas?

Sir, I explained clearly that when the general affairs Ministry proclaimed group areas, these areas had to be controlled, administered and developed by own affairs departments, and these things are taking place as a result. This is happening in consequence of the implementation of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] I am going to publish a pamphlet in this connection.

In addition, in the implementation of the Group Areas Act, people are told that if they vote for the LP, they will get homes, refrigerators and stoves. [Interjections.] That hon clergyman is saying “sis”. I can bring the sworn statements here.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member alleging that the general public are stupid?

That is not what I am saying. [Interjections.] Surely this kind of conduct within the Group Areas Act is outrageous. To answer the hon member, in my opinion that borders on intimidation in the worst degree.

That is what you do.

It is not a matter of the stupidity of the voter; the issue is that it borders on intimidation. [Interjections.]

Order! Let us keep our language moderate. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, I do not think anyone is stupid.

No, Sir, I am reacting to that hon member’s question.

Order! That does not mean that the hon member should insult other people, however; he must address them in the correct manner.

Sir, I am a little confused. The hon member for Wuppertal got up and addressed you and put a question to me …

Order! The hon Leader of the Official Opposition must not argue with me. The hon member wanted to raise a point of order.

He asked whether those people were stupid.

Order! In that case, surely the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition could merely have said "no".

I am not saying those people are stupid. I shall leave it at that, because every time they tackle us, we sit and listen to them quietly …

Order! Is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition casting a reflection on the Chair?

No, Sir, I am talking to the hon members there. I am not talking to the Chair. When they started discussing the hon member’s motion, they spoke about the embarrassment they wanted to cause us.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that every time we tackle them, they sit quietly, and nothing is said about that. I regard that as a reflection on the Chair and request that he withdraw what he said.

No, that is not what I said. Mr Chairman, may I qualify? I was not casting a reflection on you.

Order! I am prepared to accept that. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

What I meant—this is for that hon member who was not listening to me because he was making interjections—is that when they tackle us, we sit quietly and do not say anything about it. I did not say the Chairman said nothing about it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member certainly has the right to put his case, but is he not casting a reflection on this House when he talks about hon members as “them" and “you”?

Hon them and hon you.

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must talk about “hon members”.

I shall do so, Sir.

I shall leave it at that, because apparently hon members have the exclusive right to address us in this House. Perhaps we should grant them that right until they realise their mistake. [Interjections.]

I now want to come back specifically to the Group Areas Act.

Only now? [Interjections.]

The hon member does not even know what I was talking about.

The other insurmountable problem in respect of the Group Areas Act is that White local authorities have a greater say than an MP who submits representations, for example, or a member of the executive committee of a specific province.

Are you supporting or opposing the motion?

I am supporting the motion.

Then there is another aspect. Whereas members of all population groups serve on the executive committees, in terms of this Act they cannot get permits to live in the so-called White areas. In saying that the local authorities have a greater say in respect of the implementation of this Act, I want to refer hon members to this morning’s edition of Die Burger and to what the mayor of Brackenfell said. I quote:

This reminds me of the case of Norweto in which provision has to be made for people, but the local authorities have objected. I quote:

This also happened in the cases of Windmill Park and Finaalspan in Boksburg. I quote:

Other people have no say in respect of this plan. In conclusion I want to quote:

This is the kind of situation that prevails in respect of this Act. As I pointed out with reference to Norweto and the areas in Boksburg, ordinary citizens have more of a say in respect of the implementation of this Act—which is a general affair—than public figures who have been appointed by the people. In this connection I want to address an invitation to Whites, Blacks and Indians to make their voices heard in the public media on how they feel about the abolition of the Group Areas Act and the principle that one should be able to live where one wants to as long as the necessary applicable standards are maintained. In order to get this matter going so that it can be concluded and can be removed from the emotional arena, the media and the HSRC must be requested to make a countrywide survey on this extremely thorny issue. The hon the Deputy Minister must display the courage and the statemanship of saying today that this Act is going to be abolished, as he said in this House that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act should be abolished.

No Bill in that connection has come before Parliament as yet, however. While the session is in progress, let us get legislation from the hon the State President which will abolish this Act and open up areas.

Mr Chairman, I am making a plea today to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to declare Woodstock and Zonnebloem a Coloured area. In the first instance many people owned property and houses in the Zonnebloem area. The moment they bought these properties, they sold them to private developers who in turn made a lot of money out of them. I spoke to many private developers and they told me that only White people can buy property in the Zonnebloem area. No person from the Coloured community or from any other race group can buy property in those areas.

There, a two-bedroomed house, which is a small house, costs at least R69 000. Many of the Coloured people who lived in District Six still do not have a home today and they should be first on the priority list. Many of them have no homes; so we should first ask ourselves how we can provide our people with homes.

I have with me a list pertaining to 279 houses which belong to the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. If there are 279 families, how many Coloured people would need housing? I am sure there would be more than 700 people.

Do you support the motion?

I support paragraph (b) and not (a). [Interjections.] Sir, I believe the 279 houses must be sold to the Coloureds who are living in that area. If we cannot sell them to them, the department must try to get a bond so that the people who are living in that area can buy these houses.

Many Whites own property in the Woodstock and Salt River area. Many Coloureds are living there. I believe first preference to buy property should be given to the Coloured people who have been living in this area for 30 to 40 years. I believe if the property is owned by a White person, and if the tenant is a Coloured person who has been living in that house, paying the rent for 30 to 40 years, he must be given the first option to buy the property. [Interjections.] It would be ridiculous to sell that property to a White person in these circumstances.

Order! Is the hon member speaking in favour of the motion or of the amendment?

Mr Chairman, I support leg (b) of the motion but not leg (a). [Interjections.] I know what I am talking about. [Interjections.]

I believe that the White areas must first be declared open before the Coloured areas. I am saying this because we do not have sufficient houses. Before the hon the Minister declares any of our Coloured areas open, he must first throw open areas like Sea Point, Green Point, Pinelands, Newlands, Parow, Bellville, Constantia and Retreat.

Who writes your speeches?

It is none of your business.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the people we represent I speak in support of the amendment rather than the motion. Before I move on to certain political points that have been raised here today, I want to appeal to the hon member for Tafelberg to take a closer look at the motion as printed on the Order Paper. From what the hon member said in her motivation I am convinced that she has the two legs confused.

I read the motion on the Order Paper.

You must help her with her speech, Tommy.

Order! There is no Tommy in this House. [Interjections.] The hon member may continue.

I would like to appeal to one of my hon colleagues who is sitting near the hon member for Tafelberg to explain to her that her motivation negates her support of leg (b) of the motion. I am sure she will be afforded a chance to correct it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Wentworth is confused. [Interjections.]

I shall leave the matter at that, Mr Chairman. It is always easy to say that someone else is confused. I am not fighting with the hon member; I am simply appealing to her to read the motion again. I am almost certain that she will realise that she actually intended to support what we are saying. I shall let the matter rest there, Sir.

I now want to touch on a few of the things that have been said here. I want to stress that in doing so I am merely the conduit, the vehicle, through which this message is being relayed. I cannot speak for people without consulting with them. I need a mandate from people to express their feelings on a matter.

The matter of the Group Areas Act has been the subject of discussion at branch meetings, at public meetings, at symposia, in the newspapers and in other media for a very long time. In fact, in this very House motions for the repeal of this Act have been debated at length. Who can deny that on the last occasion on which this motion was debated in this House a tremendous appeal, a beautifully motivated appeal, was made for the Act to be scrapped? I well remember the scintillating speeches that were made by members of the LP on the day on which this motion was last discussed. This matter has, therefore, been thrashed out, and I am convinced that if the powers that be—including the hon the Deputy Minister—do not know by now what the feelings of the LP are in respect of this matter, they do not want to know the feelings of the people at large.

The people with whom we have consulted out there have concluded, first of all, that the Act must be scrapped. That is what the people say. That is not just what we say. We do not sit in armchairs and speculate about what trick to play next. The people tell us that the Act is hurting them and that it must be scrapped.

They also have something to say, however, about the throwing open of Coloured areas while the Act exists. They say that untold harm would befall the very people we represent should their limited land, their restricted opportunities and their quest for upliftment in isolation, be thrown open to all without a reciprocal action by all others. In other words, the people are saying, we cannot throw open only the so-called Coloured areas without all other areas being thrown open too.

We have no right to go against the wishes of the people. We have to convey, by every means available to us, what the people say. This is what the people say. This is the mandate they have given us.

I believe that this motion actually belongs to the LP. Has not the LP been laying its future on the block for many years by fighting this Act using every means available to it? Is it not the LP, in this House and in the old CRC building many years ago, which has always moved this motion? Have not our leader and the LP conference taken a firm stand on the Group Areas Act? Should not the LP, therefore, have moved this particular motion?

I see in this motion, Sir, an opportunistic effort on the part of the UDP to score points. I want to appeal to the hon member for Border, whom I know to be someone who is normally a sensible person, to look at the amendment that we have put forward and to come to his senses. While he is coming to his senses, perhaps he could get the other hon members of that party to come to their senses as well and to realise that they are here to represent the interests of the people and not just to score points off the LP of South Africa.

I want to know whether it is the UDP’s standpoint that the so-called Coloured areas should be thrown open while the Group Areas Act exists. Is it that party’s standpoint and principle? If that is the case, if the hon member for Border has the full support of his caucus or party, and if he has support outside for his viewpoint, then I am very thankful that they are not the ruling party in this House.

Sir, the reason why this Act must be repealed, is that “it deprives”…—I am quoting the hon member now—“…those who are in need of homes from acquiring such homes and land”. That is what the hon member for Border said. By making that statement he is actually negating the second part of his motion. I appeal to him to think carefully on this matter—and I think the hon member realises it too—because nowhere in his speech did he motivate strongly the second part of his motion. I want to appeal to the hon member to forget about scoring points and to work along with the Labour Party on this issue. The matter of the repeal of the Group Areas Act is a serious matter. We must work together to get that Act repealed. We do not need these tricks or efforts to try to embarrass the Labour Party as far as this is concerned.

In relation to what the hon member said, who are the people who are suffering these shortages of land? Who are they? The hon member should show me where, or in which town, there is an over-supply of available land or housing for so-called coloured people in this country. Wherever one travels there are waiting lists upon waiting lists. The waiting list in Cape Town at the moment is of the order of 45 000 homes and that in Durban 8 000 homes as far as I know. What about the Transvaal and specifically the Johannesburg metropolitan area? Wherever one goes in this country, be it a town, village or city, there is a shortage of homes and land for so-called Coloured people. When one thinks of that, is it sensible and in the interests of the people to take their already restricted opportunities and to throw these to the wind without offering them an alternative? We say the Act must be repealed in toto so that anyone can have access to any property anywhere in the country. Not only the interests of the people we represent should be sacrificed on the altar of a principle which was hastily put together.

The hon member for Border did not speak with conviction when he spoke on the second part of his motion. I know when he speaks with conviction. I listened to him motivate his case when he tackled the hon the deputy Minister on the first leg of the motion and I was happy with what he did then. He did not better the contributions we made in our previous debates, but he did a fairly good job of tackling the hon the Deputy Minister on the issue of the Group Areas Act. The minute the hon member came to the second part of the motion, however, he floundered and did not make a single solid point. He stuck to the immorality of the Act instead of motivating his case. He drifted off to countries all over the globe instead of motivating a case for the so-called Coloured group areas to be thrown open. I did not hear one practical point brought up in motivation of that case. I believe that, since the hon member spoke on that second leg without conviction—the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not do a better job than he did in this connection—they should think about it. They should be big enough to withdraw that leg and vote for the amendment.

It seems to me that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in his debate actually called for the extension of group areas. We know, of course, of his history—in the old days in the CRC—of calling for group areas for so-called Coloured people. We know that but he did it again today, for did he not again ask that Noordgesig be proclaimed a so-called Coloured group area? Does this not negate the second part of their motion? I suggest that the hon member for Border should not have enlisted the aid of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition, because he made a mess of things.

Secondly, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition objected—that is how I understood him—to the proclamation of land being a general affair. Does this imply that he would like this to become an own affair? Who is it, then, who is now calling for an extension of own affairs? I think I heard him say something about the extension of own affairs. It seems to me that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who does not seem to be able to address public meetings in Bokkeveld at the moment, is trying to make use of the platform which this House offers in an attempt to address a public meeting. I will have him know that today’s Hansard will only be ready and mailed after the by-election.

Be that as it may, the lies that he perpetrated here about the campaigning that this party is doing in the Bokkeveld worry me, because I have an idea that this is the kind of dirty tactic the UDP employs. They are attacking the LP—one continually reads about that in the paper—in that region. They say that we are not doing our work there. In that way they hope to score points. However, as the hon member for Wuppertal said, the people outside there are not “onnosel”; they are not stupid. They can read between the lines because they are developing a kind of wisdom; there is a growing maturity. People can see through gimmicks.

*Sir, I just want to say that we will send that party “bokveld toe” during the election.

†I want to ask whether the UDP supports the idea of a “Coloured-stan” for so-called Coloured people. In view of the second part of their motion I aver that they are, in fact, in favour of a “Colouredstan” for the so-called Coloured people of this country. Let me explain why I say this, Sir.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must just be patient. He is a sensible man, I hear. [Interjections.]

Sir, let us understand that a sector of the South African community has arrogated unto itself the right to decide, through its departments, when, where and how much land will be available for every other group in this country. I can prove that this is so. By having arrogated unto itself the right to decide where everybody must live, when land is available and so forth, this same Government has given itself control over the lives and aspirations of every individual in this country.

I should like to give a few examples. Over the years so-called Coloured people have been denied land in Natal. Why? We know that the NP today denies that it had a “Coloured-stan” in mind for so-called Coloured people. We believe that that is just reformist talk.

They probably spoke to Rabie about it.

Yes, they probably spoke to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition about it—over tea.

Sir, I claim that by making it difficult for so-called Coloured people to acquire property in the Western Cape and, at the same time, almost impossible for the same people to acquire land in Natal, the Government is, in a very subtle manner, still applying the method of forced removals. What is happening to the people? I do not have to belabour this point, but I can refer to an article which appeared in the Sunday Tribune of 26 April 1987. The heading of the article is “The new Sydenham”. Sydenham is a suburb of Durban. It is one of the few little suburbs in which so-called Coloureds may buy homes—if they can produce a whale of a lot of money, because there are so few areas in the metropolitan area of Durban where one can acquire property. The alternatives facing a person who needs a home and land in Durban or the rest of Natal is either to move to where it is less difficult to obtain land—meaning the Western Cape—or to move to Ennerdale or, alternatively, to emigrate. One may opt to go to Australia because it seems that one has a better opportunity there.

I just want to quote one little sentence from the article. It concerns a certain Mr Joey Rose who left this country. He is a 33-year-old man with three children. He and his wife, Linda, have left the country out of frustration because of the existence of the Group Areas Act. How long can South Africa afford to lose people to Australia, Canada and the rest of the world, even the United States, because of this darned stupid and immoral Act? This man says, and I quote:

He left because of the lack of land. He left because the bosses have decreed that he shall not have land in Natal, and he had wished to make his living there. He had to move to a place where it is slightly less difficult to acquire property. Instead, he pulled up anchor and left for the unknown, not knowing what he was going to face there.

Mr Chairman, I ask again: Does the UDP support the idea of a “Coloured-stan”? Does the hon member want us to open the handful of so-called group areas in Natal to all races today? Does he want us to do that? What will happen then is that there will be a further emigration of so-called Coloureds, because the opportunity for acquiring land will be cut short even further. There may also be a further migration of people away from Natal. I am sure that almost every hon member has, at some stage of his life, tried to acquire property in Natal. It is almost an impossibility.

There is another aspect that I would like to touch on—there is so much to talk about—viz the compartmentalisation of living areas for different groups in this country. This lends itself to differential treatment of people who are placed in such compartments. Look at the flood disaster issue. Ladysmith is a typical example. How many times has Ladysmith been flooded out, and who are the people who are always seen to? Be it via the Red Cross or whatever nice, benevolent society we donate money to, there is always only one particular group, viz the White sector of Ladysmith, which is temporarily looked after. I repeat, the compartmentalisation of people into racial clusters allows some to be given better treatment than others.

The so-called Coloured people in Ladysmith are neglected. The reason for this is that they are compartmentalised into one group. They will eventually have to go to Limithill one day if we can build homes for them. There are only three things which I believe are democratic in this country, and that is disasters, death and, of course, taxation.

Another aspect is that differential rating of townships is allowed for by this compartmentalisation. This is how it arises that the people who are deprived of green verges, swimming pools, curbs in the roadways, proper street lighting and such, always happen to be people of the same group. Then there are those who have everything in their townships—roads are built and stormwater drains are put in first. These people are afforded every luxury before they build their homes. These people always happen to be White people. This compartmentalisation is what cannot be allowed to proceed. This also allows for differential rating of the properties in different areas. That is why people who are denied certain opportunities, are paying more to live in certain areas than others are.

I want to make a final appeal to the hon member for Border to withdraw the second leg of his motion. I am serious about this. He did not motivate it too well, anyway. In fact, he did not motivate it at all. All he did by putting in (b) was to confuse the hon member for Tafelberg. [Interjections.] I want to suggest to the hon member that we should work towards the scrapping of this Act and not allow the interests of the people to be scrapped, too. I am now making my final appeal to him on this matter.

Mr Chairman, for the information of Hansard and other members of the Press, I wish to state that I am voting for leg (a) of the motion and not leg (b). I would like to say something to the hon the member who was formerly the Leader of the Official Opposition. He has no party, but he keeps on screaming. I do not know why. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I speak in support …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: There are no camels here. If the hon member fears that there is a camel, he is most welcome to do so.

Order! Will the hon member please withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, there is nothing to withdraw. I said the hon member was sitting here without a camel, and that is correct. She has no camel with her.

Mr Chairman, I request the hon member for Tafelberg to give me an opportunity to make my speech.

I speak in support of the amendment as introduced by the hon member for Swartland. I speak in favour of this amendment because in the 22 years of its existence, the party I belong to has remained consistently opposed to the Group Areas Act. In these 22 years we have never given in to or allowed ourselves to be carried along by this Act. I think it is absolutely parasitical of the Official Opposition in this House to make constant use of LP standpoints, without putting their own standpoint on matters, in their rhetorical criticism of the Act.

In the first place I want to say that the UDP’s earnestness about abolishing the Group Areas Act is reflected in their representation in the House at the moment—90% of the party’s members are absent, and only the member who moved the motion is in the House. That says a great deal about their sincerity in wanting to abolish this Act.

I want to come to the hon member for Border. He moved the motion and told the hon the Deputy Minister: “We believe the right of the individual is paramount.” That sounds rather like the LP constitution. It is also in glaring contrast with the constitution of the hon member’s party. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said here in the no-confidence debate: “We support the Freedom Charter.” The Freedom Charter says: “All national groups will have equal rights.” Surely that forms a paradox with his own party’s policy. I want to ask the hon member whether he has had any opportunity of seeing their constitution. Do they have a constitution yet? Has he studied the constitution so that in his subsequent speeches he can stay within the framework of his party’s constitution?

The hon member then went on to refute the second part of the motion, viz:

He then said that Bonteheuwel had been established for 43 000 people and that there are 84 000 people living there today. Where must the people who still want to go and live there, live? If the existing residential areas are so overpopulated that there is not enough room for the people who are living there, where does he want to squeeze in more people? This fact is in absolutely glaring contrast with the second part of his motion.

I now come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. As a former member and a stalwart leader of the Federal Party, he is emotionally committed to the Group Areas Act. One will never really get that blue-blooded federalism out of him. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was so proud of a Coloured group area in Johannesburg that he called it Rabie Ridge. I find it absolutely amazing that he approved of the submission of this motion by his party, because we must not forget that two years ago he wrote a letter to the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works in which he said the security police should screen the Blacks before they could be permitted to move from Alexandra to Rabie Ridge. According to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, Blacks should get clearance from the security police to live in Rabie Ridge. I want them at least to say that in this motion of theirs, so that the motion is consistent with the standpoint of the hon the Leader of Official Opposition that all people should get clearance from the security police in order to live in so-called Coloured areas. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition took a very long time to get to the by-election in Ceres. Once again we listened to rhetoric about the victimisation that is supposedly taking place within the framework of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] During the no-confidence debate the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also referred to a Mr Kruger who ostensibly organises the LP in the Transvaal. This Mr Kruger is a former constituency chairman of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He is his protege. He supported him inter alia in becoming the LP candidate in Bosmont.

Let us see what happened to Mr Kruger, how ever, when he differed with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and did not walk over to the UDP with him. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition wrote a letter to the Director-General of the SABC to object to his supposedly promoting the LP in his position as a journalist at the SABC.

Who is talking about victimisation now? Who is victimising now? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is not even in office yet where he would be in a position to victimise, yet he is already victimising others. I shall be very sorry for our people if he ever reaches a position in which he can exercise power. I have information that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition goes around to newspaper editors and complains that some of the journalists on the Press gallery in Parliament do not want to publish the nonsense his party talks here, and that they promote the LP. [Interjections.] All of that is victimisation, yet he has the audacity to accuse us of victimisation!

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that the LP is not so politically bankrupt that its members have to lie to people and say they are from another party in order to get the people to the polls.

Order! The hon member may not use that word.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also said once again that he was in possession of sworn statements to the effect that we tell people that if they do not vote for us, they will lose their homes and pensions. That is a good excuse that he thought up for when his party loses its deposit in the Bokkeveld by-election. [Interjections.] I want to go further than he did and ask all people who are serious and sincere in their endeavour to get the Group Areas Act abolished to join the ranks of the LP. The LP is in a position of constitutional power and only we really have the power to enforce the abolition of that Act.

Is that so?

Yes, and you can join us! [Interjections.]

I should like to tell the hon member for Border that they are like a crowd of front-benchers at a boxing fight. They are there, but they are merely spectators. They cannot really take part. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to a report about the evaluation of the Group Areas Act which was published in September last year. This report is a desperate attempt to retain the principle of separate residential areas in an era in which so-called White residential areas are becoming increasingly integrated, especially in the urban areas. This is happening mainly for two reasons, viz the shortage of housing in the so-called non-White communities on the one hand, and the need of the middle and higher income groups in the Black communities to strive for better housing on the other. A further recommendation by the President’s Council that local authorities should be placed in a position in which they can decide on opening up residential areas, with the qualification that the Administrator of the province in question can revoke a decision should the residents object, is just as unacceptable. One can already predict that the Government will never open up an area if even a small group of Whites objects.

I now want to come to a further recommendation of the report. First of all I want to say we must never forget that the national chairman of the Official Opposition party, the UDP, Mr Peter Marais, is also a member of the President’s Council and that he signed this report.

And who else? Who are the others?

No one in the LP signed it. I want to come back to the report. Paragraph 4.52.3 reads inter alia that group areas removals:

That is the kind of statement the UDP’s national chairman agreed with, because he signed it. This recommendation completely ignores all the bitterness, alienation and the irrevocable damage to human relations, the destruction of the social fabric that has kept these communities together in the cultural and social spheres.

Our fight with the NP concerning the principle that group areas legislation should be removed from the Statute book goes further than merely the opening up of so-called White areas. It concerns the recognition of our human dignity. It is a revolt against second-class citizenship. It is a campaign, as it were, to get our people’s self-respect back, self-respect that they lost as a result of group areas removals. As long as they cannot understand that, we shall remain caught up in the impasse we are experiencing at present, and the tension between the majority parties in Parliament will continue.

I now come to recommendations 4.55 and 4.56 of the report. In terms of the recommendations, the Act also played a political part by creating greater opportunities for so-called Coloured and Indian communities to control their own affairs in the sphere of local government. That is absolute nonsense, Sir. After 22 years of management committees, we are still being left to the mercy of White local authorities which take the final decisions. What greater self-determination are we supposed to have got on the level of local government? It remains unacceptable that we can act only in a supervisory and advisory capacity concerning matters that affect us from day to day.

I now want to refer to recommendation 5.29.4. Separate residential areas are also in line with the principle of the right of minorities to self-determination; a principle that is accepted by the UNO. This is not carried out, however. The UNO’s Charter for Human Rights says among other things:

This is not said in the President’s Council report, however. In recommendation 5.32.1 we find that Whites, particularly in the middle class and lower income groups, fear that the value of their properties will drop, leading to a drop in the standard of living in such open White areas. In areas such as Mayfair in Johannesburg, where Blacks have obtained properties in terms of the nominee system, the value of properties has increased dramatically because the owners have spent large sums of money on renovating their properties. Research by the South African Institute for Race Relations in Windhoek and Swakopmund showed that there was a sharp increase in property prices after the Group Areas Act was repealed in SWA eight years ago. No real drop in the standard of living could be observed even in Harare.

I now want to come back to the crux of the Group Areas Act. As long as the Act is on the Statute Book, the housing requirements of the country’s inhabitants can never be met. In September 1987 the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning told the National Housing Commission at that stage that there was a shortage of half a million houses for Blacks in South Africa.

The department of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture estimates that the shortage of housing for Coloureds is between 90 000 and 100 000 units at present. In contrast, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works in the House of Assembly, Mr Venter, said in Business Day of 6 August 1987 that there was a surplus of 27 378 houses. The principle of the racial zoning of residential areas by the Government plays an extensive part in these shortages. The land in the country is effectively controlled by a small minority and a small rich ruling class. No prosperity can be created without land. No development of people’s standard of living can take place without land. As long as land is controlled, prosperity is controlled. As long as this Government has the final say on where a group area is going to be proclaimed, the Government will determine where people must develop.

I now want to come to another point that I should like to put to the hon the Deputy Minister. The two recent by-elections in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton showed that the NP no longer has the support of the right-wing Whites.

I want to read to him from a letter published in Die Burger on 10 March 1988. The heading of the letter reads: “Hek oop vir KP”. “’n Lojale Nasionalis” from the Strand writes:

This is a man who says he is an NP supporter, and I believe there are thousands of them—decent White South Africans who realise that we are living in an era which has no place for separate beaches and separate residential areas. And these people are still members of the NP!

As long as the NP does not assume a firm standpoint on the Group Areas Act, it will be alienating this group—and I believe it is a significant group—from its own supporters. What is more, it is alienating the majority of the Blacks in this country. In the NP’s attempt to satisfy the right-wingers—among whom there is no support for the NP any more—it is alienating other South Africans to an increasing degree, people who want to take the NP’s moderate course of making this a free and open country for everyone, people who want to join the NP in designing a system in which all the people of this country can live together.

I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that if he continues to make statements about the Anglo-American plan of combating group areas, if he continues to make such radical right-wing statements to the public, if he continues to prosecute decent people because they are living in White areas because no alternative housing is available to them, he will be radicalising South Africans. By doing that he will be destroying the Government’s bona fides, because one cannot talk about reform on the one hand and about group areas prosecutions on the other.

Mr Chairman, it is a pity that I have to speak in the absence of the Official Opposition. The hon member for Border moved this motion and I would have expected that at least his hon colleagues would have supported him. They are not even here to support him, however.

†When one looks at this motion, Sir, one sees that part (a) contradicts part (b) and vice versa. Purely on the basis of logic, therefore, I cannot support this motion.

In part (a) the hon member moves that the Group Areas Act be repealed. In the very next breath, however, he moves that Coloured group areas should be retained so that everybody else can move into Coloured group areas. If, therefore, this is once again a case of an hon member trying to score a point, that point is not being scored. We must stop trying to score points and rather be absolutely logical in our approach to debating in this Chamber.

Let us accept once and for all that the greatest threat to this country is the NP. The biggest enemies of this country are the NP, because they are responsible for creating the greatest problems facing this country. If, therefore, they want to talk about the threat of communism and the threat of terrorism I would tell them that they, the NP, are the reasons for these people having come into being.

*What these people are trying to do, is simply to come and enjoy their rights in this country. Just like all other right-minded South African citizens, I am opposed to communism.

†I have no sympathy with communism. What the NP has done to people, however, has driven them underground. The Group Areas Act and all other apartheid legislation are responsible for this.

I must object vehemently to the hon member for Border’s having introduced such a motion. I want to say to him, with all the respect in the world, that there is no more time for an opposition within an opposition.

I want to say—and I do so without fear of contradiction—that the biggest opposition to the NP Government in this country is the Labour Party of South Africa; and we will stay on this road.

*That will not stop us, for we shall simply sweep away whatever hurdle is placed before us.

†We have dedicated our cause to bringing South Africa back to absolute normality.

*Let us look what the Group Areas Act has done to our people, but firstly I want to tell hon members that I am highly optimistic that the Group Areas Act is on its way out.

†I am of this opinion—apart from other logical aspects—simply because this hon Deputy Minister is “in charge” of group areas. Therefore, I know it must go. I remember being delegated by my party not so long ago to give evidence before a commission of which this very same hon Deputy Minister was the chairman. I am referring to the repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. Today there is no such Act, simply because he was in charge. What I dislike about this hon Deputy Minister is that he always speaks about the commission that he is in “charge” of, but he takes the decisions for them. When he was in charge of that commission, I had to give evidence on the Monday; but on the Sunday the hon the Deputy Minister made a statement to the effect that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act would never disappear from the Statute Book. We waved goodbye to that bit of legislation as soon as we entered Parliament and therefore it is logical that the Group Areas Act will follow the same path.

*The Group Areas Act impoverished my people and is still doing so.

†We had areas—I wanted to name them all but unfortunately I only have ten fingers—like Albertsville, Sophiatown, Pageview, Doornfontein and District Six, and so I can go on.

*The NP took all the best land, which is now lying waste, from our people and placed us in ghettos.

†The reward of going into these ghettos was that we went into areas that do not have a remote chance of ever being proclaimed. They were declared group areas and that was that; but township proclamation is not even on the horizon.

*Let us talk about subsidies. Subsidies in this country only work for Whites in any case. It is nice to say the teacher or the public servant is entitled to a subsidised house, but my people do not get subsidised housing, because we live in unproclaimed group areas.

†Who has to take the hiding for this? The hon member for Border says I must, but this scoring must now come to an end. If the hon the State President was honest, and I want to believe that he was honest, when he declared this new economic policy of his, the first thing that must go is the Group Areas Act, simply because it is so costly. [Interjections.]

*Let us take a look at what group areas cost us, or rather what they cost the Whites. Approximately three quarters of the people from the area I come from, Hillbrow, are not White.

†If those people are moved out of Hillbrow every White landlord—and there are only White landlords—will become insolvent overnight. This is why the department of the hon the Minister takes no action with regard to those people who are supposed to be in the areas “illegally”. Hon members must not forget what happened in Hillbrow in the last election where, by hook or by crook—I do not know which of “hook” or “crook” applies!—the NP won that seat. However, if my people were to be taken out of that area, Sir, every one of those landlords would go insolvent, because they have taken out large mortgage bonds. They are not big landlords. It was a case of small men also trying to make a living, so they bought those old flats. People are now living in those flats—and they are happy. Sir, if you want to see a happy community and the real South Africa, you should come with me to Hillbrow. There one will see the true South Africa. There really are happy people living there.

I do not know, however, whether this NP Government is hellbent on making people unhappy or whether they are hellbent on destroying South Africa.

*I can assure you, however, Sir, that my party simply does not want to walk the road of destruction with them.

†Our role in this Parliament is to try to bring them to their senses and to try to bring South Africa back to normality. However, Sir, if they do not want to listen, we will just have to go past them; but we will never stop. My party’s policy is absolutely clear and consistent.

*We do not say one thing today and something else tomorrow, Sir. We came here as an antiapartheid group, and we shall leave this Parliament as an anti-apartheid group. As long as the Group Areas Act forms part of the laws of this country, we simply cannot build a happy society. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to spend most of the approximately 20 minutes allotted to me on the real issue with regard to group areas, but, for the sake of the record, I first want to deal with three particular instances.

Firstly, I believe that Mr Peter Marais of the President’s Council is the Chairman of the UDP. If it is true that he is the chairman, then I cannot understand how the hon member for Border could bring this motion before the House without the consent of the chairman of his party, because Mr Peter Marais very clearly signed the report of the President’s Council and thus accepted the whole question of the fundamental issues with regard to group areas.

With reference to the second leg of the motion of the hon member for Border I want to say—this is for the record; I am not going to spend much time on this—that I find it strange that the motion has been presented with this addendum, since a writer for the Sunday Times Extra indicated two or three weeks ago that the hon member for Border was going to embarrass the LP by bringing a motion to this effect before this House. Now, I should like to know whether it is a question of sincerity or one of embarrassment. In dealing with the question of embarrassment, I may say I do not believe that I or we as a party are the ones who should feel embarrassed.

Sir, I want to tell you about a certain instance. The hon member for Border was approached with regard to the issuing of a permit to a certain Mr Ntsonkota, a Black man.

*He applied for a purchase permit for Erf No 26194, Durban Road, Parkside.

†The hon member for Border was asked to give his opinion as to whether this gentleman should be given a permit or not. I quote:

Mr Chairman, since that statement has been made, may I respond to it? I have been approached, since the inception of this tricameral Parliament, by various Government bodies who wanted to know whether I was in favour of permits or not. My reply to those bodies then was that I was not in favour of permits. I told them not to refer any future applications for permits to me. My answer, therefore, is on record.

Obviously the hon member for Border should have indicated at that particular stage that when applications for permits were made, he would be in favour of having all people accommodated in those particular areas. However, he did not do this.

I now come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I wish to quote from a letter which he wrote to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture on 11 February 1987:

*That is as far as permits are concerned. On the one hand the hon member for Border said that he was not in favour of permits. On the other hand, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that he had no objection insofar as permits were concerned. I want to read the entire letter to hon members, and I therefore quote further:

He was referring to Rabie Ridge. I quote:

It was signed J A Rabie, MP Reigerpark.

I wrote that when I still was a member of the LP. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that in itself is an admission that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is inconsistent in terms of decisionmaking. He would vary from day to day according to circumstances. The hon members of the UDP should be aware of that. He could be the Trojan horse within that particular party. His purpose for being there may be to influence the debate in favour of Government policy. Be that as it may, I would like to move on to more serious issues with regard to this particular Act.

No law can be a just law if it denies human freedom. The history of the past 40 years of NP rule has been a history of dispossession, denial and injustice. One wants to say, therefore, that if the interests of this country, and the governing party in particular, are to be improved so that we no longer remain the polecat of the international world, this certainly must be one of the first of the steps that have to be taken. One is appreciative of the fact that steps were taken in the past. We believe the attitudes towards our country were enhanced positively by the repeal of Section 16 of the Immorality Act, the repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the repeal of the first section of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act and the repeal of certain influx control laws. A lot of positive things did come from outside.

However, while this particular law remains on the Statute Book, we will continue to remain a polecat. I believe the time has come for the Government to reassess the need for this particular Act.

The hon member for Border and the hon member for Swartland have mentioned figures. This morning’s paper reminds us that 361 cases in connection with the Group Areas Act were brought to court.

If one takes that into consideration, one must conclude that that which is just in terms of the law is unjust in terms of the human approach. One then has to measure that which is unjust in terms of the loss of human dignity, the loss of freedom to reside in the area of one’s own choice and the loss of the freedom of association. Besides that, one should take into account the amount of money that is expended on bringing these cases to court, which entails legal fees on the side of the defence as well as time and money spent on prosecution and the need for it. In a sense all of this is a moral, physical and financial loss to the country.

I am reminded of a case which I want to repeat here. A lady from up country was employed as caretaker of a block of flats. She has now been there for a very long period. When she came here she brought her son with her, and during all the years that she was caretaker of the block of flats, she was entitled to live in the caretaker’s flat. This little boy grew up there, became identified with the people who lived there and with the property itself. Eventually he left school, went to work and got married. He still lives with his mother, but now he is being prosecuted for contravening the Act, because he broke the law by living where he has been living for the last 20 years or more. She is being prosecuted for allowing him to live with her, and the people who own the flats are being prosecuted as well. In the light of a situation like that, can we blame the international community for expressing abhorrence at what is happening in this strange country of ours?

Pietie, how do you defend that?

Mr Chairman, our demand for the repeal of the Group Areas Act is not a case of the dog crying for the moon. We are looking at a situation in which, in terms of NP policy, the Act has served its purpose. They wanted us separate, and they got us separate. So, as far as they are concerned, the Act has served its purpose. Now, since the reform process, as hon members correctly mentioned, came to a standstill after 6 May 1987—the NP is now looking over its shoulder at the rightist movement and conservatism is growing—we believe that the repeal of the Group Areas Act can form the basis of our negotiation. The repeal of the Act is quite feasible; and it can happen without the loss of NP prestige. People in Government circles fear they will lose this prestige—and they will lose, as they are losing to the conservative element—but we are asking them to be rational and reasonable. They should consider the tremendous and immeasurable good that will come from the repeal of this Act—in human and financial terms as well as in terms of international expectations.

We believe that the time has come for this Government to act against all forms of racism and not to act against people who are opposed to racism. I think they have a perverted sense of what is essential and of what is priority. I believe that if racism is the cancer which is causing the decline of our country, both nationally and internationally, we should deal with it, instead of running away from the reality.

Why do I say the repeal is feasible? I have mentioned one reason already, viz that it has served its purpose in terms of NP policy. However, I also believe—and this is manifest all over the world—that there is a natural gregariousness among people.

People associate with whom they want to associate. They live where they want to live. San Francisco has its Chinatown and there is no law which forces the Chinese or the Koreans to live in particular demarcated areas. It happens, though, and those are the realities. Birds of a feather flock together.

*Birds of a feather flock together. It is simply a natural feeling of belonging together. Why is the NP afraid that this feeling of togetherness will grow? Why are they so afraid that the so-called identity which they are so proud of, has to be protected by an Act such as this Group Areas Act?

†In terms of the realities and the feasibility of the situation, what are we looking for? Hon members will remember that when we were here in this House last year on the 21st anniversary of the declaration of District Six as a group area for Whites, I appealed to the hon the State President to steal the hearts and minds of the so-called Coloured people by making a gesture of goodwill and declaring District Six an open area. He then stated that 80% of District Six had never been owned by Coloured people, that they had been exploited and that it had been a slum area. He forgot, however—and people in the NP still forget—that people were living there; people with a character, people with morality, people with Christian principles and people who had developed a community spirit that can never be replaced.

I would advise the hon the Deputy Minister, the entire Cabinet and all the hon members of the NP—perhaps the entire House of Assembly—to go and witness and experience the effects of the Group Areas Act when District Six: The Musical returns to Cape Town. [Interjections.] I also regret the fact that the performing group refused to perform in the State Theatre in Pretoria. I most certainly accept and underscore their reasons, but I regret their decision, because the people who influence decision-making have now missed the opportunity to witness what the Group Areas Act really did. I do not believe that any hon member in the House of Assembly has the right to continue sitting in the House of Assembly without going to see District Six: the Musical. It reminded me of the tears that came to my eyes when I saw the production in the United States of Fiddler on the Roof. What was done in Russia to those peasants, to those property owners, was being repeated in South Africa. Because of our own experience we could really appreciate those people’s experience. Because of our own suffering those of us who saw the film when it was shown in South Africa could really identify with those people and their suffering.

I spoke about feasibility. District Six had an internationally acknowledged character. By the stroke of a pen, however, the hon the State President, then still a Minister, destroyed that character. I mentioned feasibility because that character can never be restored. It is gone. It will haunt the NP from the annals of history. In the meantime, however, those people who have been moved in terms of the Group Areas Act have formed new communities and there is a new community spirit. One must remember that this took place 21 years ago. There is a new community character.

People do not merely want to move back to District Six for sentimental reasons. What has been destroyed, has been destroyed. People cannot afford it financially or economically to move back to District Six. They cannot afford to buy property there. I am trying to help the NP realize the feasibility of repealing the Act. Some of the matchboxes on the plains of Mitchell’s Plain, and those throughout South Africa, have certainly become the homes of people. One does not give up one’s home because of an attachment to the past.

Once again I am trying to help the NP to recognize feasibility. When this law was promulgated, the so-called independent Black states were nonexistent. In terms of this law, those South Africans—who are the same people but are not South African citizens any longer—are now allowed to purchase property and are able to reside in areas where South Africans are not allowed to live. This shows up the folly of the whole system of race classification and also of the Group Areas Act: At the one time one may do something, and at another time one may not.

There is one correction I would like the hon member for Border to consider when he replies to this debate. He said—we must, therefore, be careful of what we say—laws can only be legitimate if and when all South Africans are admitted to these buildings. I want to remind the hon member for Border that even if all South Africans were to be admitted to these buildings, this law and all other discriminatory laws can never be legitimate.

I said it was not legitimate.

No, the hon member did not say that. I quoted him verbatim.

You are quoting me out of context.

Mr Chairman, I am quoting what the hon member for Border said. He went on to say—once again, we must be careful of what we say—that if this Act is not repealed or removed, we can no longer accept the tricameral system.

The LP has never accepted the tricameral system. We said so emphatically at Eshowe. The hon member for Border was not part of that decision made at Eshowe at that particular time and perhaps that is the reason …

You consulted me before.

No, it happened afterwards. There was no consultation before Eshowe; it was after Eshowe.

Before Eshowe.

Order!

This is ridiculous, Sir; I am not on the witness stand under cross-examination. The hon member for Bethelsdorp and I approached the hon member for Border after Eshowe when we asked him to become a candidate for Border.

No, you are wrong.

We obviously could not have consulted him before the LP made its decision. If that hon member is logical and consistent and draws on his legal experience, perhaps he will be able to recall the actual situation. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Border can furnish an answer in his reply. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

I want to emphasise that—the hon the Deputy Minister will understand this from the experience he had as a clergyman—that we have used the words, and the hon member for Border emphasised that. The time has come for the Government to convert; convert in the sense that one should come to a halt to reflect on the course one has taken and then think things over.

When one thinks and reflects one is compelled to make a decision; and the decision must be to go back and start again.

What are we doing in this House? I think the hon member for Border said it. For the sake of the dream of the future that all of us have for this country, it is essential that there be a new beginning. We are prepared for and willing to make that new beginning. One cannot begin with those things that are wrong and immoral, however. A sound future based upon justice and fairness cannot be built on the sand of that which is unfair and immoral.

†We are asking the hon the Deputy Minister and the Government to remove the blinkers of apartheid in order to see the realities of the South African situation. They are so apt to look only in terms of their own concepts, in terms of their own ideologies, that they are not prepared to examine the needs, the priorities and the results realistically. We have already mentioned in the past—and I am not going to refer to them again this afternoon—what has been destroyed and what has been created. We have talked about the goodwill, the well-being, the loyalty and the love that have been destroyed, and about the hatred and the racism which have been created.

One is amazed when one examines attitudes these days. It was even broadcast on television the other night that some of the employers in Bloemfontein had told their Black and Coloured employees that days would be deducted from their holidays because they were absent from work during the floods. [Interjections.] We still have that kind of behaviour, Sir, at a time like this. It is naked racism, and it is encouraged by the whole question of separation. If one does not know, one fears and when one fears one builds up resistance and anticipation and all kinds of things haunt one.

The experience of our people in Marchand in Kakamas comes to mind. Once again, because of separation it was a case of Coloured youngsters not knowing White youngsters. So when the flood came down bringing with it all the debris, which included some good stuff and lots of other stuff, arguments arose over what belonged to whom. In Marchand an argument arose between children—White Afrikaner children and Coloured Afrikaner children. Then the Police were summoned; and the Coloured children were arrested. [Interjections.] When the arrest was resisted and the chairman of the LP’s branch in Marchand intervened and asked for and secured the release of the children under 16, two White Afrikaners arrived on the scene. They then monopolised the argument and attacked' Mr Isaacs, the chairman of our branch at Marchand. He, of course, had to attack as well in order to defend himself. Then he was cold-bloodedly murdered! He was shot in cold blood! [Interjections.] Acts like these are a manifestation of racism; and racism is a manifestation of apartheid which has as one of its fundamental pillars the Group Areas Act.

We do not have to mention the whole question of schools and colleges in respect of which some people can loudmouthedly declare that empty schools would never be used for “Coloured education”. We were reminded this morning in our caucus about a place called Longlands in the Northern Cape where, because of the floods and the damage done to homes, members of the Coloured community were housed in an empty White school, or a school that had been built for Whites or which had previously been occupied by Whites. Now that the floods have subsided, the Police have been called in to remove these people, because they are now living in a White area. We talk about racism and Christian morality, but I venture to say that we should also consider—perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Government is not prepared to repeal the Act—whether the Group Areas Act has been part of a military strategy. If people live together, they learn to know each other and they become too close to each other, but one can control them militarily if one separates them. So 1,5 million people in Soweto can be militarily surrounded within ten minutes. The group areas approach of natural dividing lines, rivers, forests and what have you, is an indication of the belief that if people have been separated, they can be dealt with. What does one find when one travels around the country? Across the river one finds the Coloured community; and behind the mountain, one finds the African community. Someone once described them as houses up in the hills.

Sir, if the people supported one in heart and in mind, one would not need a military strategy. After all, we are not thinking in terms of Coloured, Indian, African or what have you, but in terms of people. We need not do anything else at a time like this but establish a national identity in terms of being South African.

*A lot has been said about the fact that we have had the South African flag for 60 years now and there will be a motion in this regard. If, however, we go to our homes, we note that the flag is not there and that when the national anthem is played in the evening, the television and the radio are immediately switched off because there is no national loyalty.

†When one goes to other countries, one sees flags flying and people acclaiming their leaders; they have an affinity because of their loyalty. We, however, cannot sing with the Afrikaner youngsters that “die erwe van ons vaders vir ons kinders bly” because where are those “erwe” today?

Stolen!

Yes, Sir. I have already mentioned that we appreciated it when the reform process was rapidly set in motion with the repeal of the Provision of Mixed Marriages Act. That was a big stride forward.

†It is also expected that we obey the injunction that those whom God has joined together, no man should put asunder. However, Sir, this hon Deputy Minister has been given the right, in terms of the law, to put asunder. When a woman works for a man who is classified as a White person and lives in the same house with him, there is no problem, because it is a case of master and servant. They can sleep together now that section 16 of the Immorality Act has been scrapped; and, now that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act has been repealed, they can get married. What a good thing! However, this so-called Christian Government, in a so-called Christian country with Christian moral standards, denies that woman and that man the right to live where they have lived before and where they have chosen to live. So the whole situation has to be changed. The man, having married a Coloured woman, must now seek refuge in a Coloured area.

I want to remind this hon Deputy Minister of the symbols of greed, which I hope will haunt the perpetrators of this iniquitous Act forever. I refer to a symbol like District Six, from which beautiful people were removed. They were removed from, for example, Bloemhof Flats. Those beautiful flats just up there are now to be occupied by Whites. I want to remind the hon the Deputy Minister of South End in Port Elizabeth, of Fairview, Willowdene and Salisbury Park. Sir, the hon the State President had the audacity to say that he did us a favour by declaring South End White, because the “slums” were removed. [Interjections.] Hon members will remember that I said that I met my wife there. South End had a beautiful spirit—a spirit which was as beautiful as my wife is.

We can never forget, and they must never forget. One does not understand the rationale of people who can remove others from Sophiatown and then, to add insult to injury, call the very area “Triomf”.

There is no rationale!

It was the triumph of White decision-making, White domination and White power.

Sir, on Sunday we buried a former member of this House, Mr Dewrance. We were impressed by the wonderful respect and love of people, but we cannot forget that he and others were wronged, and that they lost their businesses in Marabastad, Claremont and elsewhere. That spiritual death of people—and in some cases physical death—is the fault of this Government.

†They did something to the spirit of people, and for that they can never be forgiven. Even if we were to forgive, we could never forget.

Sir, I believe that this Government, having come to a standstill as far as reform is concerned, must now, as I have tried to indicate and explain, do what is honest, upright, honourable and, certainly, Christian—in the interests of our country which we all love; in the interests of all South Africans and of what I believe God wants this country to become—and that is to repeal the Group Areas Act.

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred to the late Mr Dewrance, I wish to take this opportunity of paying tribute to his memory. This is the first time I have participated in the proceedings in the House since his death and I missed his interjections and participation today. He was a good friend and one will always remember him.

I want to thank hon members who participated in this discussion for their contributions. They stated their standpoints vigorously and clearly and, may I add, in a most responsible way. There was a little in-fighting here and there. We in the House of Assembly must be more accustomed to this than hon members of this House, but it always lends a great deal of interest. There were frequent quotations from the Bible, especially by the hon member for Border. If I may also refer to the Bible, I want to say I actually feel like David in the face of Goliath today, but I do not have my catapult with me.

†I lost the only support that I had when the hon member for Tafelberg corrected her statement. There is no support for me in this House. I can expect that.

*Some hon members said that similar motions had been debated in this House before, which is quite correct. If I am not mistaken, this is the third time I have to reply to a motion of this nature. [Interjections.] Obviously, there is not much new to be said about this. Much of what was raised here this afternoon has already been mentioned in previous debates and we have definitely taken note of it. It is impossible for me to respond to all hon members’ statements. They will agree with me that it serves no purpose to go back so far into the past. I understand hon members’ problems.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred to some cases and I said on a previous occasion that I appreciated them fully. I know there was heartbreak; I know people were hurt in the process. On the other hand—as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also said—new communities came into being too. Consequently it will not benefit us to hark back to the distant past; neither will it benefit us to quarrel. I appreciate the calm way in which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council stated his case.

The hon member for Border mentioned Angola, to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council replied and said it was another group area. Hon members will understand that I do not wish to go into that matter during the discussion of this motion. I cannot furnish the information the hon member for Border required of me.

The hon member for Border, the hon member for Tafelberg and the hon member Mr Lockey emphasised housing. I want to agree with them this afternoon that it is of enormous importance. It is a fact that all should have a roof over their heads. It is only when a family is happily settled in a home that there can be true happiness. It remains the object of the Government to ensure with the assistance of the private sector that everyone in this country has a house. The Government itself does not have the funds to provide everyone with a house. The hon member Mr Lockey referred to the fact that there was a surplus of White housing in this country.

There is also an enormous shortage of housing, especially as regards Black people. I think the shortage runs to approximately 500 000 residential units. We are faced with a situation in which one community has a surplus of housing while there is a great shortage in another. This afternoon I wish to pay tribute to this Ministers’ Council which is doing everything in its power to extinguish the backlog. I also want to thank the private sector which is making its contribution to enable us to extinguish that backlog.

One fact we have to accept in South Africa is that housing has to be provided according to people’s capabilities and income. That is why we shall also have to become accustomed to informal housing, as in Khayelitsha. One receives a serviced site and is enabled to erect a house in accordance with one’s family’s income.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With respect, we understand what the hon the Deputy Minister is trying to drive home, but he is not replying to the debate. The debate calls for the repeal of the Group Areas Act, but he is discussing housing. Will the hon the Deputy Minister please return to the debate.

Mr Chairman, I am replying to the hon members for Border and Tafelberg as well as the hon member Mr Lockey who spoke on housing.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It is my prerogative to ask a question.

Yes, Sir, but it is my privilege to reply to it now, because it has been put to me. The hon member for Border also referred to Mr Fick who supposedly said that we did not have a standpoint on the Group Areas Act. I do not think it is altogether right that Mr Fick should have made such a statement because why are we discussing a motion such as this if we have no standpoint on the Act? Surely hon members are requesting that we repeal the Act. I shall get to the Government’s standpoint in a while, however.

The hon member for Swartland said there were problems with the purchase of farms and I immediately want to concede that this is so. This is a matter we have frequently discussed in the past and it receives attention again in the report of the President’s Council. This is definitely a matter which will continue to receive attention.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to the proclamation of land and said too much time had passed. I want to tell him and other hon members that we have a problem in proclaiming or making land available for residential areas, especially in his home province. There we have to cope inter alia with dolomite and subsidence because, as hon members know, the Witwatersrand is built on gold and we are concerned with all those factors. We are also involved in the surveying of land. After all, one cannot merely take a piece of land and say it is a residential area, that people may live there now. An orderly survey is required and frequently the land first has to be purchased too. There are various other factors to which I could refer as well.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned the names of various places, for example Noordgesig. I received a deputation of people living in Noordgesig, led by the hon member for Klipspruit West, who came with the request that Noordgesig be proclaimed because the people living there could not obtain property rights. At the moment that area is owned by the City Council of Johannesburg. The hon member for Klipspruit West submitted those representations to me. I paid immediate attention to them and Noordgesig is now to be proclaimed.

Within three months.

We hope this will happen within three months, as I told the hon member. [Interjections.] I am attending to this personally. We had an in-depth discussion in my office—the hon member was present—with the deputation from Noordgesig round the table. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that he was in my office and requested us to make provision for the residents of Alexandra because those people would murder everyone.

I put the same question to the people of Noordgesig. I asked whether they wanted to live there and they replied that they were satisfied to remain there and that is why we are proceeding with this. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to Villa Lisa. I should like to give him a reply on that because the statement is being made that our department is unnecessarily dragging its feet. Villa Lisa was offered to the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates. I waited a long time before receiving a reply from that Ministers’ Council. I can understand this because there were many matters involved such as developers who were active there for instance.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself said that a developer wanted to make a profit of R8 million. We had to investigate all these matters, but the matter of Villa Lisa can soon be concluded.

The hon member also referred to Norweto. I want to tell him we have appointed a consortium to identify land in the PWV area. I want to point out to him again that it is enormously difficult to find land for residential areas in a region like the PWV area. The land available has to be considered very thoroughly. We are aware of the land which is required in the PWV area. We require thousands upon thousands of hectares to establish those residential areas and provide people with housing. I want to assure hon members this afternoon that this is being done without any delay.

As regards Reigerpark, I concede that the area is overcrowded, but we also have to contend with noise zones there. It is yet another problem in the Transvaal that one cannot establish a residential area in a noise zone. I want to draw hon members’ attention to this so that they may realise that one cannot simply build a house anywhere, especially not in the Transvaal.

As far as the second part of the motion is concerned, I want to say the hon member for Wentworth was right in that the hon member for Border was not convincing when he spoke on this. [Interjections.] The hon member for Swartland also moved an amendment to it. What is the Government’s standpoint? As hon members all know, the President’s Council reviewed the Group Areas Act and we have received the report. I am here on behalf of the Government and I am not shying away from the Government’s standpoint. It has been very clearly stated that the Government insists on the principle that opportunities have to exist for the formation of own communities, to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has just referred. Nobody wants to do away with this in South Africa today. Splendid communities exist. An own community life and ownership of land have to be guaranteed to those who regard them as important. There are people in South Africa who regard them in this way.

Are you afraid of the CPs?

I wish to give hon members an example. When I worked for Home Affairs, rural areas were also my responsibility. That was when I visited Komaggas. [Interjections.] Hon members know where that is. The management board of Komaggas refused to approve certain planning for the area so no surveys could be done there and consequently people could not be granted property rights. I met that management board. The hall was full of people and there were teachers and other people present who were entitled to subsidies. Because they could not obtain property rights, they could not erect houses there. I tried to convince that management board but they would not agree. They would not agree to this. They told me later they wanted to protect their area; it was their community and they did not want all kinds of foreign elements from outside there. I am mentioning this purely as an example. I myself struggled with this; I battled with it. So there is an own community life which people want to protect. That is why the Government says it wants to preserve this for people who regard it as important. The Government also says the established rights of individuals and communities should be protected.

You have deprived us of our rights.

The hon member for Border emphasised the right of the individual. He said this was of cardinal importance to him and his party. The hon member Mr Lockey claimed the hon member for Border had taken this from LP policy.

But you do not take us into account.

We all agree that the right of the individual, who regards this as important, should be protected.

Not by a law.

Sir, how can the hon member for Haarlem say we cannot protect the right of an individual by a law? Then we shall have to delete all the other laws because all those that exist …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister? I want to explain to him what I am trying to say. [Interjections.] I do not want the hon the Deputy Minister to speak against the background of his position. I want to know whether he as a person truly believes that the Group Areas Act is a good law.

†I used to live in a White residential area. In terms of the Act I was removed from that area …

Order! The hon member is not permitted to make a speech. He is to put his question.

It is a question I merely wish to qualify, Sir.

†I was forcibly removed and White people moved into that area. Now the hon the Deputy Minister says the right of the individual must be protected. However, our rights were not protected when we used to live in that area. I want to know from him, irrespective of his job as a Deputy Minister, if he believes, in terms of his Christianity, that the Group Areas Act is a just Act.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has already replied to that in saying that the NP had perhaps regarded it as right when it took those steps. I also said earlier in my speech that I did not approve of everything that had been done this afternoon. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council this afternoon referred to certain events which I want to condemn. I condemn all cases of racism; I condemn all cases of unchristian and unfair action. [Interjections.] I want to go further.

What is your standpoint? That is what we want to know.

I am putting the Government’s standpoint very clearly.

Which is not yours.

The Government has said that opportunities for own community formation and own community life and ownership of land should be guaranteed to those who regard this as important. It adds that established rights of individuals and the community should also be protected. This includes everybody—the hon member for Haarlem too.

The Deputy Minister is not answering the question.

The Government says that it should be possible to provide for those who choose a different lifestyle. There are people in South Africa who are not interested in this point stated by the Government. They choose a different lifestyle and that is why the Government has said there may be open areas in South Africa as well. Proposals are being put forward and procedures designed according to which this can be done. I believe that we may establish open residential areas in South Africa for people who prefer this by holding discussions and by means of consultation. We have a splendid opportunity here in Cape Town for instance. If we start with Durham Avenue …

Durbanville.

No, I am not talking about Durbanville. The hon member needs to listen. [Interjections.] If we start with Durham Avenue, we first had an industrial area followed by a proclaimed Coloured residential area. Subsequently a large area was proclaimed for investigation and at present it is a proclaimed White area. There is an area in District Six which this House does not want to develop. It is a proclaimed Coloured area.

What about your speech at Maitland?

Let us start with a specific place. Let us begin with Durham Avenue and we agree that it is an open area. Let us take from Victoria Road in Woodstock downwards and let us find companies prepared to develop and invest there and we shall improve the face of Cape Town in that area so that it will become an open area where all may live. Hon members want open areas and I am making the suggestion.

What about District Six?

Yes, I shall open the area hon members do not wish to develop.

Sir, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister what he meant when he said during a meeting at Maitland that the Group Areas Act would be given teeth now?

Yes, so that it can bite.

Sir, I can assure the hon member for Haarlem I shall not bite him. As regards the hon member Mr Douw’s question, I was merely using symbolism.

Say what you mean!

I shall tell the hon member what I meant, which is that if areas are declared open and there are people who choose such a lifestyle, the rights of the individual who does not choose it and who lives in his community, whoever he may be, should also be protected. That is all I meant by that.

Sir, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he said that merely to satisfy the right wing in the two by-elections?

No, Sir, because I do not take any notice of the right wing in conducting my politics. I put the case as I believe it to be right. I wish to repeat, I want to put it like this … [Interjections.]

Sir, may I put a further question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

Order! I cannot permit the hon member Mr Douw to interrupt the hon the Deputy Minister continually. The hon the Deputy Minister should be granted an opportunity to complete his speech.

Sir, I merely want to put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister.

Order! That is the last question I shall permit.

Sir, the hon the Deputy Minister speaks of Christian principles, but I want to ask him now whether his Christian principles permit him to separate people?

Sir, I will answer that question. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Sir, I appreciate all the support I can obtain but the rules of the House oblige me to reply to that question myself. My reply is yes, there are cases, because if people want their own communities, my Christian conscience tells me they may have own communities. They may exist like that.

First define the concept of “community”.

Sir, there are many such communities and I have just told hon members that I visited rural areas and those management boards told me they wanted to protect their communities.

That is a very poor example.

Sir, it may be a poor example, but they do exist regardless of whether the hon member accepts the example or not. I have explained the Government’s standpoint to hon members and I cannot agree to the motion that the Group Areas Act be repealed.

Sir, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he accepts that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a Christian and, if he were to reply to this in the affirmative, if he would have any objection to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s coming to live next to him?

Sir, I accept entirely that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a Christian. He is a Christian, otherwise he would surely not be a minister of religion. There would be no objection from my side, and if they told me tomorrow I had to live in Reigersdal, I would move in there, because I lived there very happily. [Interjections.]

Reply to the question!

Sir, I have put the Government’s standpoint and there is no other standpoint I can put. That is the standpoint. I believe that further discussions may well take place. I hope—I want to say this to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council…

You will lose the election next year.

No, wait a bit. Hon members must give me a chance. I am serious. [Interjections.] I can tell the hon member for Addo I have also heard the names of other people who are going to lose elections.

I want to tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in all seriousness—he spoke very earnestly and I listened attentively—I think there should be further discussions and negotiation on this matter. I wish to request him as a Christian in whom I have confidence to pursue that discussion.

Permit me therefore to express my thanks to hon members. It was a pleasure to be in this House this afternoon. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we have witnessed a political contortionist in action in this House today; but, despite all the political contortions, the hon the Deputy Minister cannot get away from a statement with regard to the Group Areas Act that was made on 31 May 1950 by the then Prime Minister. He said the measure was necessary to bring an end to conditions (Hansard, Vol 73, col 7724)—

Therefore, in spite of all the hon the Deputy Minister’s political contortions this afternoon, the fact cannot be denied that this Act is based on sheer racism and that he is a proponent of that racism which we detest.

You can have open areas. Why not?

Sir, if they open the whole of South Africa to all races, we will agree with the hon the Deputy Minister. I challenge the Government to do so now!

But you only asked for the Coloured areas to be open!

Sir, I want to come back to the motion which has caused so much embarrassment here this afternoon. Firstly, I want to address the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council with regard to the question of consultation. I will give him an opportunity to consult with the witness who was present. He can then return to this Chamber to set the record straight because, Sir, he is wrong. There was no need to consult me to stand as a candidate because the decision was taken in Kimberley and I went there on the strength of the unanimous decision of representatives of the entire Border region. Therefore, there was no need to consult me to become a candidate. I appeal to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to consult with the witness who was present, the hon member for Bethelsdorp, and to set the record straight.

While we are talking about consultation, the hon member for Wentworth emphasised the fact that consultation did take place. Hon members will recall what happened at Kleinskool. There was an article in Die Burger in which a certain Mr May emphatically stated that he wanted the Blacks out of that area. Is that the consultation that was referred to? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether the UDP has consulted anyone with regard to the second part of their motion?

We are in daily contact with people from across the spectrum. [Interjections.] With regard to the second leg of our motion—this is the reason the reaction to it was so vehement—I want to say that within the ranks of the LP there are many people who believe in Coloured nationalism. [Interjections.] Yes, there are many hon members sitting in those benches who believe …[Interjections.] I listened to hon members’ speeches in silence and would appreciate it if they would listen to me in silence.

There are many hon members on that side who uphold the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] That was one of the reasons why we left the LP. Hon members will recall that the hon member for Wentworth defended the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, will the hon member for Border answer this question: Why do the hon member for Border and his party persist in being agents provocateurs for the Government?

We are not agents provocateurs for the NP. We have made our stand quite clear here. The dishonesty in our politics must come to an end. [Interjections.] The dishonesty in this House must come to an end.

[Inaudible.]

I am coming to him. The hon member Mr Lockey must just await his turn.

†There are many hon members here who do not want to have Blacks in their areas. [Interjections.]

*I am referring to certain hon Ministers in this House. [Interjections.] Jackie’s boy had better keep quiet. I am speaking now.

We do not wear Balaclavas!

I am speaking now. The hon member must keep quiet.

†Sir, certain reports of the President’s Council were quoted here, and it was quoted what Mr Marais is alleged to have said.

Signed! Signed!

Yes, we are coming to the signature. Here I have a report in my hand in which three prominent hon members of the LP stated in no uncertain terms that the action of the Government was completely correct when it removed people from District Six. I have it in my hand, and I have the signature of the people here as well. They have signed—a word some hon members have so vividly emphasised—this document. There are their signatures. One of these hon members even serves on the Ministers’ Council. He agreed that the action of the Government, namely kicking people out of District Six, was completely correct. Does he still hold that view today?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: That report of the President’s Council which the hon member is referring to, was signed before those people became members of the LP.

I also signed that other document before I became a member of the UDP.

I asked a question. Does the hon member still hold that view?

†Does he still support this viewpoint? Some hon members also signed documents when they were still members of the LP. I can name them, but for the purpose of the record I will just refer to the President’s Council’s Report, PC1—1981. The names of the hon members of the LP who signed this report are printed here. So much for quoting out of documents to prove a case! Here we also have a document which three prominent hon members of the LP signed when they supported the Group Areas Act and the removal of people out of District Six. They stated that the action of the Government was correct. I want them to come back to this Chamber and recant what they signed.

Mr Chairman, Mr Jan Ellis of Mtwalume and his advisory committee applied for Mtwalume to be declared a White group area. If the hon member for Border had to choose, would he allow that area to be declared a White group area?

I will reply by asking the hon member another question: Would he allow the permit which was applied for in his constituency, to be granted? Whatever he answers will be my answer too as far as the matter of Mr Jan Ellis is concerned.

Mr Chairman, we said the Group Areas Act must be repealed. We know for a fact that the representative of the Government who is sitting over there does not want to repeal the Group Areas Act. That is a fact. Now, if we want the Group Areas Act repealed, why do we not start ourselves? Why do we not repeal the Group Areas Act or ask the hon the State President to repeal the Group Areas Act where it affects us? We are prepared to open our areas to everybody.

Disgraceful!

What is disgraceful? The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is hiding behind the Government, because he refuses to declare his areas open, and that is a fact. That is why this amendment to part (b) of the motion was moved all of a sudden. That is a fact.

You sound just like the hon the State President.

I am not the hon the State President. I just want to put a stop to this political dishonesty. The hon member can accuse me of sounding just like the hon the State President. All hon members are saying that their areas are saturated. They all say they will not know where to put the people. Are there any areas that are not saturated? If that it so, there would be no place for anybody else! [Interjections.]

*Now I am really treading on their toes. [Interjections.] That is the truth. All areas must be opened and we should start with the areas over which they have control. Why should the people in the Kleinskool area—this area falls under the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council—speaking through Mr Mini who insists that he is a member of the LP, demand that the Blacks be evicted? We demand an answer. [Interjections.] People asked me about the permit system. East London is one of the places that were mentioned. Why are those people being refused permits by the LP which is in power? Why?

†They are hiding their prejudices in Mitchell’s Plain behind parks. That is why they asked that a certain park be proclaimed so as to prevent the people of Khayelitsha from moving into Mitchell’s Plain.

That is all speculation.

It is not speculation.

*I ask the hon member who has so much to say whether he agrees that Retreat should be declared open? Yes or no? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Surely the hon the Deputy Minister must withdraw the words he has just uttered. He used the word “bullshit”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

May I put this question directly to the hon the Deputy Minister, Sir? Does he want Mitchell’s Plain opened? Yes or no?

It is open …

What is open? [Interjections.]

*No, hon members should get this straight. They accuse us of hiding federal blood here, but I want to know: Where is federal blood flowing most strongly?

Next to you and behind you.

Is it flowing here or among those at the back there? [Interjections.] Those hon members must be careful.

†They are painting themselves out of the liberation struggle in this country. [Interjections.] Amendment put,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz C J Kippen, P A S Mopp, J A Rabie and C R Redcliffe) appeared on one side,

Amendment declared agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to, viz: That the House is of the opinion that the Group Areas Act, Act 36 of 1960, should be repealed (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move on behalf of the Deputy Minister of Development Planning:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move on behalf of the Deputy Minister of Development Planning:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, this is a very important Bill which concerns the Post Office budget. Some of the observations which have been made in the hon the Minister’s Budget Speech constitute good news for the consumer today. There are to be no increases in tariffs for postal, telephone and other Post Office services in the new financial year. However, the hon the Minister of Communications told Parliament that general salary increases would not be granted for Post Office employees this year. He said that purely business and economic considerations require the adjustment of tariffs for the unprofitable services, the postal, telex, telegram and money-transfer services to a cost-related level. However, as a contribution to the fight against inflation and in view of the investigation into the unprofitable services and the expected favourable ratio of fixed assets to liabilities, no tariff increases were proposed for the year 1988-89.

The hon the Minister gave no details of privatisation in his record R6,1 billion budget, but he did outline plans to divide up the Post Office into smaller profit-making tax-paying businesses. He said that it had been decided to extend deregulation to allow the private sector, under certain circumstances, to provide and maintain extension line cabling and peripheral equipment on private automatic branch exchanges. The private sector would also be allowed to operate facsimile transmissions for the public.

Regarding the De Villiers report, the hon the Minister said that three phases of reform were necessary to reorganise the Post Office in terms of the De Villiers investigation. I can summarise this as follows:

These were some of the observations. However, as regards revenue, income and expenditure once again the postal authority, another of the largest Government institutions, has suffered a loss. Some of the items of expenditure which need very careful scrutiny are the overtime remuneration allowances and bonusses paid to staff.

With regard to miscellaneous staff expenditure, I wish to raise a particular query with the hon the Minister in respect of the grant to the Post Office Sports Association, for which an amount of R75 000 is allowed. I would be pleased if the hon the Minister would tell this House whether this amount is expended for the benefit of all communities employed by the Post Office.

Regarding transport, a large amount is set aside for the conveyance of mail, material and equipment. I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that an opportunity be taken to reduce this expenditure by offering the conveyance of mail and other material to contractors. I think this would be the first step to privatisation of matters related to the Post Office. I personally think that if the conveyance of mail and other materials would be given to contractors there would be huge savings, in particular in respect of the cost of maintenance of Post Office vehicles and the payment of licence fees in respect of these vehicles. Huge amounts are set aside for losses resulting from theft, fire, recoverable debts in respect of telecommunication and postal services rendered, and motor vehicle accidents.

I want to refer to a particular matter that took place some time in December. A vehicle owned by the Post Office authorities met with an accident five times in one week.

It is the driver!

Yes, it could have been the driver. Not only are the motor vehicles of the Post Office damaged, but losses are also suffered by the third party in respect of damages to property, injuries etc. I think the Post Office should give serious consideration to this matter. We cannot afford to have negligent people employed in the services of the department. They not only cause damage to the departmental assets but also damage to property and injury to third parties. An amount of R2,5 million was set aside for motor vehicle accidents. I think this is a colossal amount.

There are other items in the Post Office Appropriation Bill that need very careful investigation. An amount of R34 million has been set aside for the printing of telephone directories against the amount of R27 million expended last year. I personally think that the publication of telephone directories can be given to private enterprise. This will save the Post Office a large amount. If the Post Office wants to continue with the printing and distribution of telephone directories it must levy a certain amount so that some revenue can be collected in respect of the telephone directories by the Post Office.

I now come to the following items in the schedule: “Provisions for higher replacement costs of assets” and “Financing costs”. My view is that a highly qualified professional management firm specialising in costs and distribution should be engaged and briefed to look into the items concerned with revenue and expenditure insofar as the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is concerned. This will give us as public representatives in this House a further opportunity of evaluating some of the relevant undertakings by the Department of Posts and Telecommunications that can be privatised and where some savings can be made. Unless such provisional studies are undertaken there will be no positive changes in the question of the expenditure and revenue of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and the department will continue to suffer losses.

I wish to raise another important issue which is a matter of principle. My investigations have revealed that the postal authorities have found it necessary to bring postal services within the reach of closely concentrated communities. In Durban—I will take the constituency of the hon the Minister—there are four post offices in an area which is virtually a quarter of the size of the entire Chatsworth area which in turn is served by only two post offices. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to appoint a committee to investigate areas like the whole of Chatsworth, Shall-cross, Mariannhill, Merebank and other closely concentrated Indian community areas with a view to more effective postal services such as the delivery of mail and telegrams. I have been appealing to the department concerned for a mail delivery service for a concentrated unit of people residing in Mariannhill, Nagina. I must say that the response was not sufficient. Private townships like Reservoir Hills, Newlands, Umhlatuzana, Kharwastan and Silverglen must have their own post offices which will bring additional revenue and employment opportunities for the various communities.

My observations have been that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is a more or less pro-apartheid organisation. There is no room whatsoever for the advancement of qualified personnel in top positions in the Post Office or Telecommunications sphere as far as the nonWhite community is concerned. It is reserved only for the Whites and it is my intention to call upon the hon the Minister to ask for the doors to be opened in both the Post Office and the Telecommunications section so that qualified people in those departments can reach the top on merit. At the moment the most senior position nonWhites can reach is that of a technician in the telecommunications section and a clerk or a postmaster in the Post Office.

I have great respect for the hon the Minister of Communications, I understand his attitude on apartheid issues and I have always known that he has been able to be very fair. Even when he was the Administrator of Natal he earned great respect not only from the other communities but the Indian community in particular.

In conclusion I want to pay my compliments to the executive official of the Post Office, the Postmaster-General and his deputies, the Director-General and the hon the Minister himself. My special compliments go to Dr Piet Welgemoed, the chairman of the Standing Committee on the Accounts of the SATS and of Post and Communications. I should be pleased if the hon the Minister would convey to Dr Piet Welgemoed, appreciation for what he did on the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, this is an important debate if we consider the call made by the hon the State President to civil servants to assist the country with fighting inflation and the fact that public sector salaries have been curtailed. I think the hon the State President’s call must be considered in a very serious light, not only by management in the public sector but by the private sector as well.

The announcement by the hon the Minister of Communications of an operating surplus of R469,9 million instead of a predicted deficit at the close of business for the year 1986-87 is highly commendable. This excellent result is attributable to the excellent manner in which the management went about finding ways and means to overcome and rationalise certain difficulties that existed in the past. For this achievement I wish to compliment the Postmaster-General Mr Ridgard and his team personally for what they did last year to bring about these fantastic results. It is my view that he has paved the way for posterity at a most appropriate time, that is on the eve of his departure after having been with the Department of Post and Telecommunications for 45 years. He has a very good record.

The new incumbent, Mr Johan de Villiers, will have no reason to complain and we look forward with a great deal of optimism to the year 1988-89 being better than the year under review. However, there are certain issues I wish to raise and I hope the hon the Minister will address this House with a positive answer. I want to refer to staff positions. This has been highlighted here in the previous years and the hon member for Stanger highlighted this last year. I am going to do this again. I would like to know whether it is just for purposes of the record or whether the debates are attended too and whether any measure of action is taken, as this has been an on-going issue from the time this House of Delegates came into being.

Before I go on to some of the perks that could very well earn much revenue in the Department of Posts and Telecommunications I just want to deal with the staff position. There are something like 29 000 people, or 30% who are in the Posts and Telecommunications service and who earn in the region of R3 000 to R6 000 per annum. I am given to understand that the average of R375 or R350 is paid out to many people of the various race groups, that is the Whites, Indians, Coloureds and Blacks. I would like to ask the hon the Minister and his department whether these people are able to live on that salary. Let us say they are getting R6 000; 29 000 people have to live on about R400 a month. Is that possible in this day and age? What are we doing to improve the quality of their lives? They too have families. They are not vagabonds and hobos who live on the streets and have no accommodation and no families. They have to go back home to their families with an answer. Their families are also looking forward to an improvement in their living standards. When we see this kind of attitude on the part of management, and the other kinds of perks that are so readily available to those people who could well afford to pay for them, I cannot reconcile the attitude on the part of management.

I want to read an article that appeared in the Press very recently. Unfortunately, I do not have the date stamped on it but if this is true I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether these kinds of perks should be available to the very privileged people. This article appeared in one of the local newspapers. I wonder whether I should read the whole thing. It is not a very lengthy article, but I shall just quote certain paragraphs:

I am just quoting a few paragraphs here and there to cut down time. We have only limited time here.

That is the lowest number of free units in the scheme—

The next paragraph reads:

I do not think that 29 000 people have telephones because they cannot even afford to buy food. I think these practices should be curtailed and those people living on the lower rungs of the ladder should have their salaries updated. There is an enormous amount of revenue going down the drain. I want to say that this facility is available to the top brass.

That is one issue I would like to highlight. There are others I would also like to talk about, such as staff positions. I want to refer to the Postmaster-General’s annual report of 1986-87. I think there is discrimination in respect of employment, total discrimination because there has been no improvement in the quality of life of those hundreds of Black people looking forward to employment. If one were to go to manpower resource centres one would find hundreds of young people with talent; there are matriculants and many people with degrees, looking forward to a clerical job. This is the sad state of affairs with which we Black people are faced in this country.

I have a report here by Mr J H de Villiers, Deputy Postmaster-General, and I just want to read one part of this paragraph:

I would like to know what he means by the words “male clerks”. If he means White male clerks then I believe there is a shortage. However, there is absolutely no shortage when it comes to nonWhite male clerks. There are hundreds of them.

Over 8 000 matriculants are unemployed.

If that statement is correct, we must go by it.

I now want to discuss the Black community, and I want to talk about Indians because I know them a little better simply because I live in the areas I am asked to live in, and I can speak for them.

We have people who can qualify themselves in many other fields. We have people in this House; not many of them are lawyers, not many of them are matriculants, and not many of them have any degree. Nevertheless we are here making laws at the highest level in this country. I can therefore tell you without fear of contradiction that there are hundreds of people who, even though they do not have matric, would make far better clerks than a handful of Whites who have many other opportunities and who, the minute they get one of those opportunities, branch off elsewhere. These jobs are reserved, and it is reserved for the White group. This has been a policy in the past, and this policy is still being applied.

I believe that in the recession that we are experiencing there must be some dramatic change or else we shall be going on and on with the same issues. My hon friend raised the matter of telephone directories and suggested that people pay for them, but have they no other ways of getting more money? For instance, there are several other perks that are available. Perhaps I shall deal with that next time, but now I wish to talk about the question of training facilities.

An enormous amount of money is being given out in the form of grants-in-aid to universities other than non-White universities. I am given to understand that these universities have faculties for mechanical engineering. I wish to mention that we also have this type of facility at the University of Durban-Westville. I am not referring to the University of the Western Cape or that of Zululand. However, I should like to know—if opportunities of this type are available in the Department of Posts and Telecommunications—what attempts have been made by the department to investigate, with regard to these universities, or to propose to these universities that they establish this type of faculty to perform a service for the community, a community that is so starved of job opportunities? Nothing has been done, and if I were to read the number of universities that have been recipients, Mr Chairman, you would be shocked. They are all White universities where there are no Blacks at all. They are Pretoria University, Stellenbosch University—you name it. This is a sore and a sad state of affairs. Highlighting these issues from time to time only brings frustration.

I wish to go a little further and talk about the other types of facility available which are also based on colour, such as medical aid.

In Posts and Telecommunications there are four different types of medical schemes. One is called Posmed, which is for the top brass. The others are Sanitas, Pro Sano and Bonitas. I should like to know why we have so many types of medical benefit. I appreciate that the top brass will definitely have better facilities; they will get the maximum. However, when one looks at the amount involved I believe that even the underprivileged ones should be uplifted. When one looks at the amount that is budgeted for the year—fees of R9 000 500—against what… Let me put it this way: If the three other medical aid schemes for the lower grades are totalled, the figure of R15 million is obtained as against the top brass, in regard to which the amount is R54 million. I say that this is just 25% of what the best are receiving in the way of these benefits.

The other types of benefit I note in this booklet relate to extra perks, extra bonusses and extra allowances. I think this is a sheer waste of time. This refers to allowances to ministerial personnel; a stand-by allowance, motor-driving allowance; incentive bonus; personal non-pensionable allowance—what is all this, Sir? I think that if the man has to get a salary, if he is not earning as much as he should, rather upgrade his salary than allowing this type of incentive bonus. Is it for the purpose of getting more work out of them? If so, I suggest that they employ many people who are looking for employment. I believe in having more people employed than having a limited number of people and paying them overtime, because the overtime salary structure is not the standard rate; it is a different rate altogether.

I just want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister to look into these affairs. We do not want to have to come here to highlight these issues. It certainly does not do this House any good, nor does it do me or the public at large any good. Unfortunately only on occasions like this can we bring it to the notice of the authorities, but then it should not fall on deaf ears. We come here for results, and results are what my people look for when I leave this Chamber.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Thaver said that the hon the Minister of Communications had presented a very good budget in favour of the consumer, because there is no tariff increase. He continued by addressing parochial issues and he then recommended that the hon the Minister should charge for telephone directories. That hon member went off the line somewhere. After him the hon member for Havenside presented a very good case from this side of the House, for which I congratulate him. It was well researched, well presented and well balanced, which is of more interest to the general public than those parochial issues which were addressed previously.

I would like to take the hon the Minister to task on a very particular issue. I contend that the hon the Minister has built in a hidden increase in tariffs. Through his Budget Speech he announced that local calls are going to be charged according to length of time. I cannot see how anyone can speak on the telephone for half an hour or longer, however, if the hon the Minister is going to bring in this duration fee, it will actually constitute an increase in tariff. I do not know what else to call the charging for local calls. Why should this be done, especially when the Budget is such a healthy one? The department is not running at a loss, so the hon the Minister must want to make extra money.

I got my first telephone 22 years ago. In those days a new telephone directory was acquired by taking the old one to any post office and exchanging it. Somewhere through the years someone got very lazy and was not interested in handling those used directories anymore. This is actually more in answer to the hon member Mr Thaver. Today one takes the front cover of the old directory to one’s post office to exchange it for a free new copy. Now one must keep in mind that one only receives a free copy of the area in which one has subscribed. For the directory of any other area, be it near or far, one has to pay the full price. It is not, as the hon member Mr Thaver states, for free. This is why I say that the hon member is not au fait with the situation—he is merely talking nonsense.

To come back to these used telephone directories, I would like to advise the hon the Minister that, rather than charging local calls on duration period, his department should keep in mind that a conservative estimate of the amount of one year’s used telephone directories comes to 860 000 tonnes. This would work out to approximately R5 million being thrown down the drain. If the hon the Minister went back to the old system of exchanging the complete directory, his department could recycle the old directories and do the country’s economy one big favour. He would actually be doing the consumers as well as his department a favour and this would obviate the presently envisaged increase in local telephone tariffs.

I strongly support the hon member for Havenside insofar as postal clerks are concerned. There are in the region of 38 000 top notch matriculants—non-White people—unemployed today. Therefore, for any Government or commercial department to say that it is looking for suitably qualified personnel or that there is a shortage of clerks, is ridiculous. It is absolutely ridiculous. It is outrageous to make that claim, knowing full well that there are thousands of properly qualified top notch matriculants walking the streets in search of employment. I therefore do not accept that there is a shortage of postal clerks or that they are looking for clerks. They need only advertise, and the hon the Minister or the Postmaster-General would soon become tired of screening all the applicants. He could get as many as he wants.

On the surface the hon the Minister’s budget appears to contain no tariff increases but that sting in the tail which I have just mentioned, makes it a budget with a hidden tariff increase. I should like the hon the Minister to think very carefully before implementing that intention of his to charge for local calls according to their duration.

Mr Chairman, before I deal with the Bill before us I want to welcome the hon the Minister to this new Chamber of ours. It is his first visit here.

He is at home here. [Interjections.]

I should like to welcome his officials as well.

In his opening remarks during the Second Reading of the Post Office Appropriation Bill, the hon the Minister said that good progress had been made during the financial year with the investigation conducted under the guidance of Dr W J de Villiers being into the strategy, policy, management structure and organization of the Post Office. This, combined with what the hon the State President said at the opening of Parliament on 5 February, namely that the Government has decided in principle to consider converting certain State undertakings, including the Department of Posts and Telecommunications into taxpaying, profit-seeking enterprises and appropriate business undertakings, is very welcome.

The best news in the hon the Minister’s speech was that he had found it possible to forego tariff increases this year. This should help to contain inflation and benefit the man in the street. I also welcome the Government’s plans to privatise the Post Office in due course, and we have the hon the Minister’s assurance that this will be done in a responsible manner. I am also very happy about the further assurance given by the hon the Minister that in this process the interests of the staff will be properly cared for. This will do much to allay the fears that have arisen in this regard.

An important development that I envisage is the timing of local telephone calls. At present directly dialled local calls are charged once only. Once the new system is introduced the duration of local calls will be measured according to fixed distance related metering periods, as in the case of trunk calls. A distinct advantage of the proposed system, apart from higher revenue, is that abuse of the telephone network will be discouraged. I believe it will discourage the chatterboxes and the lovebirds, and I have no doubt that all businessmen will have a stem word with their staff and families. The overall result is likely to be shorter telephone conversations, resulting in savings to the business and private sectors.

I am very pleased with the improvement of the ratio of fixed assets to liabilities which I believe is an important factor in judging the financial structure of an undertaking. This declined from 2,25 to 1 in 1981-82 to 1,59 to 1 in 1986-87 and was improved to a ratio of 1,674 to 1 in 1987-88 by curtailing the capital programmes. The Post Office has set itself a target of reaching a fixed assets to liability ratio of 2 to 1 in the next two to three years.

I want to enlighten hon members of this House about what this department is doing in Natal. I thank the hon the Minister and his department for embarking on the following projects:

I do not see the hon member for Phoenix here, but I have good news for him.

Mr Chairman, I want to say to the hon the Minister that I believe that there is only one post office to cater for Northdale, Breystock, Allandale, Dunveria, New Holmes, Woodlands, Mountain Rise and Eastwood. The estimated population there is about 80 000. I do hope the hon the Minister and his department will look at this area.

Regarding training, bursaries totalling some R710 000 were granted to bursars for graduate and postgraduate university study, which represents an increase of 7,6% over the previous year. For the 1987 study-year 39 new bursaries were granted to deserving students for full-time study. Bursaries were granted to some 140 officers for part-time graduate and postgraduate studies in approved fields. Altogether 4 335 pupil technicians, apprentices and telecom trainees were training at the end of the financial year. A total of 3 436 students completed the training during the course of the year. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department for what has been done in the important field of training.

Having touched upon a few of the positive aspects of this Bill I now want to turn to the other side of the coin. The Opposition in this House often refers to us as “National Party’s People” instead of “National Peoples Party.” [Interjections.] At this juncture I want to appeal to the hon the Minister, the Postmaster General and his top management to implement the international labour organisation’s concern over discrimination in respect of employment expressed at the forty-second session held in Geneva as far back as 1958.

Before I go any further I want to tell the hon the Minister that before the tricameral Parliament came into being the Umzinto North town board of which I was a member, invited the White local MP, for the area to discuss certain problems. After the discussions the MP who is a Deputy Minister in the House of Assembly today, said that while he did have sympathy for us he would have to discuss the matter with the Whites in his constituency because they had the vote and he would have to look after their interests. Today I am in the same position that he was and I want to highlight the disparity where people of colour are concerned and the frustration that they experience.

In last year’s Budget Speech in the House of Delegates the hon the Minister spoke of his philosophy to move away from discrimination in the Post Office but it seems that discrimination still exists there especially among its labour force. There are still different facilities for the different race groups such as separate toilets, separate restrooms and separate canteens, especially in the engineering section.

There are a great number of people of colour with BA degrees in the Post Office who could be put to more productive use by being employed in different categories of work where their educational qualifications could be put to better use. When will the Post Office allow all race groups to be employed in the head office in Pretoria when it is already being done in the different regional offices and at the main post offices in the larger cities such as Durban, Johannesburg and Cape Town? What is the official view of the Post Office on the matter of non-Whites supervising Whites? Does the Post Office still use the quota system for employing new staff? What is the ratio of the new staff employed during the past 18 months? When will the Post Office allow all racial groups to be trained in the optical fibre systems so as to equip all engineering personnel to man electronic exchanges? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, allow me in the first place to congratulate hon members on the excellent facilities that they enjoy here. I have no doubt that it will contribute to the quality of life physically and mentally and I wish hon members well in their deliberations in the years ahead.

I accept the good intentions of all hon members in addressing the issue before us. I most certainly see it as an effort to make a positive contribution towards finding the best way of running this operation.

I want to remind hon members that the Post Office is not a Government department in the strict sense of the word. It is a business undertaking and in terms of the legislation it must make profits. It does not receive any revenue from the Treasury. It must run as a business enterprise and it must make its own profits in order to carry its own expenses. Therefore the considerations that apply—and should apply—in all the activities of the Post Office are the same as those any of the hon members would apply in running their own businesses. Those are the sole considerations and there should be no others.

Particularly in view of the investigations that we are now conducting it becomes more and more clear that that is the only justification for any action to be taken and hon members must please take that into account. We shall discuss this further in time to come.

I wish to refer to the memorandum that was tabled at our joint sitting. This memorandum was drafted and drawn up by the Postmaster General and his staff specifically at the request made by hon members at the previous debate in order to assist hon members. May I therefore ask hon members to use it during the course of the year when many of their voters and people in their constituencies make enquiries. It will enable them to answer to many of the questions that may be put to them. I wish to thank the Postmaster General and his staff for the trouble they took with the drafting of this memorandum.

I first of all want to turn to the hon member Mr Thaver and reply to certain of the points raised by him. He gave a summary of the results that we anticipate for the current financial year. This was also done by other hon members. The fact is we have every reason to be satisfied with the efficiency of the department. It seems quite clear from the statements that our department is run efficiently. It is run along business lines and we have succeeded in cutting back on expenses and improving our profits.

In my main Budget Speech I indicated the major reasons for these positive features and I think we should all congratulate the staff of the organisation for the obviously dedicated service they have rendered.

The hon member Mr Thaver referred to the grant to the Sports Association. It is an amount of R75 000. I must once again say—I think I mentioned it last year—that the Sports Association organises a tournament every eighteen months in which the different regions compete. It is an autonomous body and the Sports Association decided three years ago to make membership available to all population groups.

Some population groups, it would seem, are reluctant to become members but the fact is that it is open to till population groups.

Those who are with Sacos!

They won’t join us. The departmental sports complexes managed by the Sports Association exist at Milnerton in the Cape, Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg, Boksburg and Pretoria.

The identification of suitable sites on which to erect sporting facilities in the other large centres is receiving attention. It would cost millions of rands to duplicate sporting facilities in order to make separate provision for the different population groups. However, I want to remind hon members that the association is open to all the groups.

I think I should remind the hon member Mr Thaver that the printing and distribution of the telephone directory have already been privatised so it is not something that still has to be done. It has already been privatised and this was done in a very efficient manner.

The hon member also referred to my constituency, Port Natal, which is an old constituency. I have been told that it was one of the first residential areas to be established in Durban. It is very old and stands in contrast to Chatsworth the lovely modern constituency of my colleague, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, which is a growing, expanding area.

I believe that in my own constituency there are four post offices which have been there for ages. They are very small and I assure hon members that my constituents complain bitterly. They say they are too small and that the facilities should be expanded. I therefore do not think one should compare one with the other. The fact is that Chatsworth has grown at a very fast pace, but we are fully aware of the position. Other hon members have also referred to the expansion and the post offices that must be established, and we are very much aware of this. May I remind hon members that although we meet here once a year, my door is open at all times throughout the year, and the door of the Postmaster-General is open. Hon members must make use of this—many hon members do make use of this—to bring to the attention of the department problems that are being experienced, not only once a year, but throughout the year by way of private discussion.

The question of staff being employed on the basis of race rather than merit has been raised. I deny that categorically. It is most certainly not the approach of this department, and I most certainly will not countenance it at all. I continually ask what the numbers are of the different groups employed by the Post Office, and I am disappointed that so few people from the Indian community are employed by the Post Office. I asked why that was the case and I was told that one reason is that many Indian people earn far more outside the Post Office. It is not a place where one earns a great deal of money; there is no doubt about that. However, I see here from a report that was made to me that in 1970 the number of Asians employed by the Post Office was 422. By 1975 this figure had increased to 762. In 1980 it was 1 160; in 1985, 1 897; and in 1987, 2 192. We do not yet have the figure for this year. The fact is, however, that we want to encourage, and would welcome, any suitable candidate for the various positions available in the Post Office.

Hon members referred to the position of clerk. Now, clerks are in oversupply throughout the country; not only in this department, but in all other departments. I asked for copies of advertisements relating to occupations, and not one of them indicated that a particular race or ethnic group would get preference. I also enquired from the heads of staff, and no distinction whatsoever is drawn in this regard. It is quite true that in a small post office in an Indian residential area—Chatsworth, for example—the staff will not place a White person as a clerk. This is not because they feel that there is any particular reason, but I think hon members will agree that it would not be appropriate. That clerk will not be able to speak a particular language. For the same reason, in certain places—in small post offices in White residential areas—preference is given to a White clerk. Usually they are females. In the centre of Durban, however, hon members have no doubt seen that White and Indian clerks as well as Black people are used.

As long as they can speak Fanagalo.

Yes, as long as they can speak Fanagolo. The fact is therefore that hon members must accept that no prejudice exists in regard to appointments. I would welcome more people from the Indian community entering Posts and Communications. In fact, I implore hon members to encourage the Indian people to join, because an excellent career is offered there.

As in all these cases, however, people must qualify themselves, and nowadays it is a matter of technical qualifications. One does not get much money when one starts as an apprentice, however, and for that reason it is not popular. The same applies among the White people; they can earn more in other and less exacting jobs than that of an apprentice. I think hon members can do much to encourage the young people of their group to join the services of Posts and Telecommunications.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member for Havenside as regards his reference to the private sector, and with his remark that the private sector must take note of the approach adopted by Government in this regard. The Post Office is an example of this, in the sense that no general salary increases are being given and there are no tariff increases. That is why, as I think the hon member wanted to convey, it is imperative that the private sector should take note of this and take the example to heart. In particular, they should not indiscriminately increase prices, be they prices of goods or services. If they do so, then all the good work being done now from this side will go to waste.

The hon member referred to the Postmaster-General, and I agree that ending with a Budget like the one in front of us is an exciting ending to a happy career. I think we all compliment the Post-General on his last Budget. He excelled himself in this regard and this is a good way to leave.

As far as the staff position is concerned, I do not know how people can live on R400 or R300 per month. Our hearts truly go out to people who live under these circumstances, but the hon member must remember that this is a business operation as I pointed out at the outset. We have the greatest sympathy with those people who do not have jobs, but this organisation would go bankrupt if we were to employ people who do not produce. As a businessman the hon member will know that it is imperative that in the long term this organisation should be run efficiently and earn profits in order to expand and in order to ensure good salaries and perks for its employees.

However, my heart does go out to people who earn so little. In this regard, I would refer the hon member to our minimum wages. At last year’s debate of this budget we did not merely listen to what the hon members had to say; we most certainly applied our minds to this. I accept the goodwill on the part of the hon members in the same way in which they should accept the good will of my Ministry and the department. The minimum wages were adjusted upwards by approximately 20% on 1 October 1987. We continually strive to relate these wages to the market, because we have to compete with the private sector. If necessary, further adjustments will be made and I would like hon members to accept that the allocation of perks is one way in which we can draw people. These perks are given by all private concerns and it is not something that only a fat cat receives—it is something which attracts everybody. Unfortunately those who are best qualified can dictate the terms, and people may leave us if we do not compete effectively with other organisations. It must therefore not be seen as a strategy whereby we favour the top few, but as a matter of competition with the open market where other positions are available.

The hon member for Umzinto referred to bursary opportunities. Any member of any race group may apply for a bursary in respect of studies in a direction which would be to the benefit of our department. Our medical association, Posmed, is the oldest association, having been established by the White Post Office staff in 1922. It is still an independent body with its own board of directors and it belongs to its members and not to the Post Office. It is fully autonomous and at present has 49 000 members, with a total of 58 000 dependants. The department subsidises Posmed on the basis of R2 for every R1 contributed by its members. It is not possible to admit members of other race groups to Posmed, because in the first place, admission can only be granted with the consent of the majority of the existing White members.

Secondly, membership of Posmed is compulsory for Whites and would also have to be compulsory for the other groups. This would not be in everyone’s interest, as members of other population groups may voluntarily join Sanitas, Pro Sano, or Bonitas. Membership contributions to these latter three organisations are lower than those of Posmed and many would therefore experience difficulty in being able to afford to join Posmed. Furthermore, certain lower income groups receive free or cheaper medical services and it would be unfair to compel them to join Posmed. Therefore, there are some very good reasons why we have the existing situation but I nevertheless invite hon members to come and talk to me in greater detail about these issues. I should be very happy to discuss the matter with them.

I think I have replied to most of the points raised by the hon member for Camperdown. He referred to what I said during my main address, namely that as from next year we shall start installing certain equipment in order to meter local calls exceeding a particular time period. We shall only begin installing that equipment in the first half of next year. However, this is not a hidden tariff increase—not at all. In any event, it will not be applicable to the next financial year. It will only come into operation in the financial year following that. That is the first point.

Secondly, no increase will be made in respect of reasonable time usage of the local call. However, the long local telephone calls which are being made at present by some users are detrimental to the effective usage of the whole system, and we must discourage that practice. Moreover, this system is in operation in most parts of the world. Therefore, it is not something new that we have devised here in South Africa. It is something for which I believe the private sector will, for the most part, be very grateful because their telephone accounts will no doubt be far lower.

I wish to thank the hon member for Umzinto for his contribution. He raised the very important issue of privatisation and deregulation and also stressed the fact that in that process of privatisation and deregulation very great care will be taken not to detrimentally affect the personnel of the Post Office. After all, they are the people who have made the Post Office what it is today. It is a reasonably well run organisation. There are still certain sections running at a loss, such as the postal section but we shall look after the interests of the personnel.

The hon member for Umzinto also highlighted the considerable activities and expansion in Natal, and I agree with him. I am very proud to see the activities and the expansion taking place in Natal. It just goes to show that Natal remains the best province of all.

Hear, hear!

I knew I would get hon members’ support on that. [Interjections.] I have noted the area to which he referred, where there is a concentration of approximately 80 000 people. I am referring to his request for post offices. The Postmaster-General has noted all that.

He also referred to bursaries and training and we shall most certainly be available at all times to consider any application on its merits.

I wish to conclude by repeating that it is not the philosophy of this department in any manner whatsoever to act so as to discriminate among any particular groups. Whatever existing facilities there may be, these relate to a historical background. I think that as things are, the Post Office is handling and educating people very satisfactorily and I think that we are justified in feeling quite satisfied with the approach of the department in this regard.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I would have liked to have spoken during the Second Reading debate. Nonetheless, I want to say that I support the Post Office Appropriation Bill and in doing so I want to convey to our colleague, the hon the Minister, and his officials our appreciation for a job very well done. I am addressing this not only to the hon the Minister and his high-ranking officials, but also to the rank and file of Post Office employees, the postmen, the people behind the counters, the artisans—each and every person employed by the Post Office makes up the sum total of a team. I can safely say that this in indeed a well-oiled machine.

The hon the Minister referred in his Budget Speech to the fact that the Post Office has supported the Government’s declared policy to curtail expenditure and thus combat inflation. This is a very important aspect to all of us. The rate of inflation that has been rampant in recent times has been of extreme concern. Other hon members have made mention of this fact. This is one of the reasons why I want to congratulate the Post Office team.

Of course, the fact that there no tariff increases were announced goes hand in hand with this. I also want to echo the feelings of other hon members in this regard: The private sector owes it to us to follow the lead that has been taken, not only by the Post Office, but also by the SATS, with regard to the increase in salaries being suspended. To the employees of the Post Office and the SATS who are going to make these sacrifices, I want to say that these sacrifices will not be in vain. It is a sacrifice that all of us need to make so that we can come out of the morass of the inflation spiral.

I also welcome the fact that we have almost broken the back of the telephone backlog. When new areas came into being in the recent past it took many years before telephones were installed. One can compare this to the figures mentioned by our hon colleague namely that 215 000 additional telephones will be installed in the present financial year compared to the 178 000 telephone services installed during the previous financial year. This is a landable piece of work and I want to congratulate the department on it. The fact that the waiting list has been brought down to 144 000 is also welcomed but in saying that I still want to appeal—as I have done previously in the Post Office debate—that where new areas are established throughout the country—it does not matter whether they are for Whites, Indians, Coloureds or Blacks—adequate forward planning is necessary so that when the people move in the telephones can be installed almost immediately. I believe the telephone service cables should be installed together with the municipal services such as water, electricity etc. In some areas in fact this is being done—I know the hon the Minister will say that—but I know of many areas where this is still not happening. I want to make an appeal that some consideration should be given to this matter.

My hon colleague also spoke on the disruption of telephone services and how the introduction of optical fibre connections has assisted in lessening the number of disruptions. During the floods last September there was a massive disruption of telephone services. I want to say that the technical staff worked unstintingly in repairing these services. I saw them working overtime and late into the night. These young people went out in deplorable conditions to see to it that the telephone services were restored. I would also like my hon colleague to extend our thanks to the people who assisted in having emergency telephone lines installed as a matter of urgency so that the much needed relief work could continue apace.

Having uttered some words of praise I want to support hon members who said that the employment cake should be shared equally among all races. I want to reiterate that it is important that people of all races should serve behind the post office counters in the smaller post offices in the rural areas. I know the hon the Minister said that there are Blacks and Indians manning the counters of the post offices in Durban but in areas such as the one from which I come, very few persons of colour work behind the counter.

What I should like to see is that the mixed character of the people on the customers’ side of the counter should also be reflected on the opposite side. We should have this mixture on both sides, on the customer side and on the servicing side. I want to appeal for this to be seen to. I think this is possible. However, I know there is a difficulty. In some areas we have people of certain political persuasions who would not like to see this but I should like to appeal that this should in fact be done.

There is another aspect concerning which I want to lodge an appeal with the hon the Minister. Whilst I do not want to comment on the advisability or otherwise of increasing the charges of local calls—I think that is a fait accompli and whatever I say, whether I agree with it or not, I believe it is a foregone conclusion and it is going to be done so there is no point in me talking against it—I do, however, want to say that when it is phased in it should be done in a way which gives people adequate notice and warning. A public relations exercise should be embarked upon so that the people are made adequately aware of the fact that their calls will now cost more money.

Somebody said lovers will sit and talk for hours and when people do that they must realise that at the end of the month they will be subjected to a higher charge. I believe that this should be considered. In conclusion—I have been told that my time has run out—I want to join all members who have supported the hon the Minister and ask him to convey to Mr Ridgard our congratulations for all the work that he has done as well as our good wishes upon his retirement. I also want to say that I wish him and Mrs Ridgard good health and a happy retirement. I say this because having served on the standing committee I have come to know Mr Ridgard and I know the type of dedicated person he is. I believe that we owe much to him for all that has happened in the Post Office and all the advancement there has been.

I want to say to Mr Johan de Villiers, who is succeeding Mr Ridgard, that he has inherited a very well-oiled disciplined machine and that he must keep up the good work. I welcome him to the team.

Mr Chairman, I accept the invitation of the hon the Minister to come and see him at any time and I want to thank him for the invitation.

I hope the new business management system will improve the performance in this department. The Department of Post and Telecommunications is a Government trading undertaking. As such, any shortfall is made up by Government subsidies and Government subsidisation consists of taxpayers’ money. However, the good news is that the estimated loss for 1987-88 was converted to an operating surplus of R112 million. I believe that this was possible through businesslike management where strict economic measures and financial discipline was exercised.

I wish to refer briefly to the material and manpower needs of the department. I am given to understand that a large percentage of equipment and material has to be imported from foreign countries and that there is a considerable shortage of skilled labour and high-technology experts. I just want to mention a few of these categories: Technologists; technicians; draftsmen; telecom-electricians; and telecom-mechanics.

I wish to recommend to the hon the Minister that the departments of Education and of Manpower liaise with a view to establishing technical schools and providing facilities whereby these people could be trained in those skills, and the raw material that is available in the country could be used to manufacture some of those components and equipment that we are at present importing. Although it may not be possible to achieve this in the short term, these programmes could be set out over a long term so that the people in this country could find employment. The quality of life could then improve so that the vast potential and the vast labour force of this country could be used to very good advantage.

I do not want to dwell on discrimination in labour—it has been belaboured enough—but I would like to make the point that there should be no discrimination whatsoever in job opportunities, conditions of service, service benefits, the provision of sports facilities and sports funding, or the awarding of bursaries. After all, this is general affairs and as such every person in this country should be given an opportunity and treated fairly.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon the Minister for all the positive replies he gave to all the queries that were raised over here and about employment opportunities for Indians in his department. The majority of Indians live in Natal and most jobs are in the PWV area where housing is at a premium. That is one of the reasons why Indians do not move up to the Transvaal. Looking at this objectively, one realises that this is all because of the Group Areas Act.

I want to go back to the labour issue. In 1987 the President’s Council was instructed by the hon the State President to report to him on certain aspects of the benefits of inward industrialisation. This report was submitted to the hon the State President for recommendation without any objections. The Economic Affairs Committee of the President’s Council found without doubt that the Group Areas Act, and laws that discriminate on racial grounds, were in fact counterproductive, thereby affecting the economic wealth of the country.

I believe that we as South Africans should learn to live and let live so as to alleviate the unnecessary tension and polarity in the country.

I meant to quote from this President’s Council report—PC 1 of 1987—but because of time constraints I shall not be doing so.

I just want to say that I have always enjoyed a very good relationship with all the Ministers and staff members of virtually all the departments with which I am involved in the standing committees, and the only regret I have is that this kind of relationship is not filtering through to grassroots level. If we achieve this we can truly say that the reform process is alive and well.

I want to move on to the last item I have here which is thanks and appreciation. The Postmaster-General, Mr Ridgard retires on pension at the end of March after 44 years of service. I wish to place on record my very sincere thanks and appreciation for all the assistance and advice he has given me since I came to Parliament. I wish Mr and Mrs Ridgard prosperity, happiness and good health for the future.

To Mr Johan de Villiers, who succeeds Mr Ridgard in the hot seat, I extend my heartiest congratulations, and I wish him every success. I assure him of my co-operation at all times.

Finally I want to place on record my thanks to the hon the Chairman of the Standing Committee, the committee clerk, the Postmaster General and his team who assisted with regard to explanations given to us in response to the various queries raised in the standing committee.

We on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I welcome the suggestion made by the hon the Minister when he spoke about job opportunities, vacancies and people making the necessary applications. However, I do not think that is very practical, since one has to know when a vacancy arises. If it is an ordinary vacancy as a clerk we can understand, but I am referring to all the other types of vacancy involving the requirement of skill, particularly technicians etc.

I do not know what method is applied by the department in enlisting personnel of this type. I think that the department must take on people in large numbers from time to time and train them. If that is so, I suggest that a prospectus be sent out to all Indian schools, as is done in respect of White schools, informing these students that there are job opportunities after matriculation. They should also be informed as to how to go about making the necessary application. Alternatively this could be done through the media— through the newspapers. Advertisements should be placed in respect of the various vacancies or job opportunities. If this is done they will be in a position to make the necessary applications. In that way they will be given some way of responding. If they merely send an application when there is no vacancy, I take it that such an application would be thrown into the waste paper basket. There should be a positive structure informing our youth at matriculation level that these are the opportunities available, and these are the means whereby they can grasp those opportunities.

I now proceed to the question of Posmed. The hon the Minister did mention that this particular medical aid scheme is specifically for the White community, and that this has been an on-going process for many years. In the present climate, in this new era of reform, we have set the pattern here in Parliament. It is the Nationalist Government that has done that. It is the same Nationalist Government that controls this large enterprise.

The hon the Minister mentioned that for every R1 there is a R2 that the medical aid …

It is the same for all.

It is the same—very well. If this is true and correct, and I am to understand that there are employment opportunities for all types of people at all levels, then I take it that it is also possible for those people on the higher level of employment to contribute adequately towards this medical scheme.

I accept the fact that where lower-grade people are concerned, they will not be able to make the necessary contributions, and as such they will have to be content with the Sanitas and Bonitas schemes. Therefore I would suggest that the directive should come from management to the medical aid scheme, pointing out that it is a Government enterprise; that it is the Government that is responsible for running this large enterprise, and that these opportunities should be open to all other race groups. If they have to differentiate as regards work levels or even the salary structures to determine the appropriate level, this may be a step in the right direction.

There is one final point I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister. I do not know whether this is just an internal issue that must be resolved internally. However, I have also noticed that this state of affairs prevailed even in the previous years, having gone through those respective reports. I refer to people who are involved in misconduct. I take serious exception to those officers who have been involved in financial thefts. This is quite a serious matter, and as I see it it should not be the Board that takes a decision. This should be adjudicated in an open court of law, because the only way this could serve as a deterrent to others is by setting a good example; not by dismissing a person or reducing his salary or his privileges, but by asking him to appear in a court of law where the public gets to know about it. This will serve as a deterrent. I am sure that this will have to come from high-ranking officers. It states very clearly in this:

I think it should be of the rigid type, because it must serve as a deterrent. Any court of law would have taken action to imprison the person. I want to make this submission because it has been an ongoing thing and it must come to an end.

On behalf of the Official Opposition and in particular its leader, who is unfortunately not in this Chamber at the present moment, I wish Mr Ridgard a very happy retired life and we hope that it will bring much joy, not only to him but also to his grandchildren who are looking forward to being with their grandfather. We hope that the incoming Postmaster-General will come to this House with good results next year, in which case the words from this side of the House will not be as harsh as they sometimes are.

Mr Chairman, many years ago when I did not have so many grey hairs, when I still had raven-black hair, I found myself, one day, at the counter of a small rural post office. The reaction of the person behind the counter was: “Yes, you old jackass, what are you doing here?” I told the chap: “I have come to look at the monkey behind the counter.” [Interjections.] It is true that we have come a long way since then, and there have been quite a few changes in relations between human beings. At present, however, it seems as if there are again some people in this country who want us to hark back to those days. I only hope this never happens in the Post Office.

The hon the Minister referred to the fact that Post Office staff in certain residential areas should actually be drawn from the specific community they serve. I have no objection to that, but in my home town, Benoni—the son of sorrow—there is some sorrow in our hearts. In our opened-up central business core we have, in my view, Black purchasing power which, for the first time in many years, exceeds the White purchasing power. This means therefore that the overall citizenry in that community are not reflected in the establishment of the Post Office. I should like to point out to the hon the Minister instances of post offices situated in such areas. The hon the Minister mentioned Durban as an example. In my view it is essential for us to have people of all population groups working behind the counters. This principle is already being pursued by our financial institutions. Behind the counters in our banks and building societies in the central business cores we have a reflection of the citizens doing business with those institutions. I am asking for this aspect to be examined in the post offices in such areas.

At present the Government is implementing a policy in terms of which it is selling assets which are no longer needed. I am aware of the fact that the Post Office has considerable assets in the form of unutilised land. I should like to know what progress is being made in getting rid of that land. I realise that land must be set aside to provide for needs such as future expansion and so on. Could the hon the Minister sketch the present state of affairs for us?

In the schedule to the Bill we find certain very alarming amounts. Under subheading no 1.5 mention is made of international obligations, an amount of approximately R322 million being involved. I should like to know from the hon the Minister what type of obligations these are. I must just acknowledge …

Order! Would the hon members on my left kindly tone down their conversation. The hon member may continue.

I should like to acknowledge that one has so little time to look at all the documentation here that I have had no opportunity to look at the department’s annual report. I simply cannot get around to doing so. The hon the Minister must please excuse my ignorance.

Then we also have another colossal amount in regard to the provision for depreciation of assets. In this connection we are speaking about R408 million. I am wondering what percentage of the actual assets of the post office this represents.

Then we have financing costs of R765 million. I should like to know what this colossal amount is used for.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he could be so good as to refer to the various items once again? I did not catch them as he mentioned them.

Order! I regret to inform both the hon the Minister and the hon member Mr Abram that the time allotted for this debate has expired. The hon the Minister will now reply.

Mr Chairman, I shall try my best to remember what points the hon member Mr Abram mentioned and attempt to reply to them.

If you do not get it right, I shall be paying you a visit.

Good. Thank you.

†Mr Chairman, I think it is a good thing that we should have a debate on this subject more than once a year because then we may understand one another better and that is why I think it is very important that we do see one another more often than once a year.

I wish to thank hon members for the contributions they have made, and I wish to give them the assurance that I have taken note of all the points they raised. I have taken very careful note of them and I know that the Postmaster General and the top management have also done so. There is not one single item that will not receive close attention.

I think I should like to reply first of all to the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. He quite correctly referred to the problem we are experiencing with regard to inflation and to the remedial measures which the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, as a very large concern in South Africa—it is a vast organisation—will be taking, such as no general increases, no general tariff increases, etcetera. It is very important that the rest of the economy, and the private sector in particular, should take note of this, and I thank my hon colleague for the contribution he made in that regard.

He also very aptly referred to the forward planning that is required in order to establish telephone services in new areas, and once again we have noted that. Of course, we have to do so in conjunction with local authorities. I believe that in most cases we succeed reasonably well, but once again, we shall most certainly take note of that, particularly now that we have this expansion and development taking place in new areas, and we shall take another look at our forward planning.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is well qualified to talk about the floods.

I was pleased to hear him speak and praise the Post Office staff who rendered good service in order to restore those facilities. I know the staff will note with gratitude that their sacrifices have not been overlooked.

With regard to the rural and other post offices to which the hon member Mr Abram also referred, like the one in Benoni, I have noted what he said and in principle I find no problem with it. We in the Post Office will keep apace with all other reasonable measures being taken by any business organisation and if our customers and clients are of a particular group, we must obviously cater for that particular group by having people who can serve them, so that they can feel they are also served by their own people. We will give careful attention to the request that has been made in this regard.

Regarding local calls, we think that this is a very reasonable measure. The hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is a wise man and knows that even reasonable measures have to be marketed. We will therefore go out and market them as well.

I want to stress to the hon member for Merebank that we receive no Government subsidies. We have to carry our own burden, and that is why we cannot run at a loss. That is why we increase tariffs from time to time. However, we know that we cannot continue increasing tariffs, because then we will chase our customers away. However, I thank the hon member for the suggestions and views he expressed in this regard.

The hon member raised a very important issue, namely that the material and manpower needs of the department relate to specialised facilities, services and equipment. For that reason, obviously, large quantities are imported and technical know-how is also imported. The field of telecommunications is in all probability the most sophisticated science one can practice and no single country in the world is self-sufficient. Even the advanced countries like the USA, Germany and the UK also rely on their fellow Western countries for know-how and advice, because the research is so vast and costly that one single nation cannot afford to cover the whole field of telecommunications. The hon member is quite correct: We must ensure that we develop and produce here in South Africa to the maximum extent material which is within our limited knowledge to produce. That is why we enter into agreements with overseas companies which have the knowhow, while we have the raw materials. In this manner we try to develop the electronics and telecommunications industry.

It is quite true that we in the Post Office, in the telecommunications section in particular, have a duty to ensure that South Africans receive the opportunity to become well-versed and experts in this particular field. That is also why any senior member of the Posts and Telecommunications staff will be able to tell hon members that if anybody is interested in the sciences and wants to study in this field, we welcome it and will assist him in becoming an expert in this particular field.

Too few of our young people want to do this because it is an exacting work. Turning to the hon member for Havenside, it is quite true that we could perhaps do more with regard to the schools of the Indian community. I will ask my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid whether we cannot devise a system that will be an improvement on the system that we have at present. I will follow up the hon member’s suggestion in conjunction with my hon colleague.

I noted particularly what the hon member for Umzinto said about the good relationship existing between the Post Office and the public. The hon member was quite correct when he said that this good relationship should also filter through to the grassroots level—we must ensure that. I think there is a tradition of good relations in the Post Office. However, as in all other organisations and businesses one does get the mavericks but we deal with them. I want to thank the hon member for Umzinto for his contribution in this regard.

I now come to the contribution of the hon member for Havenside. I want to tell him that all the cases that he spoke of are in fact reported to the Police and we do not merely leave them for internal attention.

*I have already replied to the hon member Mr S Abram. I merely want to say that it really is good to hear such lovely Afrikaans in this House. The hon member speaks better Afrikaans than I do! I do not know where he gets so much practice, but he speaks Afrikaans like a true Afrikaner.

I grew up amongst Afrikaners— not only amongst AWB members!

Yes, the hon member must stay away from them.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister if he will respond to my suggestion made about the medical schemes? He did not come back to me on that point.

I explained to the hon member that the medical scheme—that is Posmed—is completely out of the hands of the Post Office. It is an autonomous body where we cannot interfere. We do make a contribution but we make a similar contribution to the other schemes that exist. Posmed is an autonomous body run by its members and there is nothing that this organisation can do about it. It was started in 1922 and like any club has its own constitution and membership. The hon member must please accept these facts. I will be very happy to receive him in my office to show him the particulars. I, as the Minister, and the Postmaster-General cannot do anything but accept the situation as it is.

There are three other organisations which cater for the rest and I do not think hon members must see the existence of Posmed as a discriminatory practice. I think its members in fact pay more than the others. I invite the hon member to obtain the detailed particulars from me personally.

*I want to come back to the hon member Mr S Abram. I have replied to him about the counters in Benoni. He also spoke about the sale of assets as part of the process of privatisation and deregulation.

He referred, in particular, to land, and the truth is that the Post Office has considerable assets in the form of land. I just want to put it to the hon member in these terms: The investigation we are engaged in at present—as I explained in my main speech—also embodies, amongst other things, the consideration of the value of our assets and how best to employ them.

The investigation into what should be privatised or deregulated and when this should be done— whether this be assets or services—is still in progress. I foresee a period covering a certain number of years in which we shall obtain clarity about whether we should sell our fixed assets out of hand, for example by way of public auction, or whether we should sell them to the public in the form of shares. This all forms part of that indepth investigation to which I referred, an investigation which still has to take place, and which is taking place at present, to determine precisely what we are going to privatise and when we are going to do so, what assets should be privatised and in what manner we shall privatise them. The hon member may therefore rest assured that we are looking into this matter.

I should like to offer the hon member a cup of tea when I explain those other figures—I did not hear them very clearly—to him. I just want to put it to him in these terms: Our international obligations are considerable, but in no way of such a magnitude as to be a cause of concern to us. On the contrary, I am glad to say that we have a basically sound asset-liability ratio which we continually want to improve upon. We have consequently looked very critically at our debts, our assets, our revenue and our interest obligations, and that is, amongst other things, why we are budgeting for a surplus. We do not want to borrow too much money, because then we would have to pay too much interest on it, and that is why we have budgeted for a surplus, because we want to employ that surplus for further capital investment, without once more having to borrow money abroad.

†Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for the positive contributions each and every one of them have made.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.