Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, today is a day of great historical importance to South Africa and I wish to make a statement on behalf of this House.

†This House joins with millions of South Africans as Sharpeville 21 March 1960 is commemorated. Never before had so much harm been done as a result of the merciless killing of people protesting peacefully against the unjust pass laws.

It is also remembered for the loss of one of South Africa’s greatest sons, Robert Sobukwe, who, as a result of the events at Sharpeville, was incarcerated for the greater part of his life on Robben Island even though special legislation had to be passed by Parliament every year to keep him there.

March 21, 1985, recalls from our memory the uncalled for and vicious killing of persons young and old at Langa in Uitenhage. South Africa lost and apartheid survived. Our presence here must be seen as a dedication to the ideals that these people died for.

Mr Chairman, I move:

As hon members are well aware, the Administration: House of Representatives must annually draw up an appropriation in accordance with which funds are allocated. Although the needs of the community are unlimited, the means and resources available to the Exchequer are restricted. It is therefore important that the executive authority have at its disposal a budget system which will enable it to make realistic decisions on the allocation of funds to the various departments within the restriction of available means and on the basis of merit and policy priorities. To achieve this, the broader aims and objectives of the various departments must be identified and these policy objectives must be highlighted with a view to allocating available funds.

The object of the Appropriation Bill before this House is to appropriate funds totalling R2 341 436 000 for the own affairs of the Administration: House of Representatives. The funds are required to finance the expenditure for the full financial year 1988-89 in respect of the four departments incorporated in this administration, as well as improvements in conditions of service. The details of the aforesaid amount are contained in the printed estimates tabled by me today.

The largest amount provided for in the budget is that of R1 108 154 000 for education and culture on which the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will address the House in more detail. Hon members will note that an increase of 9,74%, in comparison with the 1987-88 Main Appropriation which amounted to R1 009 731 000, has been granted as far as education and culture is concerned.

The department envisages providing for the following services during the coming financial year:

1. (i) Primary education: The erection of 14 new primary schools, three new hostels as well as extensions to five existing schools.
2. (ii) Secondary education: The erection of 17 new secondary schools, seven new hostels as well as four school halls.
3. (iii) For technical education new campuses are envisaged for the Training Centre for Seamen as well as the Athlone and Bethelsdorp Technical Colleges.
4. (iv) Extensions to several teachers’ training colleges are also planned.
5. (v) Under the subprogramme “Handicapped children”, the following services will be provided:
   1. (a) The subsidisation of one new training centre for mentally handicapped children at Vredenburg;
   2. (b) the erection of a satellite school for the cerebral palsied at Mitchell’s Plain;
   3. (c) one hostel for the physically handicapped at St Raphael School; and
   4. (d) the erection of three new building complexes at established training centres, namely Daydawn, Beacon and Oasis.

Another very important aspect which at the moment is receiving high priority within the Ministers’ Council, is the development and advancement of culture. Hon members will ascertain from the printed estimates tabled by me today that an amount of R4 785 000 is allocated for this purpose in the 1988-89 financial year. This represents an increase of 121,32% against the amount allocated for this purpose in the 1987-88 financial year.

Since the inception of this Administration, the cultural section of this department has focused on promoting activities such as ballet, drama, music, the youth, sport, family living and home-making.

This has been achieved by means of: Ballet choreography and orientation courses as well as productions; courses in drama, choir training and puppetry; leadership courses for secondary school pupils; annual choir and drama festivals; and grants-in-aid made available to cultural, sports and other organisations.

To be more specific one need only look at the achievements of members of the community. The activities of the cultural section have played an important part in the development of people such as Shaleen Surtie-Richards, Roysten Stoffels, Paul Jacobs, Duncan Johnson, Natalia da Rocha and Goliath Davids who started their careers as amateurs at the Department of Education and Culture and are now regarded as respected professionals.

More financial aid and moral support by the Department of Education and Culture is essential in order to eliminate the great backlog with regard to facilities and manpower that has built up during the past years. There is, therefore, an urgent need for positive youth, community and cultural leaders to promote good discipline, responsibility, a more dynamic sense of cultural involvement, self-enrichment programmes and a greater awareness of nature conservation in society.

*In respect of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services hon members will note that an amount of R49 388 000 is being requested to defray expenditure during the 1988-89 budget year. This amount shows an increase of 81,31% compared with the budget of the 1987-88 financial year, which totalled R27 239 000. The sharp percentage increase here may be ascribed mainly to the fact that the provision for transport schemes now falls under my Vote, whereas in the past it was the responsibility of the Minister of Education and Culture. In addition my department also has to render specific managerial and auxiliary services functions for the Administration: House of Representatives, handle financial administration and provide staff to perform the various functions.

Services of high-standing quality to the community depend to a great extent on the quality and level of training of the staff and that is why training and development are receiving high priority. The Administration has a well-equipped training centre where people attending courses not only receive training in respect of theoretical principles, but are also afforded an opportunity to apply their newly acquired knowledge in practice. In this way we are endeavouring to improve the results of training in the work situation.

Attention is also being given to the academic training of the staff and in 1987 financial assistance totalling R87 698 was given to 308 officials to enable them to improve their academic qualifications.

Study loans totalling R49 092 and bursaries totalling R2 235 832 were allocated to 530 full-time students.

As regards security services which concentrate on promoting security and the rendering of guard services at the respective offices and organisations of the Administration, mention can be made of the fact that these services have been introduced at 636 primary and secondary schools as well as 76 other institutions throughout the country.

In those areas which are plagued by unrest, robbery and crime and where the Administration cannot render an adequate service, private security firms are used to render guard services. Such services are at present being rendered at 185 schools in the Peninsula at a cost of R2 473 080 per year. Training of security assistants takes place on a regular basis. A formal basic course lasting three weeks is offered at the division’s training centre. Once this course has been successfully completed, an advanced course is offered in which security aspects are concentrated on more intensively. In 1987 606 officials attended the basic course and the pass rate was 92%. The advanced course was attended by 140 security assistants of whom 74% were successful.

The role of the civil servant in the Administration: House of Representatives has been subjected to close scrutiny since the present dispensation came into operation. Time and again the promotion opportunities of White and Coloured civil servants in the Administration, in particular, have been the target of critics who are indirectly questioning the working efficiency of the Administration. The Ministers’ Council is committed to promoting the prosperity and future of Coloured officials in the Public Service, in particular. However, it is also important to look after the interests of White, Indian and Black officials, who are also working for the Administration. The Ministers’ Council under the chairmanship of Rev Allan Hendrickse has also spelt out clearly time and again that a witch-hunt will not be started against White, Indian and Black officials in the Administration simply on the basis of their colour.

The Administration consists of officials transferred to it from other Government departments when the dispensation took shape in 1984. Many of these officials are White and it would be unfair to them if restrictions were placed on their promotion while their colleagues who remained behind in general affairs departments did not experience any impediment to their promotion.

When members of population groups other than the Coloured community enter the service of the Administration, they therefore enjoy the same privileges as a person from the Coloured community. This means that Whites, Indians and Blacks compete on an equal footing with all officials for promotion.

As regards criticism that senior posts in the Administration are held only by Whites, it should be mentioned that in the filling of posts by serving officials, the merit principle is of cardinal importance. The candidature of officials is considered on the basis of their seniority and promotability.

Posts are only advertised when merit and/or preference lists have been exhausted, or when specific specialised experience or qualifications are required for a specific post. When considering the candidature of applicants from outside the Administration, preference is given to candidates from the Coloured community. When candidates other than Coloured candidates have to be appointed, the approval of the Ministers’ Council must be obtained first.

The dilemma in which the Administration finds itself concerns the availability of qualified Coloured officials for the top posts. The fact that there is a big shortage of Coloured officials for these posts is admitted, but the present Administration cannot be blamed for this.

In order to counteract this tendency, the Administration is adopting a policy of “upward mobility”. This means that we are trying to fill top posts with officials in our Administration. Only in absolutely essential cases officials are drawn from other Government departments. In this way the Ministers’ Council is ensuring that there is an upward promotion programme, which only benefits the officials in our Administration.

As proof of this I can mention that between 1985 and the end of 1987 a total of 3 598 appointments was made in the Administration. Of these appointments 3 412 were Coloured officials and 186 were White officials. In the same period no fewer than 1 324 officials were promoted, of whom 1 027 were Coloured and only 297 were White officials. In this period there were 266 merit promotions, which benefited 192 Coloured and 74 White officials.

When the Administration came into existence the highest post held by a Coloured official in the administrative section was that of assistant director, whereas at present the Administrator has Coloured officials holding the following senior posts: One director, 13 deputy directors and 29 assistant directors.

I must also point out that the top echelon of management in the Department of Education and Culture is manned entirely by Coloured officials. In the Department of Health Services and Welfare a Coloured official also holds the post of director, while in all other departments one also comes across senior Coloured officials.

It is therefore of great importance for the critics who are indirectly questioning the working efficiency of the Administration to acquaint themselves with the above facts first. To put it in a nutshell: There is no discrimination based on colour in the Administration, and all officials are treated on an equal footing.

†During this session of Parliament certain hon members in this House referred to the acquisition of the computer and the efficient utilization thereof. As hon members well know, strategic decision-making is dependent on accurate and timely information. In order to achieve this aim, the following has already crystallised:

• — An office automation system implemented at the Ministers’ Council which is to be expanded to include heads of departments. This system promotes effective communication between parties concerned by providing functions such as an electronic diary, an electronic mail service, document description, extractions from a data base, as well as file extractions.
• — A variety of micro-based computer systems at the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture which will be networked at a later stage and which include systems such as a cash flow, computer-aided designs for architects and engineers, a project design package, as well as office automation.
• — A real-time on-line salary system has been implemented during July 1987 to cut the turnaround time from receipt of source documents to payments from weeks to a few days. This payroll serves 50 000 officials and teachers countrywide. Personnel records are now assessed on-line by the staff and finance components.
• — Streamlining the computerised procedures of the examination system of the Department of Education and Culture led to the results of both the Senior Certificate and teacher examinations being published before Christmas for the second year running.
• — An investigation into redeveloping a pensions system of 20 years’ standing. This system is responsible for the monthly payment of approximately 240 000 pensioners. The nonsupport system has also been investigated. Specifications for a new system have been drawn up and redevelopment is scheduled to commence soon.
• — Computerisation has taken place at the Kromme Rhee Agricultural College where computer-aided courses are now available. A computerised student administration system has been developed to cater for the registration of 800 students.
• — The bursary section of the Department of Education and Culture has taken into use a system to administer bursaries and loans. This system is functioning well.
• — A mail control system was developed for both the Departments of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services and Education and Culture and provides a computerised means for the tracking of thousands of letters and documents handled annually.
• — At regional level, equipment has been provided to enhance financial management. Installation has been completed and the system is functioning satisfactorily.

Although all posts at programmer level are filled, the problem of acquiring suitably qualified chief and control programmers still exists.

*Hon members will notice that an amount of R429 408 000 is being requested for the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture which is an increase of 9,1% compared with the R393 598 000 voted in the 1987-88 financial year. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture will go into more detail in this connection when his Vote is discussed. However, it must be pointed out that in order to meet the steadily increasing needs of the general community in the field of housing, and in particular as regards agriculture, it is of cardinal importance that greater momentum be given—along with the necessary funds—to encouraging home-ownership and self-help housing in every town and city throughout the country. In addition training, extension and financial assistance to the farmer in the rural areas will have to be stepped up. These important components of our community—the home and agriculture in addition to the church and education—are extremely important foundations in our endeavour to increase the quality of life of our community.

Great emphasis is placed by the Ministers’ Council on the promotion of agriculture in order to ensure a decent livelihood for the community in the rural areas. In order to achieve these objectives we are considering the upgrading and improvement of town planning, infrastructures and the allocation of freehold on an ongoing basis. Since the 1985-86 Budget we have also seen to it that the agriculture budget has increased by approximately 300% from R7 million to R20 million for the 1987-88 Budget. The amount voted in the 1988-89 financial year for the development of the rural areas still remains inadequate, particularly against the background of the great development needs and expectations of the communities in these areas. This aspect, namely the lack of adequate funds, is receiving the constant attention of the Ministers’ Council and me, however.

An amount of R735 927 000 is being voted for Health Services and Welfare. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare will inform hon members on this in more detail when his Vote is discussed. For the information of hon members I can mention that there is an increase of 33,85% in this Vote for 1988-89, compared with the amount of R549 787 000 in the 1987-88 financial year.

As hon members know, backlogs have built up specifically as regards pensions and allowances. This House was well aware of this and in order to improve the quality of life of our people at this level, deliberate efforts were made to eliminate the backlogs. For example, by means of representations and negotiations at the highest level we have succeeded since the introduction of the new dispensation in getting pensions and allowances increased as in the case of pensions to the blind and old age pensions from R103,00 per month to R167.00 per month, which represents an increase of 62,13%. As regards disability and maintenance allowances there has been a percentage increase of 57,28% and as regards veterans’ pensions we have succeeded in achieving parity, which represents an increase of 110,85%.

From the above statistics hon members will deduce that the Ministers’ Council is constantly endeavouring to serve our community at all times. If one also takes into consideration that since the Ministers’ Council itself has been negotiating for funds since the 1985-86 financial year, there has been an increase of 72,36% in the 1988-89 financial year’s Main Budget compared with the amount voted in the 1985-86 financial year, this is further proof that the Ministers’ Council is serious about negotiating for adequate funds to promote the upliftment of our community in the socio-economic and welfare spheres quickly and effectively.

As regards the economic situation, there are encouraging trends. In the last three months of 1987 the production price index was 9,2% for example, whereas the real growth rate reached 2,6%. Reserves grew to R8 billion in total. I think this is a wonderful achievement in the midst of the economic penalties being imposed on the country. What is particularly encouraging is the low production price index, and this should encourage undertakings to greater activity so that the economy can develop further. In this connection I am thinking in particular of the informal business sector which to a great extent is still underdeveloped and which affords so many opportunities to the small businessman.

The hon the Minister of Finance has already intimated that the Government is going to adopt a circumspect fiscal and monetary policy this year. He referred, inter alia, to overexpenditure by the State during the past few years and said that this was necessary to help stimulate the economy. However the stage has now been reached where the State must reduce its share in order to afford the private sector the opportunity to grow and develop.

Guidelines for this were dealt with by the State President in his speech during the opening of this session of Parliament and the public sector in particular will have to undertake its planning for the foreseeable future accordingly.

In conclusion I should like to thank the officials of the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services for their dedicated and unselfish service during the past financial year. The considerable expansion of the activities and functions of the Administration: House of Representatives placed great pressure on the senior staff in particular. I want to thank them, and particularly the Director-General, Mr McEnery, for their enthusiasm and dedication.

Mr Chairman, I now lay upon the Table:

1. (a) Estimate of Revenue and Estimate of Expenditure of the Administration: House of Representatives for the financial year ending 31 March 1989 [RP 9—88].
2. (b) Explanatory memorandum on the Estimate of Expenditure, 1988-89, of the Administration: House of Representatives.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I listened with a keen ear to what the hon the Deputy Minister had to say, and I must agree with him that this Bill certainly affords people an opportunity they did not have before. I must say, however, that it is a sad indictment of governments of the past that Black people in this country were denied the right to acquire property in the areas situated within the Republic but outside their respective homelands.

I should like to spend just a moment on this point. In any country the ownership of land, of individual erven, is not a privilege. Nor is it a concession which should be withheld from one and then given back to one on a staggered basis under the guise of incremental change. Rather, land ownership is the right of any citizen bom in a particular country—it is his birthright, as the hon member for Esselen Park so rightly said.

Therefore, while I agree with the hon the Deputy Minister that every hurdle in the way of Black property ownership should be removed, I would also contend that we should not make this move appear to be a tremendous handout to Black people. I maintain, Sir, that it is the right of every citizen of this country to own property in this country if he so desires.

I should like to recap on what has happened as far as Black property rights in this country are concerned. For all the years, until 1986, owing to various forms of red tape created by governments of the past, Black people simply did not have this right. Change came during 1986 when the rights in terms of section 10 were altered to a certain extent. This, it was found, afforded Black people only the right of leasehold. It was also with a sense of tremendous relief, therefore, that people welcomed a total scrapping of influx control last year. Certainly, that was one move the Government of today could be lauded for. The existence of influx control could never be justified, and many people suffered for their political expression of opposition to influx control. That, then, was the main stumbling block in the way of black ownership in this country. The scrapping of influx control was, therefore, a milestone in the constitutional development of this country.

The red tape that existed after the formal scrapping of influx control, and which still exists today, must be removed. Therefore, we cannot withhold our support for this Bill. In fact, we have to compliment the Cabinet for having brought forward this amendment to the Act.

I should like to repeat up to a point what the hon the Deputy Minister said. He mentioned that certain problems still make it difficult for people to acquire ownership of individual erven in areas which were established as townships in terms of the Black Communities Development Act of 1984.

The major problem is that whenever a redistribution of the land of the country, of the wealth of the country, takes place, it is usually by means of the conversion of a farm which has been under White ownership and which has been set aside for township development.

It is with township development that the problem comes in. One cannot simply take a farm, baptize it a township and start selling individual erven. It is obvious that things are not that simple. As the hon the Deputy Minister said, there are many problems associated with the conversion of a farm into a township with individual erven where title has to be transferred to individuals or groups of people. I agree with the hon the Deputy Minister that this lengthy process must be eliminated, especially in view of the fact that Black people were always denied the right to own property. Every hurdle and stumbling block in their way must be removed and if we can cut red tape in this country, we must definitely do so.

In respect of this matter, red tape is being cut in that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is being given the right to take certain initiatives concerning township development. These initiatives involve the following. As I indicated earlier, taking a farm and changing it into a township is a lengthy process and involves a lot of red tape. The initiative I referred to is that the hon the Minister is now at liberty simply to open township registers without having to cut through any of the red tape which was previously an obstacle. This means that one does not have to wait for an area which is being developed as a township to be renamed from some farm name or to have legislation converted to a township legislation of a different kind. The hon the Minister now has the right simply to open a township register, to have the land cut up and to extend individual ownership of the land to prospective buyers. The hon the Minister is also allowed to deal with all those irksome conditions of title which previously stood in the way of the expediting of legislation relating to these individual erven.

I cannot but respond to what the hon the Deputy Minister said about the reform process. He said that this was a case in point where the Government was revealing its reform measures. However, we are of the opinion—with due respect— that reform is at a standstill. We want to see much more reform and at a far greater pace than is presently the case. One cannot justify having immoral Acts on the Statute Books and changing them in an incremental manner, or by changing them piecemeal. I am referring particularly to the Group Areas Act. One cannot simply tinker with that Act, modify it here, change it a little there. The Act must be repealed in its entirety. Only then can we believe that reform is taking place. How else does one justify the fact that there is more than 750 000 ha of land which has been proclaimed White residential group areas in this country, whereas in the case of so-called Coloured people there are just 101 000 ha of land proclaimed Coloured group areas across the country? I need not go into more detail, as I am sure hon members are familiar with these facts. The fact is that one cannot justify making slight changes or slight modifications to an Act which still allows for such discrepancies in practical, day to day life.

It must go!

Sir, for this reason we have no hesitation in saying, as the hon member for Klipspruit West said, that it must go and that it must go now. Apart from these comments, I have no reservations about supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, at the start of my speech I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister on his appointment as the Minister of Health Services in the House of Assembly. I hope that the hon the Minister’s departure from the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning is a possible indication that we shall soon be rid of the Group Areas Act as well.

The Black Communities Development Amendment Bill amends the Black Communities Development Act, 1984, in order to streamline the operation of certain measures. Clause 1 of the amending Bill amends subsection (1) of the principal Act so that the definition of “magistrate” also includes an additional magistrate or an assistant magistrate.

Clause 2 of the amending Bill amends section 33 of the principal Act to provide for further development areas in townships for Black accommodation. I welcome this measure, Sir, because if one views the current state of affairs in South Africa, it is very clear to my mind that serious problems will arise in this sphere if an overall planning body is not created to deal with the co-ordination of urban development in the future. At present the shortage of residential units for Blacks alone runs to half a million in urban areas. This indicates that in the future, as at present, there will be a considerable need for further identification of land in urban areas for housing purposes and the development of industrial and business centres.

I now want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister something. I actually regret that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning cannot be here today. About a year ago an amending Bill on constitutional legislation was passed in which provision was made for the enlargement of the Commission for Co-operation and Development to include members of the other two Houses of Parliament as well. At present the commission’s task is to identify land for the consolidation of the national states. I think it would be a step in the right direction if this commission could be reconstituted to include members of Parliament who can become involved in the activities of a body which will pay attention in future to the expansion of existing cities and townships instead of the consolidation of the homelands. I should like the hon the Minister to ensure that the relevant section is applied because I cannot see for what other reason it has been included in the Act.

All indications are that members of Parliament should also in future be involved in a body which can advise the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on future urban development so that a national strategy may be developed in this regard.

Subparagraph 3 (b) of the Bill is retrospective in effect. It restores mineral rights in cases where township establishment has already taken place in terms of the Mining Rights Act, Act No 20 of 1967. Clause 4 empowers the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to open registers in respect of specific townships. Clause 5 provides that the Minister may in future alter the boundaries of development areas as he deems fit. This is probably a positive step in the right direction as well.

Clause 6 is also retrospective in effect. It amends section 52 of the principal Act and provides that the Administrator and the local authorities concerned may grant leasehold to individuals in the Black community. This is a very positive step, Sir. Over the past two years the Government has done a great deal to rectify mistakes committed in the past. The Influx Control Act has been deleted for example. For the first time in the history of this country it is now possible for a Black citizen of South Africa to acquire full leasehold rights in this country. In practice, however, the acquisition of property rights appears to be a very cumbersome First World process. Consequently I welcome clauses 6, 7 and 8 too, in that they facilitate the acquisition of property rights and make steps which have to be followed as regards township establishment less cumbersome.

Under subsection 8(1) the Administrator may delegate powers vested in him in terms of this amending Bill to Black MECs. In the light of this I think that important reform is taking place in this sphere. I wish to point out once again, however—this is probably the last time I shall have the opportunity of pointing this out to this hon Deputy Minister—that while the Group Areas Act remains on the Statute Book, all these measures, although positive, are merely a drop in the ocean with a view to solving the problems of South Africa as regards housing and welfare. The extent of our deregulation does not matter; while the Government is vested in a rich minority class and co-ordinates from the top who is to obtain which patch of land—the best land has already been apportioned to Whites—South Africa will have problems with poverty.

Prosperity can only be created by means of land. One cannot start a business in the air; one cannot produce agricultural products in the air; one requires land to do this. That is why the system in South Africa is so unjust, because only a small group of people have the monopoly and entire say regarding land.

I cannot see why our people have to be accommodated 35 km outside Cape Town. Why should Khayelitsha be established 35 km outside Cape Town while there is sufficient land in the central part of the city? These places are near the city where many of our people work. At the moment these areas have been reserved for the erection of White housing until 2020.

The Group Areas Act not only creates a social problem for us; it also creates economic problems; and is an obstacle to urban development. I recently held discussions with members of the private sector. They have endless problems regarding their rising Black management material. They cannot send these people to certain small towns because no housing is available for them. One cannot expect a Black manager to live in a squatters’ camp. Many people from the Coloured and Indian communities refuse to accept managerial posts in smaller towns because there is no satisfactory housing available for them.

If one examines the demography of this country, it is very clear that the future of South African business development does not lie in the hands of Whites, because they are a dwindling commodity. The expansion of the economy will be possible only if more management material can be drawn from the Black, Coloured and Indian middle classes. Consequently it is not only a matter of a social problem; nor is it a matter of having to live next door to a White person. The point at issue is an entire development strategy which will ensure that we shall still be able to live in this country 20 years from now.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Wentworth and the hon member Mr Lockey for their contribution to this debate and for their support of this legislation.

The hon member for Wentworth made two points. Firstly, he said that the red tape in this country had to be cut. Secondly, he asked that the lengthy processes be removed. I fully agree with the hon member. The Government is, in fact, trying to do that. I think, however, all hon members will agree that this should be done with great responsibility, for we have to ensure that we have order, and not chaos, in the whole country.

The hon member for Wentworth said we should not refer to this Bill as a reform measure, as it is the right of any person to own property. Reform refers—I think the hon member will agree with me—to all fields in society. There is political reform, ie to confer political rights. There is also social and economic reform, ie to confer rights such as property rights. Property rights are as important in the economic sphere as political rights are in the constitutional sphere. This Act will restore the right of Black people also to own their own property.

*I want to thank the hon member Mr Lockey for his congratulations. I do not know whether it will be easier in one department than another. I think administration always remains a difficult task. The experience I have acquired over the years has taught me that it is no easy task to work with people, but I am looking forward to the new portfolio. I want to thank the hon member again for his congratulations.

The hon member referred to co-ordination as regards urbanisation as well as related problems. We are thoroughly aware of this and something is being done about it. A committee has already been formed to see to this.

I wish to assure the hon member that what he said here is of very great importance. The hon member also referred to the Commission for Cooperation and Development. This commission is in the process of concluding its task regarding consolidation. It has practically done so and the further task of the commission now has to be investigated. It will then be possible to apply a positive spirit and attitude to the way in which this commission may be involved and used.

I want to agree with the hon member that land as well as a dwelling is very important to all people. Land plays a most important part, especially in South Africa. It is not always an easy task to identify land for residential areas because—as I said in a previous debate—all land is not always suitable for residential purposes. We also have enormous tracts in South Africa where one cannot settle people because there are no industries to create employment opportunities. Consequently we have a limited amount of land surrounding our cities and metropolitan areas where people are concentrated so it is difficult to find areas where people may live happily.

I agree with the hon member that a house or dwelling is of the utmost importance. The hon member Mr Lockey and the hon member for Wentworth both referred to the Group Areas Act. I have frequently discussed this Act in this House and there may be an opportunity in the second half of the session to discuss it again, therefore I shall not revert to the Group Areas Act today.

I wish to underline, however, that land and the identification and availability of land and dwellings for all people in this country can and must make a very great contribution to the peace and prosperity of our beautiful country. This is precisely what we intend with this legislation so that members of Black communities may settle in their own property too. Nevertheless I recognise the principle—this has always been the case— that if a person owns something, he is prepared to protect it at all costs. He then appreciates and wishes to cherish it. I believe this Bill will result in this as well.

I want to thank the hon member Mr Lockey for the positive contribution—as it was conveyed to me—that he made in the standing committee as regards this legislation. I also thank the House for its support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

We have before us today a Bill that amends a wide range of Acts in the constitutional sphere. The Bill affects all three levels of government, viz central, provincial and local government, and is chiefly directed at minor adaptations and rationalisation to enable the machinery of government to run more smoothly. Some clauses embody only technical amendments such as the substitution of outdated terminology.

Mr Chairman, in order to assist members, related clauses will be arranged together and dealt with in this way.

Clauses 3 and 10 relate to municipal elections. Clause 3 amends section 8(l)(c) of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, which deals with the qualifications of voters. This section still referred to the well-known requirements in section 10 of the repealed Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945. This outdated reference, which was abolished when influx control was abolished, is now deleted.

The requirement that a prospective voter be resident within the area of the local authority concerned for at least 12 months, is shortened to three months. Alternatively a voter must be the owner of immovable property in the area of that local authority. This consequential amendment was necessitated by the granting of ownership to Black people. Ownership for Black people is also addressed in another Bill which has just been before Parliament.

Clause 10 amends section 7 of Act 104 of 1985 in terms of which it is already laid down that general municipal elections will be held during October this year. The definition of “Administrator” is amended to provide that the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning must also be consulted where Black local authorities are involved.

The definitions of “local government body” and “appropriate electoral law” are further amended to include a local authority and an electoral law as defined in the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, since general elections in October are also envisaged for the approximately 240 local authorities established under that Act.

A “local council” established in terms of section 2 of the Local Councils Act (House of Assembly), 1987, is excluded from the definition of “local government body” for the purpose of general elections for local government bodies. This is necessary since local councils shall be established mainly for small coastal towns. A large percentage of owners of immovable property in these towns, who will qualify to vote, are only resident in the town during holiday periods, however. This amendment makes it possible for municipal elections to be held in these towns on a date other than in October 1988, during December for example. This will give as many voters as possible an opportunity to vote.

Clauses 2, 4 and 5 amend the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982. The amendment in clause 2 is necessary to ensure that the kind of city council which was known as a “town council” and existed before the amendment by the Black Local Authorities Amendment Act, Act 58 of 1986, continues to exist. The amendment is also made retrospective to the date on which the amending Act of 1986 came into operation, viz 25 June 1986. Fundamentally this clause provides only for the continued existence of certain town councils which were renamed “city councils” in the English text.

The amendments to clause 4 arise from the fact that legislative recognition was given to the fact that the six self-governing territories are in substance regional governments. In terms of the Representation between the Republic of South Africa and the Self-Governing Territories Act, 1959, which was amended during 1987 to confirm the elevated status of the regional governments, arrangements are made for orderly intergovernmental relations. Another Bill which will grant an even greater measure of autonomy to the self-governing territories is before the standing committee at the moment.

†Clause 5 amends the provision which makes it possible for the Administrator and a provincial secretary to delegate certain general powers of control over local authorities. Since 1986 the Executive Committees of the provincial governments have functioned according to a committee system and the amendments accommodate the new procedure. Due to the multiracial constitution of the membership of the Executive Committees, this will in most cases result in Black MEC’s being granted decision-making powers in the control over local authorities for members of their communities.

Clauses 6, 7 and 8 effect amendments which arise from the creation of regional services councils. Clause 6 amends the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act, Act 91 of 1983, by correcting the spelling of “streeksdiensteraad” in the Afrikaans text, and also inserts a definition of “regional services council”.

Clauses 7 and 8 provide for the representation of three representatives of regional services councils on the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government Affairs and its action committee.

Clause 9 is directed at the elimination of unnecessary duplication of work by the officials of a provincial administration and the secretary of the Demarcation Board for Local Authorities. Where the provincial administrations have already placed an advertisement with regard to altering the boundaries of a local authority, the Demarcation Board will not be required to publish the application again, but only to make known by publication where and when the application shall be heard.

The Demarcation Board, with Mr Justice A P Myburgh as chairman and Mr Jimmy van der Merwe as vice-chairman, has, in the three years of its existence, already done valuable work in investigating the demarcation of the regions for regional services councils and the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities.

Clauses 11, 12 and 13 amend the Provincial Government Act of 1986, which introduced the new provincial system with effect from 1 July 1986.

The functions which have to be undertaken by a committee of Parliament in terms of section 5 of the Provincial Government Act of 1986, deal with the subdivision etcetera of provinces. These functions will inevitably be performed rarely and a standing committee will not be necessary. An ad hoc joint committee may thus be appointed to perform these functions as the need arises.

In clause 11 it is thus envisaged to substitute the words “joint committee” for “standing committee” in section 5 of the Provincial Government Act of 1986.

On the other hand, the functions which must be performed by the provincial standing committees are of a more continuous nature. What is dealt with here is the approval of all the Administrator’s proclamations through which ordinances may be amended or repealed. These functions will have to be performed on a continuous basis, possibly in the respective provincial capitals when Parliament is not in session. As a result, a standing committee would be necessary and not a joint committee.

In clause 12 it is thus envisaged to substitute the words “standing committee” for “joint committee” in section 14 of the Provincial Government Act of 1986.

Section 15(1) of the Provincial Government Act of 1986 provides that the State President may assign the administration of any law from a Minister to an Administrator. This has already been done in the case of certain Acts, such as the Black Local Authorities Act of 1982. The need sometimes exists, however, to reassign to a Minister the administration of an Act, or certain provisions thereof, which has been assigned to an Administrator. At the moment section 15 of the Act does not provide for this. This clause rectifies the matter.

Clause 13 also contains provisions which extend the Administrator’s power to delegate powers which have thus been assigned to him. In order to eliminate unnecessary duplication, the amendment empowers a Minister to make use of the Administrator of a province to perform functions on behalf of the Minister on an agency basis.

Finally I refer to clause 1 which brings outdated terminology in the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act of 1951 up to date. The Government envisages bringing encompassing amendments to this Act before Parliament after the Easter recess in order to eliminate existing deficiencies.

Mr Chairman, constitutional reform is a long, continuous and sometimes tedious process. It is not accomplished by only one action or major wide-ranging actions, but also by minor adaptations as contained in this Bill. Each of the steps, however small when viewed in isolation, is still part of a sweeping process of reform which has as its goal the formation of structures to meet the changing needs of all the inhabitants of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister has quite adequately explained the need for the various amendments to the various clauses encapsulated in this Bill. I will not deal with the items one by one since they are fairly straightforward and have been explained very well by the hon the Deputy Minister.

However, I would like to point out that in the long time we sat and on the number of occasions we met on this particular Bill, we had difficulty with the clause whereby section 55 of the Black Local Authorities Act of 1982 is amended to such an extent that a holder of public office may delegate authority to a State official. In other words, he could even be an officer in a town council.

We had difficulty with that; but in the end, after a lot of discussion, we were half-convinced that it would be in order to let that one go through. I find it necessary to comment only on that particular clause.

There are also a few other things on which I should like to comment. At this stage I should like to compliment the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment to his new post. I believe this appointment comes into effect on 1 April. The hon the Deputy Minister still has 10 days, therefore, to get into the history books by scrapping the Act for which he has become so famous in this House. I must say that the hon the Deputy Minister has become closely associated with that Act and it would be a tremendous gesture on his part if he were to do something very dramatic in connection with it before he takes up his new appointment.

I should like to point out something else in connection with the Bill before us. As I said a few minutes ago, we sat for a long time on this Bill. The committee met several times and hard words were spoken across the table at times. I find it necessary to reveal at this point that I am finding it a tremendous experience to serve on this particular committee. The reason I say this is that the hon member for Mossel Bay in the House of Assembly always makes every effort for consensus to be reached in the standing committee; it would be remiss of us not to mention that and to have it recorded. He never rushes matters or tries to force things through despite the deliberations of the committee. There has at all times been a deliberate attempt on his part to hear every single argument and to bring the deliberations to a close by the reaching of consensus. For these reasons I felt I had to mention it. I think all of us agree that the standing committee component of this wonky tricameral system is the only attractive feature of the system that we can detect. It is to the credit of the hon member for Mossel Bay as well as Mr Len Dekker and Mr Wolmarans that this standing committee is able to operate the way it does.

When one looks at the track record of this standing committee, one can see that after it has finalised its deliberations on a Bill, that Bill has been changed substantially. When one looks at the number of amendments to the various clauses of this particular Bill, for instance, one can see how much work has been done by this standing committee and how much argument has been taking place at the committee meetings.

Then, Sir, I should like to refer to something less closely related to the Bill. Democratic systems are always subject to change. It does not matter whether the democratic system is the one that was used in the USA in 1888 or whether it is the one being used in 1988. Nor does it matter whether it is the type of system used in Britain or in South Africa. If it is a democratic system, it will always be subject to change. This country’s system is not the only one that requires change. That is why there is such a thing as political participation in every democratic country. That, too, is why in democratic countries ordinary people rise up in the ranks and participate in the call for change to an existing system. I repeat, this country’s system is not the only one which requires change. For this reason there is no need for us to be afraid of changing this system. This is the appeal I am directing at this hon Deputy Minister. When he takes up his new appointment— after he has vacated his present portfolio, of course, and had the Group Areas Act scrapped— let him not be afraid to effect changes in that position as well, because the entire system will always be subject to change, as it is a democratic system. Were it not so, this country would be totalitarian; or there would be some sort of elitest clique running the country—and that, of course, is the type of system that no one in this country would like to have.

Having said those few words, Sir, I should like to round off by simply expressing our full support for this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer briefly to the Official Opposition in this House. The LP’s motto in this House is: The sun is rising, get out of bed, but it appears that the Official Opposition believes: The sun is rising, hide your head. The opposition members in this House are conspicuous by their absence and when the amending Bill under discussion was finally agreed to by the standing committee on 19 February this year, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who also serves on the standing committee, was absent. I am very concerned about the contribution made by the Official Opposition in the standing committees. They are absent most of the time because they are fighting by-elections in order to take part in a system which they say they do not support. The contrary is proved, however, by the eagerness with which they take part in by-elections.

The Constitution Laws Amendment Bill was tabled last year as the second Constitution Laws Amendment Bill. This Bill has undergone a number of changes in the standing committee. Sections 1 and 2 of the old Bill, [B127-87(GA)], were rejected upon the insistence of the LP, because the relevant articles sought to extend section 10 of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act and to facilitate prosecution, in that an assistant magistrate could also try such cases in future. It is not the task of the LP to make it easier for the general public to be oppressed. After all, it is not the fault of those who are living in squatters’ camps today that they do not have proper housing, because for years it was this Government’s policy that Blacks could not own land in so-called White South Africa. The squatters’ camps that exist today are the Government’s problem, therefore. Instead of prosecuting the squatters, the problem should be rectified. People must make provision for housing in future so that there need not be any squatters. We on the standing committee did not see our way clear to making it easier for a magistrate or an assistant magistrate to prosecute squatters. We want to prevent that completely, and that is why we rejected the clauses in question.

We also rejected clause 11 of the original amending Bill. This clause sought to amend section 73 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, Act No 110 of 1983, to recover the salaries, allowances and benefits of President’s Council members from the State Revenue Account in future, instead of from the President’s Vote as is the case at present. We rejected this recommendation, because only the State President has the right to instruct the President’s Council or to refer legislation to the President’s Council once it has been rejected by Parliament. As such we do not see our way clear to remunerating members of the President’s Council from the State Revenue Account. We think the fact that they are remunerated from the State President’s Vote is a good reflection of reality, because they work only for him, after all. So much for the clauses we rejected in the standing committee.

I now want to come back to clause 3 of the amending Bill under discussion. We rewrote the original clause 5 completely to bring the franchise of Blacks on the level of local authority into line with the franchise requirements for local authority voters in the rest of the country. The clause now provides that a member of the Black community must be resident in a local authority area for at least three months, or must be the owner of immovable property in that area. If he complies with these requirements, he qualifies as a voter on the level of local government. Section 9 provides that the Administrator and the three own affairs Ministers will consult together in future when an election date for local authorities is to be determined. A local council, established in terms of section 2 of the Local Councils Act (House of Assembly), Act No 94 of 1987, provides, however, for the exclusion of areas such as Melkbosstrand and Glentana. The reason for this is that these coastal towns are mainly holiday towns.

When local authorities have elections on 26 October this year, most of the owners of houses in coastal towns will not be in those constituencies. Those people will have to vote on some other date—somewhere near Christmas—to elect new representatives to their local authorities, when all the residents of those towns are there.

Clauses 11, 12 and 13 go into more detail on provincial matters. Clause 12 deals with a certain problem. The Provincial Government Act does not provide for an Act referred to the Administrator by the State President to be rereferred to a Cabinet Minister who deals with general affairs. We support the clause because our party’s standpoint is that there should be expansion in the sphere of general affairs to an increasing degree. More laws and functions should fall under general affairs, so that everyone in the country can have a say in these matters. With reference to other legislation that is before the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs at present, therefore, we do not see our way clear to further extending own affairs. Hon members will remember that at the LP’s congress in the Skilpadsaal we accepted a resolution to this effect. We shall fight own affairs in future, therefore, but support general affairs. As such we support this measure.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the two hon gentlemen, the hon member for Wentworth and the hon member Mr Lockey, not only for their contributions in this debate and for their support, but also for the contribution they made in the standing committee. I have been informed that they made a positive contribution in the committee, that they took part in the debate and that they used the system of standing committees to its full.

†The hon member for Wentworth pointed out that with regard to some clauses of the Bill, such as clause 5, there were lengthy discussions in the standing committee. He then underlined the fact—I agree with him—that the important point was that consensus was reached, as was envisaged when the new system of standing committees, together with the new constitutional dispensation, was introduced.

*That is why I want to thank the two hon members sincerely for making their contribution— particularly in the standing committee where a Bill is discussed thoroughly and proposals can be made.

†The hon member for Wentworth said that a system would always be subject to change. I fully agree, Sir. Change is the one thing about which we can be sure. However, it must always take place with a view to improving the existing system. I think all the political parties in South Africa are working towards that. Change will be brought about, but then only on the condition that the existing system is thereby improved.

*I want to thank the hon member Mr Lockey sincerely for his contribution and especially for emphasising that provision should be made for housing. He referred to squatting among other things. Sir, we shall never be able to prevent urbanisation from taking place. This process has never been stopped or reversed anywhere in the world, nor will this happen in South Africa. I myself am a product of urbanisation. My parents moved from Swellendam to Cape Town during the depression, and I was born in Cape Town. As a result of urbanisation, therefore, I am a product of the city.

We must make provision for people who come to the cities, but we cannot permit them to squat illegally on other people’s land. We must make provision for what I want to call informal housing—the serviced plot—so that according to people’s abilities and income, they can furnish themselves with houses in which they and their families can live happily.

We shall also have to ensure that there are sufficient employment opportunities for people who come to the city. We need everyone’s contribution for the creation of employment opportunities. We also need the contributions of kindly disposed friends overseas. Their investments remain of the utmost importance, because they provide work for the people of this country so that everyone can live happily. I hope this Bill will also contribute to bringing about that happiness in this country.

Mr Chairman, this may be my last speech in this House. I want to thank hon members for the friendship we have built up during the past few years. We have had lively debates. Sometimes the debates were heated and concerned thorny issues, but we always remained friends. If we saw one another in the lobby or in the street, or wherever we were in South Africa, there was always time to smile at one another. I want to thank hon members sincerely, because I appreciate that. Even if we differed sharply at times, we became fond of one another. I wish hon members everything of the best for the future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Minister of Justice I move the motion printed in his name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. (a) inquire into and report on the matter of parliamentary privilege in all its facets; and
2. (b) propose appropriate amendments or additions to the Standing Rules and Orders and related legislation if and where necessary,

the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Gilbert and Sullivan character who complained that a policeman’s lot is “not an ’appy one” had, of course, not dreamt of the lot of a Minister of the Budget in our tricameral parliamentary system. Such a Minister can, perforce, deliver Second Reading speeches on the various Appropriation Bills concerning own affairs, only after the Minister of Finance has delivered his equivalent Second Reading speeches on general appropriations. This can be explained by the simple reason that all the revenue accounts for own affairs are, to a very large extent, dependent on transfer payments from the central Exchequer and it would be inappropriate for Ministers of the Budget to anticipate the Minister of Finance in any way.

It follows, therefore, that the major economic goals and fiscal constraints on both the revenue and expenditure sides which determine the extent to which the needs of general affairs departments and the own affairs administrations can be satisfied, have already been comprehensively dealt with. For me to cover the same ground is pointless.

In seeking a significant theme for this Second Reading Speech, I have to be no only mindful of the foregoing but also careful not to pre-empt the policy speeches my colleagues will be making in the Committee Stage during discussion of their Votes.

Hon members will thus appreciate that, like Gilbert and Sullivan’s policeman, a Minister of the Budget’s task is not an easy one.

Against this background, I shall endeavour to give an overview of what the Ministers’ Council hopes to achieve in the short and medium terms. For this purpose I am considering the coming financial year 1988-89 as the short term and the five years 1989-90 to 1994-95 as medium term. I shall not attempt longer prognostications—there are far too many variables to lend it any real credibility.

Hon members may feel that the goals set are inadequate and I may be inclined to agree, but we must all bear in mind that South Africa’s resources are finite and its needs a bottomless pit. This has, as we know, led to the creation of the State President’s Committee on National Priorities and the acceptance, by consensus, of a five-year plan for central Government spending consistent with overall economic growth. Interdisciplinary and intergroup priorities are the inescapable adjuncts of this plan.

The universally accepted need to eliminate per capita disparities between the allocation of public funds to the various population groups for services of a similar nature has a high priority, for instance, but the tempo at which it can be satisfied is dictated by the availability of funds. Likewise for wiping out backlogs in infrastructure, housing, classrooms, teacher training etc, etc. In a nutshell, the scenario which follows falls within the five-year plan and must be seen as the best we can do on current assessments.

If the economy performs better than expected, higher goals may become realistic and hon members may rest assured that the Ministers’ Council will, at all times, be alert for changing possibilities.

Allow me to deal with the short term, in other words targets considered to be within our grasp in 1988-89.

Housing, Land and Related Developments

During 1988-89 it is expected that about 1 000 serviced stands will be made available by the Administration: House of Delegates as well as about 1 600 hectares of land for the development of four townships. In addition a considerable number of erven will be serviced by local authorities by using loan funds which will be provided by the Housing Development Fund. Accelerating momentum to the overall addition to the housing stock of our community will become apparent during the course of the year. It can be mentioned as a matter of interest that an investigation is underway into the plight of the Ladysmith community, which was severely affected by the floods in the recent past. Complete relocation may be the only lasting solution.

Health Services and Welfare

After the decision that the Administration: House of Delegates should take over clinics and hospitals which meet the criteria for classification as own affairs, the Phoenix Clinic serving about 600 people per day has been taken over. Arrangements are being made for the early takeover of the Lenasia Clinic for the benefit of about 200 people per day. Planning of a community hospital for Phoenix is to proceed apace. Funds are included for the further planning of a dental hospital which will also serve the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Durban-Westville. Social pensions and grants will be paid to over 64 000 beneficiaries—an increase of about 7%. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare has already announced the October bonus of R60 per beneficiary.

Education and Culture

This year’s estimates make provision for the construction of three pre-primary schools. Provision is also being made for 17 community education centres which will come into operation during the year. Also for the first time, provision is being made for the payment of a rand-for-rand subsidy towards the maintenance of sports facilities at primary and secondary schools where up to now only the initial provision of such facilities has been subsidised.

There are altogether 948 student teachers studying at the moment at the two colleges of education and the University of Durban-Westville, of whom some 350 will complete their training at the end of 1988. The enrolment for the ensuing years will be based on actual needs, especially in the natural science disciplines in which there is the greatest shortage. The major works building programme includes 46 projects, of which 17 are already under construction, and 29 new services for which tenders will be invited this year.

Agriculture

Flood damage sustained by Indian farmers is to be tackled by providing an amount of R9 978 000 for resettlement and aid.

Local Government Affairs

Our community must be urged to avail themselves of the opportunity which local affairs committees present for more meaningful participation in civic affairs. Although the general drive is towards a more integrated system, this opportunity to participate at local level must be utilised to its full extent. Maximum participation must be ensured in the local government elections during October 1988. A high percentage poll is essential.

I now turn to the medium term, that is to say, the 5 years from 1989-90 to 1994-95.

Housing, Land and Related Developments

It is the aim of this administration to identify and procure sufficient land for urban development to eliminate entirely the backlog in housing in the lower and middle income categories. A concerted plan of action has already been launched to achieve this goal. A roof of one’s own is the best possible stake in the future. If housing is good, almost all other problems become manageable.

Health Services and Welfare

It is the policy of this administration to put basic health services at the disposal of our community to enhance the overall quality of life. About 17 clinics and multi-purpose centres are expected to be established in the five-year period towards this goal.

Although an increase in pension beneficiaries is currently being experienced, it is necessary that the number eventually be reduced so as to conform to the standards and norms agreed upon under section 84(a) of the Constitution. This must not be seen as a goal depriving people of anything; it must, on the contrary, be seen as the desired outcome of increased employment, prosperity and improved health of the Indian population.

Education and Culture

The goals of the Ministers’ Council in the next five years in regard to education can be expressed in pupil-teacher ratios, pupil-classroom ratios, per capita expenditure, etc. I shall leave such detail to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. As Minister of the Budget, I will endeavour only to justify the apportioning of the lion’s share of our Budget to education by some thoughts of a more philosophical dimension.

The acquisition of knowledge and skills is the common factor in the history of all latter-day peoples who have emerged from historical poverty or, at best, subsistence living, unsupportable population growth, diseases of deprivation, etc. We need look no further than Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. If one word can sum up the complex educational processes which took these people from ruination and rags to riches it is ‘productivity’. That is the ultimate return on any country’s investment in education.

Productivity is influenced by several factors, among which attitudes, responsibility and the socio-economic environment are paramount.

The need to be able to make a contribution towards the betterment of society will certainly be a motivating force. However, the society itself must make this possible by placing minimum restraints on the individual. For the vast majority in this country, work is simply a daily struggle from childhood to dotage or early infirmity, simply to keep body and soul together. There is little or nothing over for fun or climbing out of the morass of poverty. In order to be productive and efficient so that society as a whole can benefit, it is essential that each worker must see the personal benefit of greater effort. Poverty line workers whose labours rarely secure higher wages, no matter how much they exert themselves more than their fellows, are apathetic to productivity and, indeed, often do as little as possible in a sort of passive resistance to the system in which they feel trapped. This is also the basis for the appeal which Marxism has for deprived masses and why universal patriotism in South Africa is so elusive.

It is therefore more than ironic that in the socialist workers’ paradises behind the Iron Curtain and in our neighbouring countries the lot of the common man is, generally, far worse than before his ‘liberation’ and productivity in state-owned enterprise is so low that there is a return to closet-capitalism and individual rewards to prevent total collapse. However, the poor in capitalist states do not believe this in advance and by the time they experience it in practice it is too late.

Somewhere between the two extremes there must be a happy medium where extra sweat brings extra money and a protective self-interest in private property by the masses. Finding the happy medium is what today’s troubles are all about. Increased productivity and thus a wider spread of wealth are the prime ingredients for peace. If we succeed here, the rest will fall into place. If we fail, no amount of constitutional architecture will bring peace. The price of success will be high, but that of failure incalculable.

A further important feature of newly industrialised countries is their commitment to economic re-construction which aims at developing an industrial society. If this is our commitment, the curricula at schools will have to be reviewed to meet this end. The complex problem that needs to be addressed in this country is the provision of education on ethnic lines. If, during the reconstruction period in South Africa, more pupils from a particular population group find themselves in vocational training courses, it could well elicit allegations, however ill-founded, of second class education, etc.

The solution to the problem lies, firstly, in setting clear economic goals for the country and, secondly, in providing education with demonstrably non-ethnic curricula and facilities. All pupils, irrespective of colour, creed or race, should follow an educational programme best suited to their ability and interest and, thereafter, have equal access to opportunities in the commercial and industrial sectors. To the extent that the policy of the Government concerning the provision of education for different population groups may conflict with these ideals, it will have to be changed. Particularly in regard to the productive use of underutilised ethnically allocated facilities, we can no longer afford such waste.

Then, too, the minimum education qualification for all South Africans should be Standard 8. This implies compulsory school attendance to the age of 15 years. Pupils of this age have generally mastered adequate skills in communication and learning. They will also be mature enough to interact and develop in a business or industrial environment and should enjoy reasonable security of tenure throughout their working lives.

Realisation of these ideals in South Africa is, however, seriously threatened by the demographic overwhelming of certain segments of the educational system which can only be countered, in the short and medium terms, by dramatic increases in spending on education to the detriment, inter alia, of mass job creation projects. Fiscal balancing of these two needs is a high-wire act with no safety net which the hon the Minister of Finance is performing with aplomb.

It is the policy of this Ministers’ Council and mine as Minister of the Budget to contain spending on our community’s educational needs during the next five years to that which is consistent with the five year plan and the financing formula agreed upon for the greater good of South Africa. If we, as a House, wish to spend more on this service hon members should realise it will have to be financed by savings elsewhere in our Budget. We cannot, like Oliver Twist, ask for more.

Agriculture

Thus far an amount of R15,055 million was made available to the Indian farming community for financial aid and resettlement of Indian farmers as a result of the recent flood disaster. This amount provided will be available as follows: R4,2 million already voted in the 1987-88 additional estimates, R9,978 million included in the estimates for 1988-89 and the balance of R,871 million to be included in the estimates for 1989-90. If the full effects of the disaster have not been countered by 1989-90 we shall have to consider aid in later years as well. Needless to say there are other goals besides mere restoration of damage and which my hon colleague, the responsible Minister, is better qualified than I to deal with.

Local Government Affairs

Although local affairs committees represent progress at municipal level the interdependancy of all communities really cried out for local affairs committees to be fully integrated with municipal councils. This integrated system of local government is a goal which sight must not be lost of.

Expenditure

If one compares the printed estimate for 1987-88 with that now tabled for 1988-89 it will be seen that the increase of R81,5 million amounts to a moderate 10,7%, which is well below the inflation rate. If one draws a comparison between the augmented 1987-88 figure, ie after adding the R34,6 million voted in the additional estimates of 1987-88, the increase falls to 5,9%. A word of caution is called for here, however, because we do not know at this stage whether, as must be hoped, we shall be able to avoid an additional estimate in 1988-89. Whichever way one views it, our willingness to co-operate with the hon the State President in his efforts to reduce State spending is evident. In real terms we have indeed cut back, without, I may add, adversely affecting essential services to our community. The hon the Minister of Finance has asked the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to convey his thanks to all concerned for their manifestly responsible approach.

Hon members must however bear in mind that the amount of R841,509 million now submitted to this House for appropriation, is not the total amount available to finance the various services to our community. Taking into account expected repayment of capital and interest, as well as the available balance in the Housing Development Fund and the provision for specific services in respect of own affairs education on general affairs votes, the total funds available for spending on our community amount to R1,150 billion.

I should now like to deal briefly with the various Votes for which funds are now requested.

Vote No 1: Budgetary and Auxiliary Services

Printed Estimate 1988-89: R13 713 000.

Programme 1: Administration shows an increase of R1,786 million or 24,24%. As hon members are aware a general salary increase was allotted to all civil servants from 1 July 1987. This amount was not included on the various votes as the precise impact was not determinable at the time of appropriation. However, as this amount is now known, the cost of this increase has to be appropriated correctly thus resulting in an increase under this Vote. Additional funds are also required for the filling of approved posts in the Directorate: Financial Administration. An internal audit section was recently created to check on control over funds and property. The need for tighter financial control over the Housing Development Fund calls for additional posts. Various tariff and price increases contribute to the increase as well.

Programme 2: Associated and supporting services reflects an increase of R508 000 or 12,54% which is due to the improvement of salaries, wages and allowances similar to those mentioned and increased expenditure resulting from various tariff and price increases.

Vote No 2: Local Government, Housing and Agriculture

Amount to be voted: R187 842 000.

This department is responsible for the capital projects of the administration as a whole. There are two categories of capital viz Capital—R60 086 000 to be spent by the department itself, and Capital—R48 308 000 for transfer to the Housing Development Fund. The capital of R60 086 000 is mainly for projects related to education, welfare and health services as well as the acquisition of land.

The amount of R48 308 000 to be transferred to the Housing Development Fund has been allocated as follows:

Development projects (b) R19 000 000

Hon members are aware of the problems with which this Administration has to deal in identifying and procuring suitable land for housing within the confines of existing legislation. Problems are also encountered with certain local authorities.

We are, however, surmounting the obstacles and progress will not be halted. I would remind this House that although R48 308 000 is to be voted as a transfer payment, the total amount available in the Housing Development Fund, which is a revolving fund, will this year be as follows:

In effect, this is all for housing projects.

Apart from the R4,204 million voted earlier in the Additional Estimates for 1987-88, a further amount of R9,978 million is included in the estimate for 1988-89 for financial assistance to Indian farmers.

Vote No 3: Education and Culture

Amount to be voted: R461 127 000.

Members are aware that transfer payments from the Exchequer for education in South Africa are allocated according to a formula developed to ensure that, within the constraints of limited State revenue each population group’s minimum needs are met and disparities between them systematically chipped away, parity of per capita spending being the long-term goal.

As I mentioned at some length earlier this Vote was allocated the lion’s share of our budget. I must again stress to hon members that the total amount available for education, namely R608 039 000 considerably exceeds what the House is being asked to vote. I refer to Annexure A to the Vote in the printed Estimates.

My colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture will deal in more detail with this Vote during the Committee Stage.

Vote No 4: Health Services and Welfare

I have included in my proposals an amount of R172 078 000 for the Department of Health Services and Welfare. This is required to enable the department to continue the current programmes and represents an increase of R20.0 million or 13,2% over the previous financial year’s allocation.

Without encroaching on the ground of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, I should like to highlight one or two aspects of the Vote.

The amount provided under Programme 4: Welfare Promotion is, as can be seen, very substantial indeed. This is due to the fact that the Department of Health Services and Welfare is responsible for the payment of all social pensions and grants to members of the Indian community who qualify. The total amount required for this programme is R156 309 000. The balance of the funds of R15 769 000 under this Vote is required for the overall administration of welfare services, the subsidising of old age homes, children’s homes, homes for the handicapped and protective workshops, the subsidising of private welfare organisations, the provision of rehabilitation services and facilities for the social relief of indigents and other disaster relief where necessary.

Mr Chairman, the R20 million increase in funds now requested for this Vote as compared with the previous year, is largely ascribable to price and tariff increases as well as the following:

• — An increase of 7,6% in the number of beneficiaries receiving pension grants and allowances as well as the carry-over costs of the increase in social pensions and grants with effect from 1 October 1987;
• — the establishing of two multi-purpose clinics to render basic health services to the community;
• — the take-over of the Phoenix Community Health Centre from the Natal Provincial Administration as from 1 September 1987;
• — the planned opening of the new rehabilitation centre in Newlands West during August 1988;
• — the provision of two occupational rehabilitation centres.

Vote No 5: Improvement of conditions of service

Amount to be voted: R6 749 000.

Mr Chairman, this Vote covers funds for expenditure resulting from general adjustments in years where these are granted, plus the elimination of disparity in salaries as well as occupational adjustments. As these measures are all subject to recommendations by the Commission for Administration, the allocation of the provision to the various Votes cannot be effected at this stage—hence the globular provision under this umbrella Vote.

The Vote shows a substantial decrease compared to the previous year, but hon members must bear in mind that during the 1987-88 financial year provision had to be made for general salary adjustments of 12,5% with effect from 1 July 1987. The carry-over cost of this increase is now provided for under the various Votes. There is also no general adjustment this year—hence the reduced Vote.

Mr Chairman, I now lay upon the Table:

1. (1) Estimate of Revenue and Estimate of Expenditure for the financial year ending 31 March 1989.
2. (2) Explanatory Memorandum on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year ending 31 March 1989, Votes 1-5 of the Administration: House of Delegates.

In conclusion I wish to place on record my appreciation and that of the members of the Ministers’ Council to the Director-General and Chief Director as well as the personnel of the Administration: House of Delegates for the magnificent assistance they have given to me as Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates.

Mr Chairman, I would like the opportunity to study the speech of the hon the Minister of the Budget. I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I believe that all the hon members of this House have been presented with a little sweetener. I have one here in my hand and it apparently serves to announce the arrival of the latest addition to the family of the hon member for Lenasia Central. On behalf of all hon members I would like to congratulate the hon member and his dear wife on the arrival of their baby daughter.

Mr Chairman, I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to compliment the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development for the good work that he is doing in his capacity as the Chairman of the Flood Disaster Relief Committee appointed by the hon the State President. Members of this committee are performing a very important and necessary task in the interest of all affected persons. Membership of this committee is undoubtedly very taxing for it calls for a great deal of sacrifice. I am certain that all hon members of this House will join me in thanking the committee and the hon the Minister for all that they are doing. We wish the committee well in the execution of their duties in the days to follow. The all-important role played by the hon the State President also should not be ignored. I wish to place on record our sincere appreciation for the initiative taken by the hon the State President in this country’s hour of need.

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

1. (1) the creation of job opportunities for people of colour in a field that has historically been denied the people of colour;
2. (2) better communication between doctor and patient; and
3. (3) the availability of district surgeons when, due to religious beliefs, doctors are unavailable on Sundays and other religious holidays.

Mr Chairman, in my motion I used the term “people of colour” because available statistics show that by far the majority of appointments have thus far been made from the White population group. Merit obviously should be the prime consideration, but at the same time the imbalance due to past appointments has to be corrected. It is necessary for us to understand who our district surgeon is and what functions and duties he is expected to perform. He performs a medical, legal and personal service, some of which I should like to highlight. Under the heading of medical and legal services he attends to court requirements from the Supreme Court, regional courts as well as magistrates’ courts and examines prospective applicants and reservists for the Police, Prison Services, the military and the police college. For the Department of Justice his duties include visits to prisons; examination and treatment of prisoners awaiting trial; prisoners in prison and police cells; attending to detainees; corporal punishment pre-examination in prisons and police cells; in cases of drunken driving he has to check the alcohol content in the blood of offenders; he has to attend to sexual assault cases and cases of rape, incest, sodomy, etc; murder; post-mortem examinations; certification of death; medical examinations for legal abortions. Under personal services there is the examination of pensioners and treatment of the indigent as well as examinations for disability grants.

On behalf of the Department of Manpower, sheltered employment and clinical consultations have to be given. Treatments have to be rendered. He is also responsible for the examination of the mentally disabled; the examination of Child Care Act cases; the examination of child rehabilitation cases; as well as age estimation when required to do so.

As we know, a full-time district surgeon is a doctor in the employ of the State who does not practise as a general practitioner, or GP. A part-time district surgeon is a doctor who serves in a dual capacity within a specified magisterial district. A part-time district surgeon is one who performs the duties of a district surgeon and who still practises as a GP. On the other hand, there is a sessional post. This is occupied by a doctor who works stipulated hours and is paid an hourly rate for the duties performed as a district surgeon.

The Department of National Health and Population Development employs 161 full-time and 112 private practitioners on a sessional basis. Of this figure of 161 four are Coloured, 15 are Indian and 142 are White. There are no Black appointments. The provincial administrations have appointed 106 part-time district surgeons. There are one part-time and one assistant Indian in the Transvaal, eight Indians in Natal, and no persons of colour have been appointed in either the Cape or the Orange Free State.

The House of Delegates employs eight full-time and five part-time district surgeons. In addition we have seven sessional appointments. Unfortunately, all these appointments by the House of Delegates are made in Natal. This matter will obviously have to be canvassed with the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House because there are Indians residing in the Transvaal and the Cape as well.

The House of Representatives employs six full-time and three part-time district surgeons, and the House of Assembly employs 20 full-time and 16 part-time district surgeons. We therefore have five different administrations responsible for the appointment of district surgeons, whether they be full-time, part-time or sessional. I would like the hon the Minister to tell us exactly how vacancies are advertised and what qualifications are required of an applicant, as well as who ultimately decides on appointments.

I hope it is merit, and not colour, that forms the basis for the success or failure of an applicant. If colour does come into the picture, then I should like to tell the hon the Minister that as difficult as it may be, it is necessary to remove all racial prejudices, whether written or unwritten, that discriminate against and restrict the progress of persons on the basis of colour. Gone are the days when, as I recall, it was unheard of for a doctor of colour to treat a White patient while it was completely in order for a White doctor to treat patients of colour. What was the fear? Was it the misguided notion that our doctors were underqualified, or was it just plain racial prejudice? Whatever it was, no reason is good enough to be acceptable.

These doctors of colour, who have practised in the shadow of their White colleagues, have excelled in their chosen profession. It is necessary for us to keep abreast of a changing world, and more especially of a rapidly changing South Africa.

The changes have to be introduced sooner rather than later.

It is inexplicable why there are no district surgeons for the areas of Soweto, Lenasia, Langa or Guguletu. There could be a very good reason for the absence of district surgeons of colour. If there is, the hon the Minister must tell us what that good reason is. I want to know whether vacancies are advertised without restrictions, or whether they are restricted to White applicants only. Or, to put it another way: Can a White doctor apply for the position of district surgeon in the region serving Guguletu and can a doctor of colour apply to fill a vacancy in the region serving, say, Houghton in the Transvaal? These are obviously all general affairs—and not own affairs—appointments. Why are all district surgeons not appointed by this general affairs hon Minister, instead of by provincial authorities and own affairs Administrations? Perhaps the hon the Minister will tell us of the benefits, if there are any, of the present system of appointments and if there are difficulties, he should tell us of these as well. The hon the Minister is an honest man, and I expect him to play open cards with us. We are after all told that we are co-legislators, or are there limits to being co-legislators? We will know when the hon the Minister replies. I doubt if he will talk it out. He is too good a man to do that.

Nobody can deny that discrimination in its many forms has given rise to complexes and the widening of the communication gap. The appointment of district surgeons of colour, whether full-time, part-time or sessional, would contribute to better communication between doctor and patient. We have high-lighted in this very House instances where disability and social grants have been withdrawn for no apparent reason. I say no apparent reason, because I believe that in the majority of cases there exists this communication gap. And what is the result of this communication gap? Among other things, it gives rise to speculation and accusations by some that White doctors are prejudiced and biased in their recommendations. I am not pleading for appointments to be made merely to satisfy ethnic and racial considerations. No, Sir, there are practical problems, and we need to address these, even it means asking for appointments to serve the needs of a particular community.

This issue is very similar to that of the Group Areas Act. We do not like it, but whilst the Group Areas Act exists, land has to be identified for a disadvantaged community in terms of this very Group Areas Act. As a community that is compartmentalised, we are, for the sake of expediency, compelled to ask for group appointments. It will not necessarily follow that if people of colour are appointed as district surgeons their respective communities will benefit by receiving all the answers.

Let us take the example of the means test. The appointment of persons of colour as district surgeons will undoubtedly address many of the social and day-to-day problems, but the unjust, hurtful, discriminatory registration will have to be looked into, addressed and amended or repealed, as the case may be, because no district surgeon will be able to satisfy the person who wants to know why the disparity exists in the means test.

The third part of my motion reads, and I quote:

1. (3) the availability of district surgeons when, due to religious beliefs, doctors are unavailable on Sundays and other religious holidays.

Before elaborating on this point I wish to place on record our sincere appreciation of the district surgeons who have been conducting post-mortems after normal hours. We are naturally indebted to the hon the Minister for making it possible for the service to be provided. I am given to understand and I have the assurances of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House that this is to be a permanent service following the three-month introductory period.

I have been called upon in the past to assist bereaved families requiring assistance in securing the timeous release of bodies for burial. I have enjoyed the co-operation of the district surgeon for Benoni and also of Dr Keen, the State pathologist in Johannesburg. I must compliment these gentlemen on their courtesy and understanding.

The doctors who perform these post-mortems sacrifice their religious and cultural obligations to satisfy and accommodate persons of the Muslim and Hindu faiths. These doctors are mainly of the Christian or Jewish faith. They too have their Sabbath and other religious obligations to observe and to respect. The possibility does exist and we cannot be unmindful of the fact that a doctor may one day refuse to perform a post-mortem on his Sabbath. Such an occurrence will lead to a great deal of unpleasantness. Accusations of disrespect for religion may arise and lead to racial conflict.

By appointing persons of colour as full-time, part-time or sessional district surgeons this area of possible friction will be negatived. We are fortunate that freedom of religion exists in this country and with that the existence of different religions. I believe we as South Africans are a God-fearing people. Religion transcends all ethnic, cultural and racial divides. All religions have to be respected and just as I respect my religion I realise that others too value, cherish and respect their religions. It is because of this that I believe that we must take into consideration the needs of others to have the time to devote to their respective religions. I do believe, as has been told to me by a district surgeon, that they too wish to respect their Sabbath.

In conclusion I want the hon the Minister to know that the motion before us has been submitted after much thought and discussion. It is a submission as a result of community opinion and to open up hitherto inaccessible employment opportunities for doctors of colour. I believe there are many doctors who will be willing to apply for and to serve as district surgeons. Whether they will be full-time, part-time or sessional, I think is not important. The important point is that we have doctors of colour—I have to use the term “of colour” to make a point although I know that not everybody in this House approves of it—who are prepared to accept the responsibility. To occupy the position of a district surgeon is a responsibility and there are qualified doctors who are prepared to serve in that capacity. I believe they should be given the chance.

Appointments irrespective of colour will undoubtedly restore community confidence in the office of district surgeons and also, if I may add, in the Ministry of National Health and Population Development.

The hon the Minister may say that the service is fully integrated. If it is so, let us hear from him and let us see by the appointment of more doctors of colour that it is fully integrated.

I am confident that the hon the Minister, being a medical doctor himself, will prescribe what I shall call a just-what-the-doctor-ordered solution as he invariably does when he comes to this House and will make a favourable announcement here today.

Mr Chairman, I rise to move as an amendment:

I must with very deep respect differ with the motion of the hon member Mr Y I Seedat tabled before us this afternoon. I can perhaps understand his dilemma but I must hasten to add that there are many flaws in his presentation which I want to point out to the hon member. For one, it exposes the limitations of the own affairs system. The hon member is calling upon the hon Minister of National Health and Population Development to consider the advisability of appointing people of colour as district surgeons in areas which do not fall under his jurisdiction. This once again underlines the inadequacies of the present systems where we have some 15 Ministers of Health including the TBVC states.

What is of particular concern to me is that the birth rate of Ministers is on the increase and this goes against all the laws of sound family planning! What is good for family planning is good for Government planning. Having so many hon Minister of Health is not only an unhealthy situation, but South Africa cannot afford this luxury at a time when the hon the Minister of Finance is calling for stricter control of Government spending. This state of affairs would never have occurred if we only had one single Minister of Health controlling the portfolio. The principle of appointing people, on merit would have been given its rightful place in our country. Health services should never have been fragmented.

The creation of job opportunities for people must be founded on the golden principle that merit alone should be the deciding factor in appointing people not only to health appointments but to all responsible posts. Opportunities for all people must be founded on the golden principle that merit alone shall be the deciding factor in appointing persons not only to health appointments but to all responsible appointments. I emphasise that merit alone should be the criterion. Item 2 of the motion states—and I read it again for the benefit of the hon House and all the hon members:

I cannot understand what special communication the hon member requires of a doctor but I did hear him say that when a social disability case visits a doctor who is not of his own colour or does not understand the language properly, he is liable to be “punished” indirectly because the doctor did not understand the applicant’s problem. However, this doctor-patient relationship is based on a very old unwritten law. It is an unwritten law. I know I have a very good White doctor friend living in Queensborough although they got rid of me from there. [Interjections.] This good doctor communicated in all languages. I think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council knows the good doctor Sweidan. He had patients from different groups and he was able to communicate with them. He was able to help them. However, this question of doctor-patient communication is beyond me and I cannot understand what it is all about.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

I do not want to disappoint the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, but my time is limited.

Time and again hon members in this House have brought up item No 3 “the availability of district surgeons when, due to religious beliefs, doctors are unavailable on Sundays and other religious holidays,” and burials which cannot be expedited. I do not remember which hon members raised this matter, but this was a hardy annual and was brought up over and over again. I do not want to flatter the hon the Minister of National Health but he has given consideration to this and I think some measure of relief has been experienced in different areas.

The question of the availability of district surgeons is not a very primary question. There are a number of doctors that qualify, without prejudice on the part of the hon the Minister, for appointments, and they should be appointed on merit, as I mentioned earlier.

Taking the overall issue, I must once again emphasise that we are going back to an own affairs system instead of moving towards a single general affairs system.

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to compliment the hon member Mr Seedat for the very useful motion he has submitted to this House. This motion itself should be looked at in one context, the context of the practical implications it has had over the years. In the same breath I also want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon member Mr Seedat towards the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development for the tremendous responsibility that rested on his shoulders with regard to the recent devastating floods we have been experiencing, and for the wonderful service he has rendered to South Africa.

However, the hon member Mr Seedat made some very useful comments here this afternoon highlighting his motion. He spoke about the various duties of the district surgeon and the implications that this has in society. He again raised the issue of discriminatory factors which came into play among the district surgeons and in society. He also mentioned the need for the appointment of district surgeons by this general affairs minister. Hence, the debate is taking place in this House.

We must also take into consideration a practical factor. The hon member Mr Seedat does not subscribe to the Group Areas Act, nor does he subscribe to ethnicity, but one must take into account the practical problems we are faced with. Therefore, on the basis and principles of religious leanings, he has appealed for special consideration to be given with regard to appointments.

The hon member for Phoenix, a very respected hon member of this House, discussed certain flaws in this motion. Then, of course, he made one point about better communication. I think that in actual fact that is where our problem starts; it is a question of better communication.

I think that over the past four years in this House we have periodically debated the important issue of post-mortems, the attitudes that prevail in various areas, and the difficulties with which innocent people were confronted from time to time. I must concede that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development has made progress in this direction. As he has made progress we must concede that progress has been made. At the same time, however, it is imperative that from time to time we also highlight the various difficulties with which we have been faced in society.

I want to highlight what I have been faced with on the basis of the practical situation. I know that there are very few in this House who have been faced with these problems, particularly in the rural areas.

In one case a person died in tragic circumstances—he was knocked down by a train at Felixton on a Saturday afternoon. The body was taken to the mortuary, and the undertakers promised to make all the arrangements. The parties concerned went to see the district surgeon but were not successful. They rang me at midnight expressing their grief and disappointment. Early in the morning I tried to contact the district surgeon of Empangeni, but was told he was not available; I was asked to contact another doctor. When I had contact with that doctor, he said he had certain difficulties. I then had to get the magistrate out of his home. The magistrate gave the doctors open permission to the effect that anyone could perform this post-mortem. In that we also failed. In the mean time, telephones were ringing and people were waiting for the funeral. A mutilated body was lying at the mortuary. Only at 12 o’clock, when all efforts had failed, was that body put on the back of a bakkie and taken 25 km to another area. The post-mortem was then carried out by another district surgeon out in the KwaMbonambi district.

This is indeed a pathetic situation. Whereas we had the co-operation of the magistrate and of the Police Force, when it came to the medical fraternity, on that day unfortunately the image of that noble profession diminished in that particular exercise. Those people were left in absolute grief.

In another area in Glencoe, we seem to have a tremendous problem; one which I have highlighted previously. I just wish to place certain issues on record.

Our society is deeply concerned with the plight of the disability grant cases and other pensions affected by services rendered by district surgeons. Our current district surgeon is Dr Rossouw. The previous district surgeon was Dr A K Peer Dannhauser who served disability grant cases and other pensioners of Glencoe and surrounding areas very ably. He saw pensioners weekly on a regular basis. He made house-calls in the event of an emergency, and when a disabled person was unable to attend a clinic. Pensioners and grant cases were treated courteously and timeously at a clinic which was centrally situated. Glencoe has a well-equipped clinical and library complex which is situated in close proximity to our disability grant cases and other pensioners. Dr Peer Dannhauser attended to these cases at this clinic, together with the services of his nursing sister who travelled with him, from their houses.

Here is a case of an Indian who was a district surgeon, and when his services were terminated, another doctor was appointed. Hence the problems that the community has been faced with. There have been several representations made to the doctors, but unfortunately they have not been successful.

The dispensing of certain medicines in the district also meant further difficulties with regard to this particular community. The doctors concerned were not really co-operative; there was a communication problem between the community and the district surgeon.

When we are faced with problems of this nature, naturally society is at a total loss. The other factor, too, apart from post-mortems, as the hon member Mr Seedat mentioned, is the matter of applications for disability grants. In many cases people who make application for disability grants have found themselves in certain difficulties with regard to communication, resulting in their not being accepted. This in turn gives rise to the continuation of suffering amongst those people.

I therefore want to appeal, through the Chair, that these areas be given consideration. One of the most pressing areas used to be Stanger and the hon member for Stanger will confirm this. However, today that problem no longer exists, simply because of the debates which took place in this House and because of the attention given to that problem by the hon the Minister and his department. I am indeed pleased that an important issue of this nature has been placed before this House and highlighted. These practical problems of society must be remedied because it is not fair to see that people in areas of total isolation are subject to continuous hardships of this nature. Among the many cases there was one in the St Lucia area where the doctors were extremely co-operative. I do believe that after settling this dispute over communication between the district surgeons and the magistrates, together with the SAP, they will assist wherever possible. With these words I want to support the hon member Mr Seedat for his most useful motion placed before this House. I hope that all the aspects as mentioned will be given full consideration.

Mr Chairman, I believe that I would be failing in my duty as a responsible member of the opposition if I did not also take the opportunity of associating myself with all the words of appreciation that have been heaped on the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development for the good work in relation to the floods. Having known the hon the Minister for a fair number of years, we acknowledge that he has broad shoulders and that he is a big man. Quite obviously this big man has to perform the big task which is before him.

Before I address the motion before this House, I would like to record that I myself have never personally experienced the difficulties as encountered under paragraph (3) in this motion. I am aware that there have been difficulties in the past but, as I understand the position at the present time, with the co-operation and the assistance of the hon the Minister, who has acted in conjunction with the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, there has been a special dispensation in this regard.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member for Springfield concede that although he may not have suffered the problems as set out under paragraph (3), he may accept from me that this part appears in the motion as a result of something which was said to me by a district surgeon?

Mr Chairman, I readily concede that point. As I have indicated, I am aware that there have been problems and that hon member may have had to do with a lot of problems in that regard.

All I wanted to say was that I personally have not had that problem. All I wanted to do was to convey our appreciation to that hon Minister who is present in this House at the moment, as well as to the hon Minister who is responsible for these functions in this particular House, for the manner in which they have resolved this particular problem. I believe that the problem has, in fact, been sorted out. I myself am in possession—as, I feel sure, are certain other members in this House— of certain telephone numbers belonging to persons with whom we should communicate should a problem of this nature arise.

I think I can also claim to know that hon member of this House who has moved this particular motion, fairly well. As all hon members will recall, I have in the past supported many of the good things that he has said and I have publicly supported many of the good and honest things that he has done outside this Chamber. Therefore, I must confess that I was a little surprised to see the notice of motion this afternoon. I say “surprised” because I am aware that that hon member would certainly not like to see an entrenchment of own affairs and we all know that the motion before us is in a certain sense, as the hon member for Phoenix has indicated, an entrenchment of own affairs functions.

I am also aware that the hon member Mr Seedat really does not subscribe to the view that so-called people of colour should be appointed to positions in cases where merit does not justify such appointments. I am sure that that hon member did indicate that merit should be one of the criteria. However, having read the spirit of the motion, I believe that he now places greater emphasis on this concept of colour.

Might I take the opportunity at this stage to address the concept of “people of colour”? I believe that describing individuals according to their colour is not only nonsensical but it is certainly not informative either. It is as uninformative and as ridiculous as describing White immigrants who come here from America as Europeans and describing the rest of us as nonEuropeans. It is as nonsensical as saying that the hon Minister present in this House is not a person of colour. Quite obviously, that hon Minister is also a person of colour. I can see his ruddy cheeks from across the floor of this House. Therefore I believe that the appellation “people of colour” is one that we should avoid altogether. I believe we must call a spade a spade. I believe it is time we in this country began to realise that we are all South Africans, and I have no objection to that. I believe it is about time we began to describe the hon Minister who is present in this House as a South African citizen. I believe it is about time I, too, was described as a South African citizen, and my colleague, Dr Kuzwayo, from the King Edward VIII Hospital should likewise be described as a South African. I do not believe we should go around in this day and age, when there is so much talk about reform in this country, describing people as people of colour or as people of non colour.

As I have said, I fully appreciate the spirit in which the hon member Mr Seedat wanted to highlight the problem that he has encountered. The problem, very simply, is that, as that hon member has indicated to this House, the history of this country has been one of discrimination which has unfortunately resulted in the appointment of predominantly White persons—to use his terminology—to the position of district surgeon.

As I understand his argument, he would like to see the taking of what the Americans call ‘affirmative action’, so that the disadvantages of the past will be redressed. As I understand the motion, I think that hon member wanted to indicate to this House that he would like the hon the Minister to ensure that in the filling of positions of district surgeons, merit should be the criterion, and because of the fact that the other race groups in this country have been disadvantaged and discriminated against, a policy of affirmative action should be taken so that, in a sense, justice should prevail, in that the other groups who make up the mosaic of this country’s population are given an opportunity to become district surgeons.

The hon member indicated that at the moment in this country the hon the Minister has appointed 161 full-time district surgeons of whom only four are Coloured and none are Black. It is inconceivable that there would not have been a single application from a Black doctor in this country who would have applied for the position of a district surgeon in, say, Cape Town or Durban, or for that matter in Soweto. However, the position remains that not a single Black doctor has been appointed as a district surgeon in this country, and I believe that is a blot on the fair name of the department under the control of the hon the Minister.

Paragraph (2) of this motion notes that there should be better communication between doctor and patient. The hon member tried to explain this by saying that he believes that if people of certain religious and cultural backgrounds were to be appointed as district surgeons, those persons would be better equipped to serve people of a similar background. That was his argument. I do not believe that. I do not believe that in the practice of medicine, where ethics are involved and norms and value-systems have to be followed, a question of religious background comes into the picture. I say this with great respect to the hon member. I do not believe that any medical person in this country, worthy of being called a medical person, would be so unsympathetic and insensitive that he would not take into account the religious and cultural feelings of his patients.

The hon member, who now shakes his head at me, tried to explain this, I think, by indicating that what he really wanted to convey was that where there is a problem with a post mortem, the religious requirements of the bereaved family would be better appreciated by somebody of a similar background. That, too, I find hard to believe. I say this because, I believe, we have already indicated in this debate just now, that that particular problem has already been addressed and attended to by the hon the Minister, as well as the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House. I believe this is working well. It is certainly working well in the community from which I come. Perhaps in the Transvaal this may not be the position. I will certainly bow to that if the evidence comes from the hon member Mr Seedat.

I believe that the amendment moved by the hon member for Phoenix is an amendment that I have no difficulty in supporting. I support it because I believe it addresses the question of own and general affairs. We do not subscribe to this differentiation and we do not believe that the provision of health services in this country should be an own affair. I think we have already indicated that a germ does not recognise this, so why should we? I also support the amendment because I believe that district surgeons should be appointed on merit.

I would go further and say as a compromise to the hon the Minister that the whole concept of affirmative action that has been articulated and implemented by the American people is something that the hon the Minister could look at in the future appointment of personnel in his department in general.

Mr Chairman, before entering into this particular debate I want to clarify a statement in the local newspaper saying that there is a forthcoming increase in pensions. I think it is only fair that I should clarify the position.

I was contacted by Mr Pat McCull of the Eastern Province Herald last Thursday. I indicated that it was an open secret that during the Budget of last year we stated that we were working towards parity and that we were committed to the community. I also indicated that there was a difference of R51 between the White, Indian and Coloured pensions at this stage. If one does one’s own calculations and divide this amount by three years it is obvious that there should be an increase of R17 per year.

However, I am fully aware of the financial stringency in this country. I issued a statement on Wednesday immediately after the hon the Minister of Finance submitted his Budget in which I clearly indicated that there would be a bonus of R60 per pensioner or grantee some time in October but that there would be no pension increase whatsoever.

I think it is necessary that I should clarify this matter as there has been a great deal of Press speculation. It is unfair to build up false hopes and have people expecting an increase when it can be stated positively that at this stage there will be no increase whatsoever.

Another point emanating from the discussion this afternoon is the question of post mortems. The hon member Mr Seedat made mention of a trial period of three months. I want to inform the House that at that time the three months’ trial period was not for the actual post-mortem services by district surgeons but it was purely to establish whether there were any problems during the trial period which we could then rectify. My hon colleague is aware of this and he has indicated that in order to avoid any misunderstanding a further circular will be sent out to say that the services must continue. I have no doubt that the services are being continued.

I want to place on record at this stage my sincere appreciation for the co-operation of my colleague the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development insofar as the issue of post mortems is concerned. Those of us who served in the SA Indian Council will recall that this matter has dragged on for many years and has been a great inconvenience for our community. I want to place on record our appreciation for the understanding of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development of this issue which has been of great concern to the Indian community particularly where post-mortems over week-ends are concerned.

I never received any complaints whatsoever. Hon members brought it to my attention that whenever there was a case, immediate action was taken. I also want to place on record our appreciation to the district surgeons who assisted at a time when most needed.

Coming to the actual notice of motion I want to place on record my appreciation to the hon member Mr Y I Seedat for having brought this to our attention. I do not think that it should be misconstrued as an attempt to entrench own affairs. We have practical problems. I go through this on an almost daily basis. We have many members, including the hon member for Phoenix, who bring various issues to our attention, and I am talking about day-to-day affairs.

As much as I do not believe in entrenching an own affair the very fact that we are serving in this very Chamber is a clear indication that we have been of service to our community. We have to perform this service because one of the problems we have is that there is a population of just under one million Indians in South Africa.

Presently we find on our records that we have just under 20 000 disability grantees. In order for each one of these grantees to qualify they have to go through a district surgeon. Now unfortunately, with respect to the district surgeons concerned, various reports have been coming through to us that people are not being examined properly. As a result our team which looks at the medical report is solely dependent on the outcome of the application one way or the other. I can appreciate that this could be possible because of the limited number of district surgeons that we have in this country. They are not given the full opportunity or the time to give their full attention to the applicant concerned. When this appears before our panel which looks at this application, if the reports are not complete they are unfortunately refused at the expense of the grantee. We have had several cases like that come up and I believe that there really is a need for additional full-time district surgeons of colour.

When one looks at the figures of full-time district surgeons—I think I heard my hon colleague Mr Y I Seedat mention this—if one analyses them on an ethnic basis one sees that there are 142 White district surgeons, 15 Coloured, four Indians and no Blacks working for the Department of National Health and Population Development. In the House of Delegates there are eight full-time district surgeons, in the House of Assembly there are 20, and six in the House of Representatives. However, when we come to part-time district surgeons we find that they are appointed by the Provincial Administration and they make up a total of 106. In Natal there are 41 part-time district surgeons of whom eight are Indians.

There are other study group notes. I think that has already been stated by the hon Mr Y Seedat. If one looks at the number of district surgeons we have at present, if one makes an ethnic analyses one sees that we have a total of 40 posts for district surgeons of which only 19 have been filled. With regard to session appointments there are 13 with nine vacant. I think as far as the sessional appointments are concerned there are 112 private part-time practitioners. In our administration we have eight full-time district surgeons. Five are based in Natal—one in Durban and two in Chatsworth. We have a total of five part-time district surgeons and on session seven are in Maritzburg, five in Chatsworth and one in Cape Town.

I fully support the view that we should certainly employ as many part-time or sessional district surgeons as possible in order to try to obtain a better service for our community. Over and above that I think as I mentioned earlier hon members will appreciate, as far as the question of disability grants is concerned, that people who are living in distant areas are caused a tremendous inconvenience because the district surgeons are only available on certain days. I am of the opinion that the call made by my hon colleague Mr Y I Seedat is in the best interests of the community at large.

For that reason I want to strongly support the call for additional district surgeons to be appointed on merit on a full-time basis, a part-time basis or on some other basis.

Mr Chairman, I want to echo the feelings of the hon member for Phoenix that this matter seems to be a hardy annual. I do not know whether the hon the Minister enjoys coming to this House but I would prefer him to come to this House and engage in another debate—and one hopes that the problems associated with this debate will have been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. If he does that we shall indeed be indebted to him.

Talking of being indebted, I think it is only fair for me to make certain acknowledgements at this stage. I would like to acknowledge the role played by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Delegates with regard to the quick and positive manner in which he responded to my invitation to visit my constituency during the floods. My constituents were pleased with his prompt action, especially when certain victims of the floods in Tugela were being denied assistance. The hon the Minister attended to that problem telephonically through his department and I would like to convey my constituents’ appreciation for that particular action taken by the hon the Minister.

I would also like to acknowledge the role played by the hon the Minister of Health in resolving the issue of post-mortems in the Stanger area to the satisfaction of the people there. They are pleased and indeed the letter that emanated from his department has been placed on certain notice boards in town, so that is a plus for the department and for participation.

I was a little unhappy to hear that the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Delegates had complained again because in the last debate he entered he said that he found Stanger to be a most difficult town, unlike his own constituency. Today, however, I believe he is having problems in his own constituency, too. He referred to Newcastle and Glencoe. Mr Chairman, I would like you to pay attention to that particular area as well because I probably share the frustration the hon the Minister is experiencing. It is nice to know that we are not the only ones who come from a town in which the district surgeon might at one time have been a little insensitive. There are other insensitive people elsewhere.

I also want to comment on the question of “Coloured”. When my daughter was very young and did not understand the whole question of ethnicity and race, she asked me why people were referred to as White, Coloured, Indian and Black. She could understand Black because of the pigmentation of the skin; she could understand the Brown people being referred to as Indians because of their pigmentation; but she could not understand why Whites were referred to as Whites. She said: “But Daddy, they should be referred to as Coloureds. If you look at them, some of them have blond hair and some of them have brown hair, some of them have blue eyes and some have green eyes, and some of them are different shades of pink. I think it is unfair for them to be called White because that is not true. They are not all White. They are the people that should be referred to as Coloureds.” This just goes to show that this whole question of colour and pigmentation is all in the mind.

To take this one step further, trying to entrench ethnicity as an own affair only compounds the issue.

I speak in support of the amendment moved by the hon member for Phoenix. I am not unmindful of the frustration and the sentiments expressed by the hon member Mr Seedat. I would just like to share a few thoughts in this particular regard. I think that, basically, when district surgeons were appointed in the old days it was as sure as sunrise and sunset that a person who was White would get the appointment. I hail from Stanger and I know that even if there were half a dozen Indian doctors in practice for many years, they would never be appointed, even if they applied. If a new graduate who wished to go into private practice after hospital internship came into town, and if he was White, as sure as sunrise and sunset he would be the district surgeon for that town.

Indeed, there was a time when an elderly Indian doctor had to act as district surgeon because there were no Whites in town.

This has changed certain perceptions, the perception being that this was a position reserved exclusively for people with a White background. I think some progress has been made with efforts to get rid of that, because I think statistics provided earlier show that certain Indians and people of colour—regardless of what my colleague the hon member for Springfield says, people other than White are referred to in general terms as people of colour—have been given an opportunity in some respects. I do not think enough has been done to give them an equitable opportunity. I believe in merit appointments, and I believe in an equitable opportunity for people, regardless of race. They must have the opportunity to be appointed. I do not believe appointments should have a political flavour; this should not be a political consideration.

This brings me to another perception. We find that when district surgeons were appointed on a part-time basis, especially the young White doctor in the old days, the appointment as district surgeon was, to him, an opportunity to build up towards and enter private practice. Many of them who might not have been very successful in private practice elsewhere, as soon as they moved into a town where they had the appointment as district surgeon, were thereby given an added advantage and a base from which to improve their private practice and thereby make a very handsome living our of their practices.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister—who is a medical doctor himself—a question. We often have this problem of people complaining to us, as members of Parliament, that they have not been getting a fair assessment of their disabilities by the district surgeon. Their family doctor and other practitioners will give them a certificate certifying that the person is disabled. I want to know whether doctors are supposed to be dishonest people. Is the opinion of one doctor not accepted as a fair assessment and opinion? The district surgeon here act as an umpire and turns it down, and I have known of cases—I do not wish to quote specific cases or examples—where, when the matter is taken on review, the grant is reinstated.

In the first place, it seems that there might have been some problem with the assessment by the district surgeon. This creates distract as far as the district surgeon himself is concerned, and I believe there should be some way of reviewing this particular issue. A medical practitioner’s word must be accepted by the department.

I have a suggestion to make. I do not wish to repeat the functions of the district surgeon that the hon Mr Seedat referred to earlier on. I have made the suggestion before and I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether he has had the opportunity of looking into this. Since there are many areas where there are State hospitals and provincial hospitals. Why can a district surgeon not be attached to a hospital? By doing so, one would remove the pressure on a practitioner who is doing it on a part-time basis or a practitioner doing this on a full-time basis, where he might be the sole practitioner. I believe that if the post is attached to a hospital, he would have other doctors and medical practitioners in the hospital who could help and, in fact, complement his role as a district surgeon. I think serious consideration ought to be given to the appointment of a district surgeon attached to a hospital where hospitals do exist or where clinics do exist. In that way the workload could be shared and the availability of medical services from a district surgeon would be almost on a 24 hour basis, since one of his colleagues could stand in for the appointed district surgeon.

I think enough has been said on this particular issue and there is no need for me to repeat any of it. In conclusion I make an earnest appeal that South Africa move towards a single ministry of health, as the concept of own affairs will be counter-productive. In order to ensure that we have one common policy applicable to all people of South Africa, a single ministry of health would be the answer.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the motion moved by my colleague the hon member Mr Seedat, who normally does a thorough job when he proposes a motion. I agree with some of the utterances of the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition. We ask for the situation not to be Indianised. Traditionally district surgeons have always been appointed from the White community and it is time that the department also looked at the other communities in this regard. Of course we ask that merit be one of the main criteria in such selections.

The district surgeon has a difficult job to perform and is quite often asked to perform autopsies over weekends where the bereaved families are normally in a hurry to get this over with. However, the district surgeon has to bear several things in mind, one of which is that quite often most of us tend to cremate the bodies, with the result that if there is any malpractice there would be no evidence thereafter when subsequent problems occur.

Are you speaking from experience?

I speak with some degree of knowledge in this matter. This sort of thing has happened before. District surgeons may be doubtful whether they should clear a body or hold it back until the post-mortem can be performed under better conditions and circumstances. One also has to bear in mind that district surgeons have to perform these autopsies in the light of day, which is an important factor. The hon member for Springfield does look sceptical, but I assure him that my information is correct.

We bow to the hon member’s greater knowledge.

Since the hon member says this, I would also like to remind him that there are various legal aspects which district surgeons have to consider. Therefore they have a difficult job to perform.

Police reports.

Yes, police reports as well. We experienced difficulties with the district surgeon at Chatsworth, where I called upon him on a Saturday afternoon. I requested him urgently to come out and do an autopsy, which he refused to do. He hinted to me that it was his weekend off and anyway he did not get paid to do this and therefore he was not going to do it. I said that I was asking him on humanitarian grounds. He was equally adamant and still refused to do it.

How long ago?

This was, early last year. I then contacted the previous Minister of National Health and Population Development, who telephoned the district surgeon of Pretoria and virtually instructed him to carry out a post-mortem which the latter did the very next day, rather meekly and submissively. Afterwards he had to report to the Minister, upon which the Minister telephoned me on the Sunday morning to tell me that the post-mortem had been conducted. I was very grateful for this and in one of the subsequent debates I mentioned this with appreciation. However, this district surgeon refused to do it on humanitarian grounds, but when the Minister told him to he did it rather submissively.

That was his boss.

His boss, yes, but I asked him to do it on humanitarian grounds. Being an Indian, I thought he would be more compassionate. However, I am not criticising the Indian doctors in general. I must also place something on record concerning the then Minister of Health Services and Welfare, the present hon member for North Western Cape.

On various occasions when I approached him he went out of his way to help resolve the problem successfully.

Coming back to this notice of motion, I support it and prevail upon the hon the Minister to take heed of the motion as proposed.

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to associate myself with the good wishes expressed by various hon members to the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development in connection with the excellent work that is being done in order to assist those people who suffered during the recent floods. I also want to convey my appreciation to our own hon Minister of Health Services and Welfare for the excellent work which he, too, has done in assisting those people who reside in areas under the jurisdiction of the House of Delegates.

A great deal has been said about own affairs and general affairs. I heard an hon member stand up in this House and say that when there had been problems in his area previously, that is to say before the tricameral Parliament was established, he could scream and shout but very little if anything was done about them. However, there is a difference. I do not think we have many Health Ministers in this country; I think we have only one Minister of Health. My colleague, the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, is nodding and therefore he agrees with me that there is a single Health Ministry. However, there is a difference.

Even previously, when we did not have the own affairs administrations, one did not find a provincial MEC acting as a provincial Minister of Health. He was in charge of services. Therefore, unlike education, where one does not have a Minister of educational services, one does have a Minister of Health Services and that Minister of Health Services is in charge of providing services in the area under the jurisdiction of a particular administration. I think that serves as an answer to the amendment. We actually have one Minister of Health in this country. Of course, he is also in charge of a committee that determines common norms, common criteria and national standards in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, and that is a good thing.

Reference was also made—and I want to mention this because I am the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates—to the fragmentation of health services. Although it is not really relevant, I think that because it was mentioned, I want to suggest to hon members that they study the national plan which was outlined by the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. I do not think we should be purists. We must not be idealists who always adopt an ideological stance. When one compares the floods and the type of relief one received after August 1984 to the situation prevailing before that time, one realises that with regard to the question of post-mortems, the difficulty in getting district surgeons to perform autopsies in the event of deaths posed a big problem before August 1984. I think we highlighted this problem at every plenary session of the South African Indian Council. We adopted resolution after resolution with absolutely no success whatsoever. However, the fact that we now have a Minister of Health Services and Welfare taking care of the areas under the jurisdiction of this House, has brought about some changes.

We have heard about Stanger—the annual cry in Stanger—and we have heard about the problems in Chatsworth. It was not only the hon member for Moorcross who experienced problems in Chatsworth. I experienced problems in Chatsworth on numerous occasions. It was embarrassing to the civic leaders, to the political heads in the area, not to be able to be of service to the community.

However, the hon member Mr Seedat was practical and realistic and has taken into consideration the real situation by putting forward a practical solution to a problem.

This motion, which I support wholeheartedly— and it is not merely a motion of the hon member Mr Seedat, but of the majority party of this House—takes into consideration not only the real situation, but the history of this country. We have always complained about the inequalities of opportunity. I am glad that in his motivation the mover, the hon member Mr Seedat, very clearly stated that he does not support the appointment of people on other consideration than merit, but at the same time we must realise that South Africa is a country where things have been done, and are still being done, on a group basis. As a result of this historical fact, some people have an advantage over others.

I listened to the radio this morning, to a report on doctors treating patients according to their racial attitudes. During the few minutes I listened I heard that somebody conducted a survey which reveals that 32% of the doctors in the Pretoria region would not treat a patient of another colour, on racial grounds. Of course this also happens in the United States of America. One cannot ignore religious and cultural factors. If a member of the Hindu community gets measles, they want to go to a doctor who will understand them from a religious and cultural point of view. Therefore one cannot ignore the religious and cultural factors in respect of meting out treatment. I know the hon member for Montford will also agree with me. He will not disagree.

Referring to own affairs, I want to repeat what I have said before. Own affairs means provision of services in one’s area. Likewise, we are asked why an Indian qualified magistrate is appointed in Indian areas only. If he is qualified and is appointed on merit, why should he not be appointed in another area? I think the question of post mortems may, in terms of the Constitution, be a jurisdictional matter, but I think the hon member Mr Seedat pointed out quite correctly that there is a problem regarding a person who meets with an accident outside the area of jurisdiction of the House of Delegates. From practical experience we know that we are confronted with problems of this kind.

I think the amendment proposed by the hon member for Phoenix is far-fetched. It is unfortunate that I cannot lay my hand on copies of Hansard of other debates where he really took into consideration the real and practical considerations in this country. The hon member for Phoenix quoted an example in Queensburgh. I want to tell the him that long after he stopped seeing that doctor he still practised apartheid. He had two entrances: A cosy, excellent entrance in front, with a beautiful waiting room, and another entrance for non-Whites, completely at the back of his surgery with a poky little waiting room.

I have personally witnessed a request made to that doctor to allow an Indian patient suffering from a stroke to enter his surgery through the shortest route possible but he refused it. I will not say to which political party that hon doctor belonged but he was actively supporting a political party that has recently had an addition of three members. [Interjections.]

I want to say that we should not split hairs and we should not be too technical. What we heard in the House this afternoon and previously was nothing but praise that our post-mortem problems have to a large extent been resolved. One may argue against my statement that it was resolved by a national Minister. However, it was solved by a national Minister because we were given the opportunity of talking to that hon national Minister in the same Chamber instead of shouting to him from a distance in Durban, Actonville etc.

From this side of the House we unanimously support the motion. Although it has an element of group character in its formulation it is a notice of motion that recognises the realities of the situation in this country.

Mr Chairman, on a basis of principle I take exception to the kind of motion that is presented by the ruling party in this House. If hon members follow my argument they will be able to distinguish between sense and nonsense as easily as they can distinguish between black and white.

Last Thursday we debated the issue of the development of Clairwood for the second time in this House. I am not casting any aspersions whatsoever on the hon member for Isipingo who moved the motion.

What is your case? What did I do to you?

On the contrary! I hasten to compliment the hon member on his efforts to revive an issue that was forgotten for far too long.

At the same time one asks what the efforts of the Ministers’ Council were from 1985 onwards when the question of Clairwood was first discussed. The answer is: Nothing.

Coming to the motion on district surgeons before the House today, I want to say that much of it is a repetition. Nobody can deny that this debate is largely a repeat performance of what we have already debated previously. I sometimes wonder if the ruling party has become bankrupt in so far as new and pace-setting motions and ideas are concerned that will give this House the necessary image to evoke confidence in the people. What we do instead, is to discuss the same issues over and over again. [Interjections.] Furthermore, we see no results.

I want to analyse the motion before the House somewhat cursorily. No one will deny that the need for district surgeons. The need for their services on religious holidays were discussed, emphasised and a decision was even taken. I want to go so far as to say that it was none other than the former hon Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House, who is at present the hon the Minister of the Budget, who resolved this issue to the satisfaction of everyone in this House. I think he came here one day to announce that this matter had been resolved and that a district surgeon would be made available for post mortems on Sundays. We are again raising this issue.

Looking at subsections 1 and 2, I really do not think that they call for a debate in this House. Both of these matters could have been taken up administratively by the Ministers’ Council. The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture—unfortunately he is not present— made a speech with a melancholy note. He gave the impression that all his noble efforts to obtain the services of district surgeons had been unsuccessful.

Here again this afternoon the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture makes an appeal to the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development for his favour. We note his appeal and we also note his predicament, but the question we ask is why must he find himself in this predicament? Has he brought this issue before the Ministers’ Council and have decisions been taken? Have those decisions been directed to the right quarters? What are the replies? If we have had negative replies from the other hon Ministers then I think we can take umbrage. If we have failed to find other avenues of satisfaction, let it be brought to the House for a debate.

If these issues had been taken up administratively—I think hon members will agree with me—I want to assure hon members that they would have been resolved. I say this quite emphatically. I feel hopeful that when the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development replies soon, he will indicate that the problems are not as great as some hon members on the other side have made out to be this afternoon.

I now want to come to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He said that there is only one Minister of Health. The other day he indicated that there is only one Minister of Education. I accept this to a point. I agree that there is only one Minister of National Health and one Minister of National Education but no one must say that there is only one minister for health or only one minister for education. If these so-called Ministers of Health Services and Welfare and Ministers of Education and Culture are not Ministers then what are they? Are these Ministries really redundant? For what purposes have these positions with a magnificent salary been created?

The taxpayers’ money is being spent uselessly on a particular purpose of a particular ideology to have these Ministers in the three different Houses. It is not one House; it is three different Houses. I would go even further by saying that there are even more than three different Houses if one takes the Black community and the homelands into account.

We must not make a mockery of the prevailing situation. I want to be a realist. [Interjections.] We must be realists. What is the reality of the situation?

I have to refer to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council once again. He says we are being idealistic and puristic in this regard. I say no, we are being realistic in this regard and I think there is much wisdom in being realistic in a situation.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said the amendment was far fetched. I cannot accept this. If one is being realistic, one should not have antediluvian views in the practice of modern medicine and modern technology. I think we should move towards the present.

There is a great deal of wisdom. Sometimes the ruling party, because of their numbers and the caucus’s decision, will get away with murder. I am sorry. [Interjections.] I use this figuratively.

I support the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to the hilt when he says we should have only one Minister of Health in this country. Right! This is exactly what the hon member for Phoenix said.

Do you include education, too? One Education Minister?

Yes, of course.

What the hon member for Phoenix has rightly emphasised in his amendment is that “consideration should be given to the establishment of a single Ministry of Health in the RSA and further calls upon the Minister of National Health and Population Development to appoint persons as district surgeons regardless of race, colour or sex”. When we begin to think along those lines, we begin to live the life of a real South African, a South African who would be patriotic to the core, not only paying lip service to patriotism but being patriotic in all his actions and in all the practices we want to be carried out in this country.

I really do not think we can deceive ourselves any longer by emphasising these ethnic and cultural, shall I say, institutions? Yes, to a point.

Did you say that when you were an inspector of Indian schools?

What does that have to do with what I have just said? [Interjections.] What does that have to do with the price of eggs in Parade? This is the thing. We are making a mockery of our place in this House as members of Parliament who are representing a community which has high aspirations. There is no doubt about that. The Indian community—let us not deceive ourselves—has very high aspirations, as high as those of any other community in this country. I think that we as members of Parliament should help the community meet those aspirations and in order to meet those aspirations we must not give up. I of course value my culture and my religion, and hon members value theirs, as the hon member Mr Seedat indicated, and he did this in no uncertain terms. When it comes to the practice of modern medicine and technology, however, how important are those trivial differences?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cavendish just said “trivial matters” when he referred to different religious affiliations. I want the hon member to know or to tell me whether I am incorrect …

Order! Is the hon member Mr Seedat asking a question?

Will the hon member for Cavendish accept from me that the motivation behind requesting that district surgeons be appointed from outside the White population, and also that their religious affiliations be taken into account, was a direct result of what was told to me by a district surgeon? I was told that a situation could arise in which persons belonging to the Christian faith may not be available to conduct post mortems on their sabbath.

One has to grow up at some time. We do not swallow everything we hear, be it from a district surgeon or from a professor of the University of Stellenbosch or the Witwatersrand. This is our dilemma. A student, be he Black, Indian, Coloured or White, goes to the medical faculty of the University of Stellenbosch or that of the University of Natal or Witwatersrand, and what is the recipe he comes out with? What is the certificate he comes out with? Does it say that the student in question has satisfied the requirements for a medical degree, etc, with what he calls an Indian flavour, a Coloured flavour, a Black flavour or a White flavour? Or does it simply say that he has mastered that field and that he is now qualified to render service in that field?

We can understand the situation. If someone came to my house 75 years ago—let us assume it was a medical doctor who could only speak English—my grandmother would have been able to understand. In fact, she only knew pidgin English. Probably there was a need for an interpreter, and my mother or father could have done that! This is what I mean by trivialities—I do not want my hon friend to take umbrage.

However, we do not want to sacrifice the importance and the essence of merit or technical or cultural medical practices.

Mr Chairman, I shall come back to the hon member for Cavendish in due course, but I think that first of all I should like to congratulate some of the hon members of this House. First of all I wish to say to you, Mr Chairman, that this is my first appearance in this House this year and I should like to congratulate you on your position as Chairman. I should like to say—I am sure that everyone else in this House agrees with me—that you fit the Chair. I am sure that you will be an excellent Chairman in the months and years to come.

I should like to congratulate the hon member for Lenasia Central on the birth of his daughter. The hon member will understand that I am always pleased when a daughter is born, since I am in fact a gynaecologist, and the more daughters, the better for gynaecologists! [Interjections.]

I should like to congratulate the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council on the new environment in which his House meets. I must say that I think it is quite nice. There is one thing I do observe, however, and that is that in this House there are either front benches or back benches, and nothing in between. Thus someone can come in as a backbencher, and can immediately go to a front bench. It is a unique House. There is nothing in-between. I think this is something which makes this House unique.

When I say this House is unique, I also say so because of the motion in front of us. There is no doubt about it—and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has said this—that what we have achieved in South Africa over the past number of years has been achieved because of debates in this Parliament, and of course, in this House; also as far as health matters are concerned. However I shall be dealing with that in a minute.

While on the subject of congratulations, I do not know whether I should congratulate the hon member for Springfield and his party on their marriage or pending marriage with the PFP. I do not know whether it is an engagement or merely a flirtation—I do not how far it has developed.

I hear that they are unwanted in the caucus!

It seems to me that the point is that no concrete announcements can be made at this stage.

In referring to the motion by the hon member Mr Seedat I would like to say that I do not agree with the hon member for Cavendish when he says that this is a repetitive, poor performance. It really is not, because there are some very important issues at stake here.

The first important issue that we should discuss is the role of the district surgeon in South Africa. In this regard the hon member Mr Seedat has done us a service by very meticulously and in a very erudite way explaining the exact differences between a district surgeon and an ordinary medical officer. He focussed on what is entailed by the workload and the specifics of the day-to-day work of a district surgeon. The problem is that medical jurisprudence is a very important aspect of the work of a district surgeon. For that reason it is not very attractive to doctors in South Africa.

It may interest the hon members of this House that forensic pathology is a very important part of the district surgeon’s work, but that South Africa has only 14 such specialists—only 14; it is the smallest group. Therefore, especially the advertisers of the vacancies for full-time district surgeons sometimes do not even receive one application. That is our problem. Unfortunately that part of the district surgeon’s work is unattractive to so many of our doctors.

The hon member Mr Seedat has explained in detail the workload of a district surgeon, differentiating between part-time and full-time, quoting figures which I agree with. He asked how these vacancies are advertised. As with any other vacancies, they are advertised in the papers as well as in the medical journals. In the advertisements it is not stated who should apply, which is very important. We do not say this and we only stipulate what the qualifications should be.

His second question concerned who makes the ultimate appointment, the answer to which depends upon which administration is concerned. In my administration the Director-General would be that person. As far as the House of Delegates is concerned, it would be the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare.

The hon member then asks whether a White can apply to work in Guguletu. The answer is “yes”. Likewise a Black can apply for a job in Houghton. It depends entirely on the qualifications and the merit. We should take another look at the situation which was mentioned concerning the provinces. It is important that in the provincial administration we should not only have curative medicine, especially for our Black citizens in South Africa, but also preventative medicine, as well as the forensic pathology area in that particular province.

That is the reason why the provinces have district surgeons. However, they mainly have part-time district surgeons to attend to indigent patients throughout South Africa.

I now want to turn to post-mortems. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and certain other hon members referred to these, and I am grateful for what they have said because we now have a service which, as the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare has said, is not temporary, but which is fully operational. Last year 1060 post-mortems were performed and 820 of these were performed in mortuaries with an after-hours service, that is to say in Durban, Chatsworth, Verulam, Cape Town, Pietermaritzburg, Stanger, Johannesburg and Pretoria. I am grateful to be able to say that this is actually something that was resolved in this House, although not only in this House. It was also resolved in the National Health Policy Council.

The National Health Policy Council is something of which I think hon members of this House should take note because it consists of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House and the Health Ministers in the other two Houses, as well as myself. There are four of us on the council and that is where policy is made with regard to health matters, and I think that is very important. Therefore everyone has an opportunity to make a contribution in so far as policy is concerned.

I must say that I disagree wholeheartedly with the statement that so-called doctors of colour are discriminated against. Having said that, I should like to back up my statement with some figures. I should also like to tell hon members that one of our most important senior Cabinet Ministers was treated the other day at the Tygerberg Hospital …

By my namesake.

Yes, by the hon the Minister’s namesake. That is something which I think should be taken note of.

When we look at the figures pertaining to hospital services in the province of Natal, we see that there are 1262 doctors. Among them are 620 White, 594 Indian, 18 Coloured and 30 Black doctors. There are 620 Whites and 594 Indians, which is approximately the same number. There is a difference of 26. In other words, one could say there is a 50-50 situation and therefore I must say once again …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether or not he would agree that the majority of those doctors—almost 500 of them—who are employed in the Natal hospitals are doctors with restricted qualifications, that is to say doctors who qualified overseas and who obtained restricted admission from the Medical Council, in that it is a condition of their employment that they may only be employed in a public hospital and nowhere else?

The answer to that question is that it is not true that the greater proportion of these 594 doctors are restricted. It is not true because to the best of my knowledge the number of doctors throughout South Africa who are restricted at the present moment, is approximately 62. However, I shall look into this matter and come back to the hon member for Camperdown.

However, I think the point I want to make is a valid one, and that is that there is no discrimination. In answering the hon member Mr Seedat I think that is quite a valid point.

The hon member for Phoenix said that there should be a single Minister of Health. I think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council dealt effectively with that statement.

He mentioned better communication between doctors and patients. He said this was important, and it is true that one should strive to achieve the optimum degree of communication between doctors and patients. I should like to tell hon members, however, that one important facet of communication with the patient is the language of the patient.

There is no doubt about that. Therefore, when one can speak the language of the patient, the communication is always better. For that reason language plays an important role in the environment in which certain doctors practice. For instance, I can speak a little Sotho and for that reason I had many Sotho patients. However, it would not help me to address hon members in Sotho.

The hon member for Phoenix referred to post mortems. He appreciates the situation and I thank him for that.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister a question. If I were to take the hon the Minister’s argument to its logical conclusion—by his own admission there are 30 Black doctors—is he suggesting from a language point of view, that there should be more Black doctors than White and Indian doctors, because the bulk of the patients are Black?

There is no doubt, Mr Chairman, in answering the hon member for Stanger, that there is nothing that would please me more than to see more Black doctors in South Africa.

I want to thank the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture for his kind words regarding the work we are doing in the area of flood relief. While I mention that, I must mention, regarding the whole flood relief situation in Natal, the excellent contribution which was made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the planning of the relief in certain parts of Natal, and secondly, the excellent work done by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. He travelled the whole of Natal and even went up to Ladysmith to hand out cheques to members of the public who had problems in that area.

The hon the Minister gave a résumé of the work of district surgeons. He referred to a problem in Glencoe. We will go into the problem he mentioned with that particular district surgeon. He also mentioned Newcastle, Eshowe and Empangeni. The problem is of course that one would like to have this 24-hour service in every city and town of South Africa, but there is a difference between what one would like to have and what is practical. I agree entirely with the hon the Minister that if it were possible, it would be wonderful, but I doubt whether it is possible, because of the size of those three towns.

I would like to thank the hon member for Springfield for the appreciation he expressed regarding the disaster relief management. Of course I have known the hon member for Springfield for many years. It is also interesting—and I thank him for that—that he says that there are no real problems as far as post-mortems are concerned at the present moment. This is true.

The hon member speaks of an entrenchment of own affairs. Of course that is the old hobby-horse which, we all know, is always mentioned. Let me put it to hon members this way: There is no better way in which service has been rendered to the Indian community, than by this House and this Ministers’ Council. This is a fact.

I agree entirely that the concept of “people of colour” as a term is really a misnomer. One should talk about population groups and be more specific. However, I think the hon member for Springfield will agree with me that, as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said, we cannot negate the importance of culture and religion in certain areas. It is important. Whether it is overwhelmingly important, or at what level it is important, is debatable.

I agree entirely with the hon member that merit is and should be the only factor that is taken into account when we appoint people. Affirmative action is fine when they are all equally meritorious but we have a problem if that is not the case.

The hon member said that not a single Black doctor has been appointed but there is not a Black doctor today with a diploma in medical jurisprudence or in forensic pathology. That is our problem. I think this answers most of the matters raised by the hon member for Springfield. I also want to thank him for his contribution.

The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare clarified the position with regard to post-mortems very well. I want to thank him for the important role that he plays in the day-to-day management of the post-mortem situation in all the cities. He plays a very important role and I want to thank him for that.

We have seen again this afternoon how important it is that we should talk about these issues in this House because it is only through discussing them here that we can reach certain conclusions and then apply them in practice. The ones who will derive the benefit from this are the people, and that is what democracy is all about.

The hon the Minister asked whether this service will be continued. Yes, it will indeed. He also spoke about disability grantees and the fact that they have not been examined properly at times. We will definitely look into this matter. It was also mentioned by the hon member for Stanger who referred to the problem of the examination of disability grantees.

The answer here is that it is true that doctors do differ sometimes in their diagnosis. However, patients always have the opportunity if they should feel that they have not been properly examined or dealt with in a professional way to write to the SA Medical and Dental Council. They can write to the council and say that one doctor said this and another doctor said that and that they feel they have not been dealt with professionally. However, one must always remember that doctors do differ at times. It is for that reason that we have specialists and they can be referred to at all times.

I would like to thank the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare for giving the accurate figures of the various administrations. I agree with him that more use should be made of part-time and sessional district surgeons—there is no doubt about that.

The hon member for Stanger referred to the good work that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare did in the disaster areas and I agree entirely with the hon member. He also mentioned the issue of referring to so-called “people of colour”. In the old days this might have been discrimination but not today. I have already dealt with that matter in more detail. Equitable opportunities are definitely being created today. It is true that the appointment of district surgeons created a financial basis but nowadays we are more inclined in certain areas to make full-time instead of part-time appointments. However, the hon member is right. I must add that the present financial remuneration package is far smaller than the previous one which means that they are not doing very well at present. This worries us and it is also the reason why not enough people apply for jobs.

The hon member asked me about fair examinations by district surgeons. I think I dealt with that when I answered the hon the Minister.

Attaching them to hospitals?

Yes, I think the hon member made a very good point when he said that it could be well be a good idea to have district surgeons in hospitals. I think it is a good idea because, as I said in the beginning, the National Health Policy Council is thinking along the lines of integrating the various functions of health services, ie curative, preventative and also medical jurisprudence. It is true that a person who is raped goes to hospital and she could also be examined there.

I think that is a very practical point the hon member has made and the National Health Policy Council on which the Ministers of Health Services sit will, I am sure, look into this matter when it meets again.

I now want to come to the hon member for Moorcross. I see he has crossed the floor as I no longer see him on this side of the House! [Interjections.]

He is the Chief Whip.

Yes, I know the hon member is the Chief Whip, I am just joking.

The hon member for Moorcross said that district surgeons should also be appointed outside the White group and I agree with that. I have dealt with that.

He referred to the difficulties experienced by practising district surgeons because of cremations. The hon member for Moorcross is so right and I am glad that he made this point. This is one of the most difficult areas of a district surgeon’s work. He has the total responsibility for deciding whether there is any reason to suspect criminal intervention in a situation. It is a very important decision because he must then decide whether he should take samples for analysis for poison in the blood or the gastric juices, as the hon member will know. It is a very difficult area because if the body is going to be cremated the evidence will be destroyed. For that reason all of us should have some compassion for the tremendous pressures experienced by the district surgeons. They have to make these important decisions at very short notice and this is a very important aspect which the hon member for Moorcross has pointed out.

The Chatsworth case happened early last year and I am sure that that will not happen again. I am sure the hon member will agree with me.

I must thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council first of all for his congratulations as far as the disaster relief work is concerned. I must also congratulate him on the way in which he explained to the House the importance of religious and cultural factors and the importance of the work that the Ministers’ Council is doing. There is no way in which we can negate what has been achieved by this council insofar as housing and health services for the Indian population are concerned. There is no way in which anybody can negate the importance of the contribution made by the hon the Chairman in the Cabinet. It is a pleasure for me to say that it is a very important contribution.

I think that everyone should read the National Health Plan again because it will show hon members that there really is no great fragmentation as far as that is concerned.

The hon member for Cavendish referred to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council when he said that there is only one Minister of National Health. That is true but these are semantics. However, what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council meant is important and that is that there is only one Minister who has the duties of the Minister of National Health, and that is myself. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council pointed out that the National Health Policy Council is the important council which is dealing with policy as far as health matters are concerned and that the services are being carried out by the various Ministers’ Councils and the provincial administrations. I think that is a very valid point.

There is only one aspect that the hon member for Cavendish mentioned which I should like to deal with. It is always a pleasure to listen to him, being an old inspector of schools. He referred to the modern technology of medicine. It is true that diseases know no boundary and it is true that a mosquito will bite anybody. However, one thing that stands out even in modem technology is the importance of language. If one is lying in an intensive care unit one would like to speak to somebody who would understand one rather than to an interpreter. There is no doubt about that.

We as doctors know the difficulty of working through an interpreter. Interpreters sometimes do not understand the patient, or do not understand the doctor. It is far more difficult to communicate if we do not understand the language. Mr Chairman, you as Chairman know how difficult it is; even in this House, where people speak one language they misunderstand one another. Is this not true? As hon members can see, even with one language people can misunderstand one an other. Communication is therefore a very difficult and complicated aspect.

I would like to sum up by saying that I am grateful to the hon member Mr Seedat for his motion in this House. I think I have dealt with all three of his points. I think I have dealt with what every hon member has said. I would like to conclude by saying that I will see to it that any person of any colour, religion or creed whatsoever with a diploma in forensic pathology or in medical jurisprudence will get an appointment, because we need people with these qualifications. Regardless of who they are, we need them. For that reason I can state categorically in this House that I will see to it that such a person gets an appointment.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take another question?

It is always a pleasure to take a question from the hon member for Stanger.

Order! The hon the Minister takes pleasure in answering questions. The hon member for Stanger may proceed.

Just for my information—and I am sure my colleagues would appreciate this, too—are those who have been appointed as part-time district surgeons in fact in possession of the qualifications the hon the Minister referred to? Do they all have those qualifications?

That is a good question and I would like to answer it. The diploma which is issued by the South African College of Medicine is at all times a very high recommendation for an appointment. That is what I said. I am doing two things. Firstly, I want more doctors to take the diploma because we will then have better district surgeons, and secondly, I said that I would guarantee anybody with such a diploma a job because there is such a need for them. I think that answers the hon member’s question.

To sum up again, I would like to congratulate the hon member Mr Seedat on his motion. I think it is an important motion and I think that all hon members who participated in this debate have been answered. It was a great pleasure for me, as the Minister in charge of this particular problem, to be here in the House this afternoon.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question.

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Main question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to object to the fact that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is now speaking to a motion which differs materially from the motion of which he gave notice in this House last week.

In support of that contention I wish to state that as far as I am aware, the notice of motion which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council gave this House last week read as follows:

This notice of motion was printed on the original Order Paper. Then, however, I found that there had been a reprint. I wish to record that I was not present in this House when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in fact gave notice of the motion. On account of that, I checked the words of the Notice of Motion by doing something which I have been told was irregular—I freely accept that. The fact remains, however, that the Hansard recording of the Notice of Motion supports my contention that the Notice of Motion differs materially from the Notice of Motion to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council now proposes to speak. I should therefore like your ruling in this regard, Mr Chairman.

Order! I have taken note of the point of order taken by the hon member for Springfield. I am aware of these facts and I wish to advise the hon member for Springfield that I have taken note of the argument he has put forward. I wish to bring the following to his notice: With respect to alterations authorised by the member in charge, in this case the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, it is specified that while a notice of motion stands on the Order Paper, the member in charge or, if he is absent, a member authorised by him, may authorise the Secretary to make verbal alterations. These comments come from Erskine May, and therefore I will have to disallow the point of order raised by the hon member for Springfield.

Mr Chairman, if that be your ruling, I would merely like to say that quite obviously I accept your authority in this House. I have not had the opportunity of consulting Erskine May, but with great respect I should like to place on record my objection to your ruling, and I should like to place on record the fact that I reserve all my rights in that regard.

Order! I should like to advise the hon member for Springfield that in practice, what could have happened is that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council could have withdrawn the notice that he had originally given, and then reintroduced it in the form in which it has been done. I should like to refer the hon member for Springfield to Erskine May, page 377, where he will no doubt find the correct guidance.

Mr Chairman, I accept your statement that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council could have withdrawn his original notice of motion and could therefore have presented this House with an amended notice of motion. I merely wish to record that that did not, in fact, occur.

Order! That is quite in order.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: On behalf of Solidarity I wish to record our objection. We associate ourselves fully with the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Springfield.

Mr Chairman, the scope of the amendment is so narrow that one is really restricted to …

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council prepared to take a question?

Mr Chairman, not at this stage.

Taking into consideration what the hon member for Springfield has stated concerning the appointment of a select committee, this was actually moved by me because a statement was made in this House. I believe that that statement was not correct and that is why I moved the appointment of a select committee. However, I am aware that a journalist in Durban received a call from the newspaper Post, but nobody mentioned to the journalist that I was the person who moved the select committee be appointed. This motion now rectifies an error in the original motion in that the hon member for Stanger did not use the word “during the election campaign” in his statement. [Interjections.] That was on 23 February 1988. In effect the select committee could decide that because the hon member for Stanger did not use the words “during the election campaign” the actual words used by that hon member were that he knows who gave him a cheque in Tongaat. However, the Notice of Motion which I moved contained an error and it was unfair as far as the select committee was concerned. They would have difficulty in carrying out their task, because one could have correctly argued that one did not use the words “during the election campaign”. Therefore it merely rectifies a mistake.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said that those words were not used. However, they are here. May I read it out, Mr Chairman?

Order! Yes, the hon member may proceed.

These words were spoken during that debate:

[Interjections.]

Yes, but the hon member for Southern Natal strengthens my argument. It does not say “during the election campaign”. Those words were not used in that statement.

Tongaat.

That is used, but Tongaat could mean anything. The original Notice of Motion indicated words to the effect that the hon member for Stanger uttered these words during the election campaign. In other words, it is rectifying an error.

Mr Chairman, there is no denying the fact that the motion as read by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was moved by him except, as I said earlier on, that it differed materially from the motion that he is now moving. That is not the point, however.

Order! May I just interrupt the hon member for Springfield so that hon members may be fully aware of how the resolution would read if the House were to agree to the motion proposed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. This is how it would read:

1. (1) That a select committee on a question of privilege be appointed to enquire into and report upon the correctness or otherwise of allegations made by the member for Stanger on 23 February in a speech in the House of Delegates to the effect that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council received a cheque from a building contractor in Tongaat; and
2. (2) the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and that Mr M Thaver be appointed chairman of the committee.

I am merely reading this for the edification of hon members. The hon member for Springfield may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The notice of motion to appoint the original select committee was, as all hon members will recall, unanimously supported by all hon members of this House. The reason why the appointment of a select committee was, in fact, supported by all the hon members of the House was precisely because of what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said in regard to motivating the appointment of such a select committee. If I remember correctly, the point that was made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was that his integrity and his credibility had been impugned and that this was a slur on his honesty, and that this had resulted from a statement that had been made by the hon member for Stanger during the course of a speech on the previous day.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has often quoted Mahatma Gandhi in this Chamber. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should be aware that Mahatma Gandhi set great store by what we call satyagraha.

And the truth!

If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not aware of what satyagraha is, I should just like to remind him that it means “truth force”.

We in this House supported the appointment of a select committee because we also believed that it was high time allegations of the kind that had been made by the hon member for Stanger were fully investigated and fully canvassed in any select committee, although we preferred …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware of the fact that that notice of motion which was approved by this House did not quote the hon member for Stanger correctly?

Mr Chairman, I really do not understand the thrust of that question and therefore I should prefer not to reply to it.

You are pretending not to understand it!

Let us now examine what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council proposes to do by way of his amendment. Before we examine that, let me record that I believe this is the first time in the annals of parliamentary tradition that we have had a Minister of Government approach this House, or approach Parliament, to amend his own notice of motion concerning the appointment of a select committee. [Interjections.] This House is noted for creating history.

Here is another example of what we do with parliamentary tradition.

Who plots till midnight?

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wishes to ask me, I presume: “Who plots till midnight?” As far as I am aware, it is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who in fact does that. I am also aware of a plot to remove him from the office of Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I wish to publicly state that I will support any such move, in this House and outside it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think the hon member is going outside the scope of the debate on this motion.

Order! The hon member for Springfield may proceed, but he must please keep within the bounds of the subject under discussion.

Mr Chairman, with great respect, I am surprised that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should now object to the fact that I am traversing the bounds of this particular debate, because it was the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who in fact asked me a question about a plot, and I was merely answering.

Why do I wish to record my objection to the notice of motion which has now been removed? If one reads it fairly carefully and interprets it in a legal fashion, I believe the scope of this investigation is narrowed by the fact that this select committee must now decide on the correctness or otherwise of an allegation that has been made that a building contractor gave a cheque to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in Tongaat.

That was the statement.

Mr Chairman, that was not the import of the statement made by the hon member for Stanger, and he will be the first to admit it. Hansard will also verify this. It is not surprising that this amendment should be moved after that select committee has begun its deliberations. The question arises why this should be so? Has some evidence been given to this committee which now causes some disquiet in the mind of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council? I do not know. I am not a member of that committee. However, what I am aware of, is that whatever happens in that committee gets reported to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Mr Chairman, I want to …

Order! I would like to remind the hon member for Springfield that the allegation he is making is a very serious indictment of the activities of this committee. I would like to refer the hon member to Standing Order No 168, “Publication of Proceedings”, and quote this Standing Order for the edification of hon members. I quote:

This is also for the edification of members of any select committee. The hon member for Springfield may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the Chair for that information.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Springfield has made a statement to the effect that he knows that whatever is discussed is reported to me. I would like him to withdraw that and apologise to the select committee. It is contempt of that select committee.

Order! The hon member for Springfield must withdraw that allegation.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that allegation, but I would like to record that it would seem that whatever happens in that select committee is being reported to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, hence the amendment we have before this House.

I object to the notice of motion given by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. This is not only because I believe that something has now given rise to disquiet in the mind of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I am also in possession of certain facts—the members of that select committee are perhaps in possession of the same facts—which I believe have a bearing on the original notice of motion and on the original terms of reference which was agreed to when the original select committee was appointed. I will take this House into my confidence and tell hon members what that special information is. I would really like to know …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to appeal to the Chair. In this House many statements are made under parliamentary protection. If the hon member for Springfield has any information that can be of use to the select committee he is at liberty to put it to the select committee but I think that the parliamentary protection in this House genuinely appears to be abused. What the hon member says is beyond the scope of the amendment that we are discussing at the moment.

Order! If the hon member for Springfield has any such facts he must present them to the select committee. Unfortunately, with regard to the motion before us we cannot entertain the introduction of any new facts. These will have to be brought before the select committee.

Mr Chairman, with great respect, I must say to you that my argument has quite obviously been pre-empted. Nobody heard out my argument before a decision in this regard was taken. I wish to assure you that I am well aware of my duties and my obligations to that select committee. I am only arguing as to why the notice of motion should not in fact restrict the functioning of that select committee. That is all that I propose to do.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In the original notice of motion which I gave and which this House approved the notice of motion was based on a statement made by the hon member for Stanger and I had realised …

Order! I must tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that this is not a point of order.

Mr Chairman, may I ask for your ruling on the scope of this debate? This is a simple amendment rectifying a mistake. It does not introduce something new. [Interjections.]

Order! I would like to tell the hon member for Springfield that under the present circumstances we will have to hear him out. If it is found that whatever facts he wishes to bring to the attention of this House are not relevant to the debate and fall outside its scope he will be called to order.

Mr Chairman, I would like a further clarification. The notice of motion today intends to remove the words “during the election campaign”. These words were never used by the hon member for Stanger on 23 February. If anybody wants to produce anything related to the election campaign it is irrelevant, in my considered opinion. One can have another debate on that tomorrow.

That may be your opinion!

Order! I should like to tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that it would be very unfair of the Chair to curtail the hon member for Springfield who is arguing in favour of the retention of the words which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council proposes to have removed. We will have to hear out the hon member for Springfield.

Once again I should like to remind the hon member that if it is found that he is going beyond the scope of the matter under discussion he will be called to order. The hon member for Springfield may use his judgment and may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the Chair for that ruling.

My concern is for the retention of the words “during the election campaign” and I should like to stress that this hon House in fact accepted the retention of those words.

I should like to motivate my concern by stating that I have information and I am not sure whether or not that is of relevance to the select committee. I should like to present this as an argument and perhaps if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council could advise me on whether that is relevant or not I would be indebted to him. I am aware that during the election campaign large sums of money were given to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. These were substantial amounts of money but these moneys were deposited into the banking account of the NPP by way of cash. Now, I am not sure whether people gave cash or whether a cheque was given to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, which he cashed and then gave to the official concerned as an amount of cash to be deposited into the account of the NPP.

Order! Will the hon member for Moorcross please resume his seat?

I should like to advise the hon member for Springfield that what he is trying to convey now is a matter which the select committee will have to determine. I believe that it correctly belongs in the sphere of the select committee and its scope of activities. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, with great respect I should merely like to say to you that if this House were now to remove the words “during the election campaign” then it may well be that what this House could decide concerning the two issues that I raised may well be irrelevant to that select committee. What I have to say concerns what happened during the election campaign.

The election campaign took place immediately after there was a vacancy, and expired when the successful candidate Mr A G Hurbans—the hon member for Tongaat—was elected. During that period …

Mr Chairman, with due respect to the Chair may I apply for the recusal of the hon member Mr Thaver from this House?

Order! I should like to remind the hon member for Phoenix that the hon member Mr Thaver is an hon member of this House and I see no reason why he should recuse himself.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the application. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, support for my contention that the words “during the election campaign” should remain as part of the notice of motion that was originally moved by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and should in fact be the terms of reference of the select committee that has been appointed lies in the fact that—as I have already indicated—substantial amounts of money were deposited into the account of the NPP during the election campaign. Thus, for example, on 19 November 1987, at the height of the election campaign, an amount of R11 500 in cash was deposited. Also, on 24 September 1987 an amount of R5 000 in cash was deposited. I raise this matter because if one now were to remove those particular terms of reference, one would be confining the work of that select committee merely to inquiring into and reporting on the correctness or otherwise of an allegation that was made by the hon member for Stanger, but which only takes into account one particular cheque given by one particular building contractor in Tongaat.

I believe that if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has nothing to hide—I believe he has nothing to hide—he should have no problem with having a full investigation into what happened during the election campaign in Tongaat.

You are just twisting the whole issue.

I am not twisting the issue. If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not afraid of the truth—I am not saying he is …

If the hon member could prove to me that the hon member for Stanger stated “election campaign” on 23 February, I will withdraw this motion. [Interjections.]

In reply to that statement, I believe the hon member for Stanger has already answered by way of interjection that he has no problem with being fully investigated.

Why do you not stick to the point? What is your point?

My point is simply: Why is anyone—if indeed he is—afraid to allow that select committee to operate under the terms of reference this particular House agreed to unanimously? Not one whit of evidence has been brought before the House this afternoon to justify the curtailment of the terms of reference of that select committee. All that I perceive is a desire on the part of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to restrict the functioning of that committee. I ask myself a very reasonable question, and that question is: “Why?” Against the background of the information I have—I feel that perhaps it may be unreasonable—my perception is that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has something to hide. If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has nothing to hide …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to request the protection of the Chair. I have nothing to hide. I moved this motion and there is a mistake. We misquoted the hon member for Stanger and we are rectifying the misquotation.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, as mover of this motion, will be able to reply at the end. The hon member for Springfield may proceed.

I did not say the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had anything to hide. What I said was that my perception was that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had something to hide. As the mover of the motion he should have come to this House and indicated to us that he wanted a full and open inquiry.

A moment ago we heard him say that the only reason why the amendment is being moved is that someone has now realised that a mistake has been made.

Now, I say, with great respect, that that was no Freudian slip of the tongue on the part of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a few moments ago. Somebody has realised that a mistake has been made, and that is why we want the functioning of that committee to be narrowed. This is why we want to restrict the terms of reference of that particular committee.

You did not answer my question.

The question that also arises, is this: At what point was there the revelation that a mistake had been made? It was more than 10 days after this House had unanimously accepted the motion by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that a select committee be appointed. It is not surprising that after the hon member for Stanger gave evidence to that select committee, somebody realised that a mistake had been made. It took the evidence of the hon member for Stanger to make people realise that a mistake had been made. This is why I say that that was no Freudian slip.

I wish to place on record—I believe I speak on behalf of all hon members on this side of the House—that I strongly object to the amendment that has now been moved by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I trust that he is not going to bulldoze this debate by merely forcing a division. I should like to appeal to all the other hon members of that party to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council belongs. I want to say to them that this is an opportunity for each one of them to demonstrate to the outside world that they are not party to the manipulation of any one individual. Here is an opportunity for them to show to the outside world that they think for themselves.

Who manipulates at night?

This is an opportunity for the hon members of the NPP who sit in this House to say: “We have nothing to fear. Investigate what happened in Tongaat.” If they fail to support my contention I believe that will be a blot on their integrity as well.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the original motion, and I think it should be retained.

Even though it is incorrect?

The hon member will hear that it is correct.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council moved that a select committee on the question of privilege be appointed to inquire into and report upon the correctness or otherwise of allegations made by the hon member for Stanger on 23 February in a speech in the House of Delegates, to the effect that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council received a cheque from a building contractor during the election campaign in Tongaat, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and that Mr M Thaver be appointed chairman.

That was what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council moved. I am now going to prove that this whole motion was based on what happened prior to that motion. The hon member for Stanger said in his speech on 23 February:

When that hon member moved that Solidarity resign from Parliament, he said—and we can check this—“We won all the elections”.

We are now talking about elections, because one came after the other.

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

Mr Chairman, I will take this question later and I would like the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to listen. [Interjection.] This arose from that and then … [Interjection.]

Order! Does the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council have a point of order?

Mr Chairman, I would just like to make this one point. [Interjections.] I would like to make an application to the Chair, but I would like to substantiate it.

On what grounds? In terms of what are you now speaking? [Interjections.]

I asked a question … [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has a point of order, will he tell us what it is?

Mr Chairman, my point of order is that it makes no material difference to us whether the investigation into the election in Tongaat… [Interjections.] In the light of the investigations … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want to withdraw the motion. Please give me a chance to do so.

Order! Hon members must please not interject while the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is speaking.

Mr Chairman, I believe in truth and I believe that since we moved the appointment of the select committee—in Tongaat there was an election and whether the hon member for Stanger said “election” or not, that hon member may probably have referred to it—we want a full investigation into this matter. I withdraw the motion. [Interjections.]

Motion, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.