House of Assembly: Vol2 - WEDNESDAY 23 MARCH 1988

WEDNESDAY, 23 MARCH 1988 PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Prayers—15h30. APOLOGY BY MEMBER (Announcement) Mr SPEAKER:

Order! I wish to inform the House that, with reference to the Report of the Select Committee on a Question of Privilege (House of Assembly), which was adopted by the House on 17 March 1988, the hon member for Sandton (Mr D J Dalling) has presented his apologies to me in accordance with paragraph 7 of the said Report.

REPORTS OF STANDING SELECT COMMITTEE

The MINISTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING, as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dated 17 March 1988, as follows:

The Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs having considered the subject of the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill [B 2B—88 (GA)], referred to it, your Committee begs to report the Bill with amendments [B 2C—88 (GA)].
Your Committee further wishes to report that the Standing Committee was unable to reach consensus on Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Your Committee, however, is of the opinion that these Clauses should be proceeded with, and it recommends accordingly.

Bill to be read a second time.

The MINISTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING, as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dated 17 March 1988, as follows:

The Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs having considered the subject of the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill [B 1—88 (GA)], referred to it, your Committee begs to report the Bill with amendments [B 1A—88 (GA)].

Bill to be read a second time.

APPROPRIATION BILL (HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY) (Second Reading resumed) *Dr F HARTZENBERG:

Mr Speaker, I move as an amendment:

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “the House declines to pass the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill (House of Assembly) because of—
  1. (1) the continued reduction of the Estimates of the Administration: House of Assembly as a percentage of the Main Estimates;
  2. (2) the failure by the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply sensibly to apply the funds provided in the previous year for agriculture and his inability to spell out how he is going to apply the funds provided in the current Estimates; and
  3. (3) the Government’s insensitivity to the need of White social pensioners.”.

Mr Speaker, the appropriated expenditure in the Main Budget has increased by 12,9% in comparison with that of last year. In contrast the amount appropriated in the Main Budget for the Administration: House of Assembly has decreased by 1,75%, whereas the amount appropriated for the Administration: House of Representatives and that appropriated for the Administration: House of Delegates has increased by 17,4% and 14% respectively. This means that in real terms last year’s appropriation for the Administration: House of Assembly has decreased by almost 17% to date.

This is not the first time this trend has been experienced; it is a trend that has emerged during the past few years and is being continued in this Budget, because in the 1986-87 Main Budget the appropriation for own affairs under the Administration: House of Assembly was 12% of the Main Budget. In 1987-88 that amount decreased to 10,74%, and this year it is 9,97%. If the Ministers’ Council continues in this way, this percentage will amount to zero in nine years’ time.

When we look at the Estimate of Revenue of the Administration: House of Assembly for this year, we see it is 4,2% less than it was last year. It is true that the hon the Minister of Finance has curbed Government expenditure, and the growth is lower than it was in the past. It is also true that his expenditure still exceeds his revenue, and consequently he has to finance current expenditure from loans.

It is also true that in the past the hon the Minister of Finance had a choice in that he could curb Government expenditure, but this year he no longer has a choice; he has to curb expenditure, because the Government finances are simply in such a state that he could do nothing else.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

That is a stupid statement.

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

That is simply the case. He cannot do anything else, and that is why he had to decide where he would apply restrictions.

There are four obvious spheres in which he could apply restrictions. The first was the Administration: House of Assembly, and he placed a restriction there. The second was the public servants. He placed a restriction there too. The third was agriculture. He placed a restriction there too. The fourth obvious sphere was that of the social pensioner, and he placed a restriction there as well.

The fact is that as far as the rest is concerned, the excessive expenditure of unproductive social programmes is continuing as if nothing had happened. It is simply continuing, and that is most definitely the result of the Government’s reform policy, because it is the Government’s reform policy that is responsible for the redistribution of income. It is the Government’s reform policy which is responsible for the inflation we are experiencing. It is the Government’s reform policy which is responsible for the fact that economic growth in South Africa is being inhibited. It is also the Government’s reform policy which is leading to a lowering in the standards of Whites.

There is no doubt that the spheres in which the hon the Minister has effected cuts are those of the Whites. It cannot be denied that it is the Whites who have to pay the price for the Government’s reform policy. The fact that the Administration: House of Assembly’s budget has been cut to such an extent is irrefutable proof that this is the result of the Government’s reform policy.

The hon the Minister of Budget has informed us that the hon the Minister of Finance will submit legislation later this year in which the much lauded formula, in terms of which the appropriation for the various administrations will be done, will be determined.

It is very clear—in fact it is obvious—that the Administration: House of Assembly’s share in the budget has dropped during the past few years. I do not think one is wrong in saying that it looks as though the Government is aiming at a ratio of 4:2:1, because at present that ratio is 5:2:1, whereas in the past it was 6:2:1. The fact is that White standards will drop further in the process.

I do not think one needs a prophet to see that the greatest drop in the standards of Whites will take place as soon as the Government brings Blacks into this political dispensation.

All that is necessary is to study the hon the Minister of Finance’s Budget to see where his priorities lie and what is going to happen in future. The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare says the formula that is going to be submitted will lead to greater independence for the Administration: House of Assembly. I want to tell the hon the Minister that that is simply not true, because the powers of decision-making are going to remain unchanged. If the power to take decisions is going to remain unchanged, how can it lead to greater independence? The only thing it might lead to is greater certainty since the hon the Minister will be sure that he is going to get less every year, but it is not going to lead to greater independence. If this Administration: House of Assembly were independent, it should have had its own sources of revenue on which this House of Assembly could have taken decisions. It does not, however—nor will it have this once the formula has been implemented. In the past I have told the hon the Minister and his predecessors that they did not even have the authority to levy dog-taxes, and I now ask him whether he will have the authority, once the formula has been implemented, to levy dog-taxes. [Interjections.]

*Mr SPEAKER:

Order!

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

They then use the argument that in saying that, we are saying that more taxes should be levied in South Africa. That is not true. We do not advocate the levying of more taxes. What we advocate is that the taxation authority with which the hon the Minister of Finance has been entrusted and which is a general affair should in reality become an own affair. We are not advocating more taxes, therefore, but rather that there should be greater authority and greater independence in respect of own affairs and that some of the powers with which that hon Minister has been entrusted should be vested here. We shall reach an ideal situation in South Africa when the White House is entrusted with all the Whites’ powers of taxation, and those of the other peoples are entrusted to their own Houses. Then there will be true independence, and that is exactly what the CP advocates.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said that they were going to define own affairs better and were going to extend own affairs. I want to know what has happened in that respect so far. What has become of that extension? The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare says it is a long and laborious process to extend own affairs. We had complete own affairs, however. It was not a long and laborious process to break it down to nothing. Yet he says it is a long process to build it up and make something of own affairs again. I ask them what has become of the better definition. What has become of the extension? After the results of the by-elections in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton we read in the newspapers that they had had a think-tank. I now ask the hon the Minister whether we shall have an announcement in this connection once the results of the Randfontein by-election are known. We hope so.

We in the CP say that the Whites’ self-determination has been taken from them by that party. This is illustrated by the fact that we no longer have any authority over expenditure. We no longer have any authority over taxation and we are no longer sovereign at all. This has been effected by that Government. That is not all that Government has done, however. It cannot be denied that the Government’s constitutional policy is leading to a drop in the Whites’ standard of living. [Interjections.]

*Mr SPEAKER:

Order!

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

The Government’s policy is undeniably leading to the axing of the productive sectors of South Africa. The axe is not being wielded where they were advised to wield it. It is being wielded in the wrong areas. After the recent by-elections they were advised by Beeld that the axe should be wielded in the area of the top-heavy top structure that consists of Ministers, ministerial representatives and all kinds of other designations we did not have in the past. The advice given was that the axe or even the panga should be wielded there. Nothing has come of that, however. Instead the axe is being wielded among the productive sectors, where the Whites are.

There is not the shadow of a doubt that this Government has no more sympathy as far as agriculture is concerned. It looks as though this Government has decided to say goodbye to agriculture. The Government has withdrawn itself completely from agriculture. [Interjections.] In this Budget of the Administration: House of Assembly, as well as the Main Budget, the total appropriation for agriculture is 2% of the total Budget, even though we are experiencing a period in world history in which all the developed countries are taking excessive measures to stimulate agriculture. The rest of the world is complaining that they cannot compete with the highly developed countries, because those countries are stimulating agriculture because of certain problems that exist in agriculture world-wide today. Precisely the same principle is evident in this Budget.

There is a drastic decrease in the consolidation of debt. The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare says this is the result of the R400 million that was appropriated but not spent last year, and the fact that nothing has been voted for the improvement of conditions of service. This reminds me of a child who tells his father that he will pass if they forget about all the questions he answered incorrectly. The hon the Minister says we must ignore the things that cause problems and concentrate on the others, because then things will look brighter and we shall have made a success of things.

The fact is that R400 million was appropriated last year and that hon Minister could not utilise even a fraction of that amount. He utilised R13 million for purposes other than those for which the money was appropriated and only R17 million for the purpose for which it was appropriated. I say today that the hon the Minister designed that system to fail. [Interjections.] The most important cause of the failure of that R400 million scheme was that the hon the Minister did not make administrative provision for those applications to be dealt with. It is true that few applications were received, but even those few applicants had to wait for up to two months, at one stage last year, to get an appointment with the Agricultural Credit Board. They simply could not cope with the limited number of applications they received, and at the rate at which they did finalise matters, it would have taken them 50 years to process that R400 million.

The system was therefore designed by the Government to fail, and I am convinced that it was intended as a propaganda ploy. They offered R400 million, but never intended to spend it. [Interjections.] That Minister knows …

*Mr SPEAKER:

Order! Hon members must refer to other hon members as the hon the Minister or the hon member.

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

Very well, Mr Speaker. Surely the hon the Minister knows that he is automatically getting less this year because he did not have the machinery to spend the money and utilise it correctly.

I want the hon the Minister to tell me how much of the R17 million will really be spent before the end of this financial year. I think that only half or even less of this amount will be spent. The hon the Minister said the reason the money was not spent was that the farmers had not applied. In fact, more farmers went bankrupt than were helped. More farmers who applied for assistance went bankrupt than those that were assisted, but the hon the Minister’s system could not process applications. If a man did not receive assistance, he was ultimately ruined.

The hon the Minister and his colleagues constantly tell us in the CP that we must keep politics out of agriculture. Competent young people who serve on the agricultural credit committees that exist in the districts of South Africa and who have no intention of resigning simply receive letters thanking them for their services. Someone else is appointed in their place and if one goes into the matter, one finds that the person who received this kind of letter is a CP member, whereas the person appointed in his place is an NP member. [Interjections.] I want the hon the Minister to tell me how many MPs of the Official Opposition he consulted in appointing members to agricultural credit committees.

*An HON MEMBER:

Cry your heart out.

*DR F HARTZENBERG:

No, we are not crying. We are not afraid of the NP. We are merely showing them what they look like.

I want to ask him how many Official Opposition MPs he consulted when appointing members to the agricultural credit committees. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we know that he does this solely on a political basis. [Interjections.] In my constituency the chairman of the NP branch approached people and asked them whether they would be prepared to serve on the agricultural committees.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that he has two choices: Either he must cut the MPs out of this process completely and react to the recommendations of the agricultural union, or he must consult all MPs to get their advice. What he is doing now, however, cannot be condoned or approved of in any circumstances. [Interjections.]

*Mr J W MAREE:

Mr Speaker, I should like to refer to two monuments in my speech. When I look at the hon member for Lichtenburg and listen to what he says, I think about the monument to him in my constituency. Land was expropriated in the Upper-Tugela area, quite high up against the mountain, to make room for the Woodstock Dam. There is an overpopulation of Blacks in that area, which is a very sensitive area for ecological reasons. There is an Amasizi tribe which consists of 13 000 Blacks and an Amangwane tribe which consists of 55 000 Blacks. At the time it was very important for these people to be moved for consolidation purposes as well as for ecological reasons, because there are dongas as large as this Chamber, and because towards the bottom the whole dam structure is being polluted.

The hon member, a Deputy Minister at the time, was instructed to solve the problem. He came to our district and considered the problem, and it was an extensive problem because 68 000 people had to be moved. The churchmen were opposed to the removal. Farmers who had to give up land which had been identified at Moorleigh did not want to sell. This Deputy Minister simply gave up and said these people could not be moved. [Interjections.] That is the example and monument to the hon member for Lichtenburg.

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

What you are saying is not true! Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member?

*Mr J W MAREE:

No, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to another monument. When one walks past the station in Florence in Italy, one sees a large obelisk there which rests on four tortoises. [Interjections.] These four tortoises face four different directions, and to me that is symbolic of the CP and its policy.

The hon member for Lichtenburg spoke about sacrifices which have to be made in terms of our own affairs system. It is well-known that if the CP’s policy were to be implemented, the Whites would have to make much greater sacrifices. There is no doubt about that! It is something that cannot be disputed. I must say I am talking loosely about the CP policy, because I do not understand the CP’s policy, and it is not spelt out to one. Let me be specific and say why I say that.

*Mr D S PIENAAR:

It is not your privilege to understand it!

*Mr J W MAREE:

Under partition we understand the concept of a multiracial community or area which is cut up into different areas so that homogeneous communities, including a homogeneous White area, can be established. That is not the CP’s policy. They simply talk about majority occupation by Whites. The CP’s policy of partition is nothing but a mixed state, a mixed state with the hope that one will have a population consisting of 51% Whites and 49% people of colour.

What do they mean when they talk about a solution to the multiracial issues of the country, because they are still creating a multiracial population? Naturally there are hon members on that side, who are lawyers, who think a little further and understand that this large area, the whole of South Africa as we know it, cannot serve as a kick-off point for a White area.

The hon members for Ermelo and Bethal were co-writers of a book entitled Witman, waar is jou tuisland? When one compares this book with the CP’s policy, one sees that they are not reconcilable at all. They are so contradictory that I am amazed that lawyers such as those two hon members can defend the policy of the CP after having written this book. I want to point out specifically why I say that. A small Afrikaner resort is the only accepted solution in the book. In the policy document this area is accepted as being the larger RSA. When the esteemed writers of the book, the hon members over there on the opposite side, talk about franchise, they make the following specific statement:

Daar waar ’n man bly, daar wil hy regte hê. Hy wil stem. Elke mens wil graag ’n sê hê in die plek waar hy bly: oor die skool van sy kind, oor die regering wat oor horn moet regeer. Ons het verkies om ’n leuen te g;o.

That was according to the writers who are sitting over there. What was the lie? I quote:

Die Swartes wat hulle in Blank Suid-Afrika vestig, het nie regte nie en sal dit ook nie kry nie.

According to them, that is the lie that has been proclaimed. That is exactly what that party is still proclaiming. [Interjections.] According to CP policy, Blacks will not get political rights here. In a moment of sobriety they say in this little book that that is a lie; it is an impossible situation. We cannot deny the permanence of the Blacks. We cannot escape their getting political rights of some or other kind.

What do those hon members, who have made this acknowledgment—we agree with them—say from the platform? In paragraph 2.1.2 of the CP’s policy document they promise the people the following:

The party will at all times actively promote White majority occupation in the RSA.

[Interjections.] That is the big tortoise I was talking about; the big area, not the small area or the beetle. We shall never be able to make progress with these contradictions unless there is some or other definition.

The CP also proclaims the linkage policy. It is an inherent part of their formal policy documents. What do those writers say about the linkage policy however? I quote:

Aanvanklik het die Swartes slegs verblyfregte in Blank Suid-Afrika verkry. Hulle politieke regte moes hulle in die tuislande uitoefen, het ’n foefiespreuk van die politici gelui.

The writers say the linkage policy is a ploy. In their book they reject the linkage idea with contempt. In fact, they say it stinks. When they are on their political platform, however, they say that they believe in the linkage idea and are going to use it. [Interjections.]

How can one juggle politically in that way with what one believes on the one hand and what one has to say on the other? I cannot understand that, and it passes my understanding completely when it comes from senior lawyers.

Let us make a further analysis of the situation. In the book about the smaller tortoise the writers say it is a fiction that we have a White area. Then they ask whether the whole of South Africa is not grey. Therefore they accept that South Africa is grey. Then they say:

’n Wit tuisland is ’n ideaal wat die hoogste prioriteit verdien omdat dit die enigste waarborg is vir die permanente voortbestaan van ’n vrye en onafhanklike Blanke volk in Suidelike Afrika.

They relinquish the larger whole completely. They say it is grey. The only thing that has any right to exist is the small area, the beetle; not the balloon, but the pea. That is not what I say; that is the standpoint of the writers, the hon members of the CP.

What do they say from their platforms, however? Have hon members heard any member of the CP addressing the public and telling them the sacrifice they will have to make as Whites will be to move to a small, small White homeland? Of course not, because they may not and cannot do that, because then all the people who are excluded from the White homeland area would have to vote against the policy. Why this double-talk? Why do they not say what they want to and what they believe in? One cannot believe in one thing while proclaiming another. I take strong exception to the hon members of the Official Opposition who display that attitude.

Let us talk about another aspect, about delimitation. In the book written by those gentlemen they say:

Die afgrensing van ’n Wit tuisland moet geskied binne die grense van die huidige RSA

Prof Hercules Booysen said:

Dit moet egter nie groter wees as wat die Afrikaners en ander Blankes self kan behartig nie; anders word vreemde arbeid weer aangelok en kom ’n veelrassige staat weer eens tot stand, met al die nadele daaraan verbonde.

Have either of these writers, or CP members who hold this other view, proclaimed this, or are they keeping quiet about it in order to attract votes on the wrong basis and come into power by misleading voters?

I want to say a few words about consolidation. The CP’s policy is that they will consolidate at least 3 to 4 million Blacks into the present Black homelands. That is the standpoint we have heard from them repeatedly, and it was also expressed on TV by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I want to read to hon members what the CP writers of this little book wrote. They referred to this delimited section which is to be the nucleus or the heartland of the area, and said:

Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat so ’n benadering lynreg verskil van die huidige benadering ten opsigte van Swart tuislande, waar Blanke grond gekoop en onteien word ter wille van tuislandkonsolidasie.

The writers say one should ignore homeland consolidation; one must reject it, because all it means is an addition to homelands. One must not consolidate outwardly, but should inwardly create a White state.

That is not what they say or how they argue things in this House; that is not their approach. The double-talk is not justifiable politically, ethically or otherwise. It is dishonest.

What do speakers on that side say when they rise in this House and are confronted with this lack of clarity, the four tortoises facing in different directions? They constantly evade this question about boundaries and about what their principles and policy entail. I want to read to hon members what the hon member for Pietersburg said in this House on 29 July 1987:

The boundaries between states are drawn by history, but—and this is important—they will never be drawn if the principle of the matter is not accepted now.

What principle was the hon member for Pietersburg talking about?

*Dr W J SNYMAN:

The principle of own countries.

*Mr J W MAREE:

Surely the principle of own countries is their policy; it is not a principle that still has to be cleared—it is already a policy and a principle—but they must tell us what the crux of the principle is. Are they thinking about the big tortoise or about the beetle? That is the crux, and that is what they must spell out to us; otherwise it will lead to confusion. An enormous number of people can be misled if one is vague, if one does not define one’s statement. [Interjections.] Surely that is not how one conducts politics.

This is the approach adopted by every speaker on that side when they have to reply to such questions. On 11 February the hon member for Ermelo said the following:

It is a question that crops up here time and time again, and has to do with where the boundaries are.

That, of course, is the crucial question. In addition the hon member for Ermelo said:

Surely one has to make a decision based on principle, acknowledging that the solution to ethnic problems can be found along this road.

We on this side know that the CP stands for partition which does not correspond to a definition. We want to know from the CP, however, whether they stand for a small nucleus area or for the larger RSA. They must not try to fool us by the ploy of saying the principle still has to be determined. They must define the principle for us. They must come and tell us what their party wants to do with South Africa.

The position is simply that the country cannot physically be divided up any further, and that the CP has no policy. The position is simply that if one cannot divide up the country, the only just solution to the problem is the approach that the political structures must be divided among the various people. There is no other plan.

That is why the own affairs concept is of the greatest importance to us. It may require certain sacrifices, but these sacrifices are nothing in comparison with the sacrifices that would have to be made if we had to go to a White homeland.

This is not what I say. The sacrifices that would have to be made if we were to create a White homeland are set out very clearly by the writers of this book. When, therefore, the hon member for Lichtenburg stands up here and criticises this Budget because of the so-called “sacrifices”, I merely want to tell him that these sacrifices are simply not comparable with the sacrifices required by his policy.

Mr H H SCHWARZ:

Mr Speaker, it is rather ironic that the subject which the hon member for Klip River chose related to Blacks who are neither represented in this House nor the subject matter of this Budget. I hope you will not call me to order, Sir, if I move an amendment that relates to the Appropriation Bill (House of Assembly) because that is what I want to do. I hope I am in the right debate because for the past 20 minutes I had the impression that I was actually in a different debate. I should like to move as a further amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “the House declines to pass the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill (House of Assembly) unless and until the Ministers’ Council undertakes—
  1. (1) to improve the lot of the aged, particularly the pensioners;
  2. (2) to deal with the deteriorating situation in hospital services;
  3. (3) to deal with the unsatisfactory position developing in the education system; and
  4. (4) to recommend to the Government that the unsatisfactory nature of the constitutional position relating to the division between general and own affairs be reviewed immediately.”.

It has in my opinion been the tradition, in this House at least, that at the beginning of the debate, before we turn to politics, we deal with the appropriation itself. Before I do that specifically, Sir, I do not think it would be out of place to congratulate the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare upon what I regard as his promotion to another, I think, quite adventurous position. I should also like to thank him for the courtesy he has always shown not only to me, but to all hon members of the House, while handling the portfolio he has held until now. We are appreciative of the manner in which he has conducted himself and we wish him well in this challenging portfolio which now lies ahead of him. [Interjections.]

I also want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr K D S Durr) on his promotion to take over this particular job. We look forward to having him in that position. I think he may find it somewhat frustrating—if I may use that term—having to deal with a very narrow own affairs budget instead of with the finance of the country as a whole. However, I am sure that he will be able to deal with it.

Similarly, I should like to congratulate the present hon Deputy Minister of Development Planning who is also joining the Ministers’ Council here. We look forward to debating with him in this House. So, Sir, we will have quite a different crowd—if I may use that term—to deal with in the next debate on this subject.

What I have found fascinating in the debate—I am for the moment ignoring the hon member for Klip River—is the approach of the CP to the whole issue that lies before us. That is where, in my opinion, fundamental differences arise which we need to debate. The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare spoke about the formulas and, to use his words, “die strewe na pariteit binne die bekostigbare vermoë van die Staat”. That is where the fundamental difference in this House really lies. As far as we are concerned, we do not look at what our neighbour is getting with envy; on the contrary, we want him to be content because in his contentment lies our security. That is why we have no complaint with regard to the movement towards parity; on the contrary, we have asked for it. However, we regard the pace as being too slow. That is the fundamental issue with which we have to deal.

If we are going to have a situation in South Africa—this was suggested by the hon member for Lichtenburg—in which the various Houses tax their own people and use the money they get from their own people in order to serve purely their own people, South Africa is headed for unbelievable disaster. There will then be no prospect of peaceful change in South Africa because the only way in which one will get peaceful change is if one can apply resources in order to remove discrimination in the economy as well as in politics.

Until the CP realizes that, they cannot be allowed to be in charge of the government of this country at any time, because they constitute a real danger of revolution in South Africa. That is the truth of the situation and that is what we really have to debate in this House.

Dr F HARTZENBERG:

There is no revolution in Swaziland.

Mr H H SCHWARZ:

What about Swaziland?

Dr F HARTZENBERG:

It is on its own.

Mr H H SCHWARZ:

It is on its own, sure, but South Africa is also on its own. However, South Africa has White people, Black people, Coloured people and Indian people and they are all South Africans, whether the CP likes it or not. That is the reality. In Swaziland there are also White, Black and Coloured Swazis, and the Swazis like it that way. So, with great respect, to compare us to that situation and to say that that is what should happen, is living in a fool’s paradise. The problem is that this is a dangerous fool’s paradise; it is a danger to all of us in South Africa to have that kind of thing propagated.

The issues which I have always raised with the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare and which I hope will not be inherited by his successor relate firstly to the formula. It would be a real miracle if we actually knew the formula before the hon the Minister leaves this portfolio. We may be told there is a formula and we may be told all sorts of things, but it will be a miracle if we are actually told the formula. So, I appeal to the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare not to lumber the new incumbent of that job with having to deal with this problem when he takes over. The hon the Minister should tell us the formula and tell us what it is all about.

Mr D J N MALCOMESS:

Will the hon the Minister tell his successor the formula? [Interjections.]

Mr H H SCHWARZ:

Yes, I am coming to that. Secondly, there is the question of priority. I want the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare, before he leaves this post, to tell us what the priorities for expenditure are in the own affairs Budget of the House of Assembly, because there is some difficulty in ascertaining from this Budget what his real priorities are and what he puts first or regards as important. Let me give hon members an example to which I will return later, namely the question of having frozen posts in respect of hospital services and not having frozen posts in regard to education. Is the hon the Minister therefore saying that education has a higher priority than health? We need to have an answer as to what the policy of this Government is.

The third thing the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr K D S Durr) just cannot wait for is the five-year plan, because if the Government is alleged to have a five-year plan for expenditure in respect of general affairs, we want to know what the plan is in respect of the own affairs of the House of Assembly—if there is one. I would like to have an answer to that.

Then comes the question—I referred to this earlier—of parity in respect of services which are to be provided. We have debated the question repeatedly. The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare and I are agreed that it may be necessary—I think it will be necessary—to make sacrifices in order to ensure parity. However, is there actually a plan to achieve parity in services within a reasonable time in order to fulfil the expectations of the people of South Africa? That timetable becomes important in relation to our future, because the stability of the country depends on that time table. One has to keep pace with expectations on the one hand and the ability to fulfil them on the other hand. Therefore, that timetable becomes crucial in regard to what we need to do to achieve parity in South Africa.

I want now to spend a moment on a question which, I think, is very close to the hearts of my colleagues and myself, and that is the question of social pensions and what has happened this year. I find this a most disturbing feature. The reality is that they did not get a monthly increase this year for the first time in many a year. Instead, they have a bonus of R60 to come in October. I must tell hon members that this is treating the aged of South Africa in a way they do not deserve. They do not deserve it. They are suffering because of inflation and high food prices. Despite what has happened to the general index, the food index is still at well over 17% and we offer them this scurvy amount in order to satisfy their requirements. These are people who have served South Africa and who now need our assistance.

I find it a little sickening that the Government is in a hurry to announce increases—even when they are not yet due to be announced—when it comes to election time. However, in the year after the election they are not only not announced; they do not even appear in the proper and adequate form. If I were a pensioner—unlike so many politicians think—I would wish there was an election every year because that would be one way of getting my increase with regard to my social pension.

I ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare and I ask the hon the Minister whose responsibility in own affairs this is, whether they are proud to face South Africa with what they have done in respect of the pensioners in this particular Budget.

The second matter I want to raise is the question of hospital and health affairs. I find it very disturbing that a crisis is developing in South Africa’s nursing and medical sphere at all levels not only in own affairs but in general affairs too. There is a tremendous problem developing. In the face of that problem I find a situation where the hon the Minister in charge of this matter allows the following situation to develop. On 30 November 1987 the expansion of staff strength and posts ceases, and the exemptions which are granted in this respect are in respect of education, in respect of protection services and in respect of certain justice posts, but not in respect of matters relating to health, where there is a dire problem.

One finds now that because of this situation combined with the fact that there is talk about the privatisation of hospitals, nurses who are dedicated people and staying in the hospitals because they believe in rendering a service to the community are asking themselves whether they should not take a job in a private hospital seeing that hospitals are going to be privatised in any case. They are asking themselves why they do not do so now so as to get better service and working conditions as well as better salaries.

I want to appeal for something to be done urgently in order to safeguard the situation in respect of South African health services, a situation which is rapidly deteriorating and which will become a problem if it is not dealt with urgently and right away so that there is no question of a further deterioration.

When one looks at education, one sees an increase in expenditure in nominal terms, but not in real terms. My colleagues will deal with this aspect to a considerable extent later in this debate. However, the reality is that education and culture have gone down in real terms insofar as expenditure is concerned.

We also need some answers on what the situation is in regard to the provision of housing and the need for it, because there are surpluses in some areas and great shortages in others, and what is being done to provide for the backlog in the housing needs for the accommodation of the aged, particularly where there is a considerable demand.

In the final analysis, the question which arises here is, of course, the whole issue of general and own affairs. Nothing has illustrated the attitude that we take on this matter to be correct better than the recent floods which have ravaged this country. What has taken place in those floods is that everybody has helped everybody else. There has been nobody who has turned away anyone willing to help because he was of a different race group, neither has there been anyone who has refused to help somebody else of another race group.

The reality is that the people who are in the own affairs administration—the hon the Minister referred to them—have done a first class job.

The people in the general affairs administration also did a first-class job. What really counted, Sir, was the fact that they were all South Africans and they were all people who were prepared to assist each other in time of need.

One thing gives me hope for South Africa. That is that when we do have disasters such as this all our people rise to the occasion. They forget about colour. They forget about politics. They forget their arguments. They simply help each other. That is the reality. We are all South Africans and we should all be treated as such in the field of government and in the economic system that is applied in the country. That is the way in which South Africa will continue on the right road into the future.

Mrs S M CAMERER:

Mr Speaker, I will not venture to respond to the hon member for Yeoville. I will leave that to a greater financial fundi than I am. I should like, however, to concentrate on a particular aspect of the own affairs Budget, viz the question of inflation, which was referred to by the hon member for Yeoville. I also want to address myself to what the Government is doing in order to combat inflation.

The own affairs Budget of the House of Assembly is very much a bread-and-butter budget. It is a budget which intimately affects our constituents’ lives—our own backyards as it were. This Budget cares for the less privileged in our constituencies, our own people who require subsidised housing, local government services, welfare services, and pensions of course. There is no doubt that inflation is the scourge of our pensioners and of all those who have to depend on fixed incomes. In one way or another it is indeed the scourge of the pockets of all our constituents.

When the hon the State President announced his economic reform policies in his opening address to Parliament he reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to combating inflation, and so did the hon the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech last Wednesday. Both the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Finance deserve our support in the fight against inflation. Not only does a high rate of inflation seriously impair our country’s goals of economic growth and job creation, with the resultant negative effect on social and ultimately political stability, it also gives our country a bad name in the international financial world. When the international banking community assesses the creditworthiness of a country it is the rate of inflation which is the most important factor that is taken into account. First comes political stability, but second comes the rate of inflation.

The inflation rate is seen by the world’s bankers as a yardstick of a government’s ability to manage its own affairs and of its political will. The fact that we have brought the inflation rate down in the two years from January 1986 to January this year from 20% to some 14%, has made an impression abroad. This inflation rate must, however, come down even further if we are going to be able to preserve the quality of life of the man in the street. It is heartening to note that last month the inflation rate came down again—this time to 13,7%.

The problem about inflation is that there are no simple solutions. The classic trilogy of methods to combat inflation are monetary discipline, fiscal discipline and an effective competition policy.

During the past year or so we have seen a policy of monetary discipline help to bring the inflation rate down. The hon the State President has now announced the execution of a policy of fiscal discipline which, in layman’s language, means the reigning in of Government expenditure and the rolling back of Government itself. The first step in the direction of executing this policy is the wage and salary restraint in the public sector, put into operation by the hon the State President, together with his appeal to the private sector to follow suit. Coupled with this is the longer-term leg of the policy, viz the privatisation of Government and parastatal undertakings such as Eskom, Foscor, the SATS and the Post Office. In the long term this will result in reduced government, and accordingly, less Government expenditure. I should therefore like to wish the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare the best of luck in his new endeavours. I hope he succeeds well.

The CP, however, has fought both these moves. It is white-anting the efforts of the hon the State President to negotiate with the unions on wage and salary restraints, and it has kept up a constant barrage against privatisation in the columns of the Patriot, to which the hon member for Yeoville has referred in the past in this House. I say, therefore, that while in the past the PFP has been accused of being soft on security, the CP is certainly soft on inflation. It does not support wage restraints and does not support less government. It wants the Government to hold onto assets that should be sold off in the interests of a healthier economy. If the CP were running this country we would find ourselves with an inflation rate such as they have in South American countries.

*Mr SPEAKER:

Order! Hon members must really give the hon member an opportunity to make her speech and must not converse so loudly. The hon member may proceed.

Mrs S M CAMERER:

Thank you, Sir. I was just saying that if the CP ever had the opportunity of establishing a White homeland it would become the original banana republic. The very people that the CP claim to champion will be the ones to suffer.

A retreat from Government intervention in the economy has been the secret of success of Margaret Thatcher’s Britain. In the course of selling off nationalised and Government assets the British inflation rate has been brought down dramatically from 21% in 1980—the year after Maggie Thatcher became Prime Minister—to below 4% this year. The pound at R4 to the pound has never been stronger internationally and, in the course of privatising, Mrs Thatcher has changed the British from a nation of shopkeepers to a nation of shareholders. The CP says that if we privatise undertakings like Eskom it will simply be a matter of transferring assets from the State to the Hoggenheimers like Anglo American. However, the facts show that they are wrong. In the biggest privatising exercise so far Sasol I was privatised in 1979. As a result, there are now over 26 000 shareholders in Sasol Ltd. Even if one takes the number of large companies at a maximum of 2 000, this still means that there are more than 24 000 smaller shareholders with a stake in the company. If privatisation is undertaken in a controlled manner it will mean that thousands of ordinary South Africans will have a stake in the economy, that government will therefore be smaller and that therefore the chances that inflation will fall will be greater. However, the CP say that they are against all of this. They are, therefore, in fact against the man in the street being able to obtain a slice of the economic action.

I say that the CP are soft on inflation because they do not understand it. [Interjections.] I can give another example of this.

Mr D S PIENAAR:

You don’t believe what you are saying, do you?

Mrs S M CAMERER:

I certainly do. In an article that appeared in the Patriot of 22 January, which I have here, the fact that South Africa has a surplus on its balance of payments was criticised as being undesirable. The headline to this article states: “Surplus op betalingsbalans onwenslik vir Suid-Afrika”. [Interjections.] The articles states, inter alia-.

’n Surplus op die betalingsbalans is onder die huidige omstandighede hoogs inflasionêr.

Any Economics I student knows that because of the weak rand a major portion of our inflation is imported, and that if we want to reduce the rate of that imported inflation our currency must stabilise and appreciate. However, it will certainly not appreciate if we do not have a positive balance of payments.

*Mr Speaker, the CP are so confused that they say that the surplus is inflationary. This is utter nonsense! [Interjections.]

†In conclusion, Sir, I think my best response to the CP generally and to individual speakers on the other side of the House including the hon member for Lichtenburg would be to quote to them John Kenneth Galbraith, the well-known American economist whom Margaret Thatcher admires. He once wrote as follows:

Economics is not a durable truth. It requires continuous revision and accommodation. Nearly all its errors are made by those who cannot change.

That just about sums up the CP. They just cannot change. They are set in the ways of the past and so they make every error in the book in economics. Judging by the articles in the Patriot, it is no wonder, therefore, that the hon member for Lichtenburg thinks as he does.

*Mr J R DE VILLE:

Mr Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak after such an attractive hon member from the Government side. In the second place it is a very great privilege for me to be able to walk in here today and speak in this House after I had actually been elected with a majority 300% higher than with the majority by which I was elected to this House on 6 May 1987. [Interjections.] Of course this large majority is attributable to various factors. One of the factors was undoubtedly that my constituency was privileged to have so many of the MPs and hon Ministers on the Government side there during the past election. They spent their time there day after day proclaiming the policy of the Government, and the more they proclaimed their policy, the more people joined the CP and accepted our policy. [Interjections.]

Of course Standerton is a very historic constituency, and during this election certain historic factors which were very important, also emerged again. In the first place I am the first MP to be elected to the same constituency twice within a period of 10 months. In the second place the majority which I gained in the constituency was the largest majority which the CP had achieved since its establishment.

*Mr H J COETZEE:

That is only the beginning.

*Mr J R DE VILLE:

Of course this is just prior to the by-election in Randfontein. [Interjections.]

This is also the highest number of votes gained by any candidate who ever stood in the Standerton constituency, and here I am referring to people like Gen Smuts, Wennie du Plessis and even Hendrik Schoeman. These are factors which are naturally very important as regards the constituencies which are going to be won by the CP in future.

When the hon the Minister of National Education was asked to comment on this result after the election, he said that the actual reason why such a large majority of 2 854 was achieved was because I had a sympathy vote in that constituency. I am very glad about all the sympathisers who voted for me. Of course it is very enjoyable when they vote for one. I nevertheless think there were other reasons why this majority increased so much. When one thinks in particular today of the own affairs budget, one realises that this is one of the factors which contributed to this large majority. The NP has moved away from the White South African. It has moved away from the worker, the farmer and our aged. In particular it has also moved away from the teacher.

I think if I had taken the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare with me in these two elections I have just been through, when I went from street to street in places like Volksrust, Standerton and Greylingstad, he would have understood. In this way one actually visited the houses where these old people lived. They are people who are really battling at the moment. They are pensioners who live on their pensions only and have no other income of any kind. All we had was an announcement from the hon the Minister that there was going to be absolutely no relief of any kind for these people, except a R60 handout which would be given to them in October of this year. I think this is an absolute disgrace. How those people can make ends meet with this is beyond one’s comprehension. [Interjections.] If one works this out in monetary terms, that R60 which will be given to them in October works out to approximately 16,1 cents per day. I want to challenge the hon the Minister to tell us what one can do with 16,1 cents a day. One cannot even put that money in a parking meter or buy half a loaf of bread with it. Those people are definitely living below the breadline, and today I am appealing to the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Minister of Finance to give attention to these matters and see to it that these people are helped, because these are the people who are really battling.

They are being consoled with all kinds of gimmicks. The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works made a big announcement in Parliament last year concerning a loan scheme for safeguarding the homes of White aged, this having been done as a concession to the aged. It is very important for this to be done, because the security aspect is one of the problems these people are experiencing. However, there is a great deal of red tape involved in these specific applications. From the reply of the hon the Minister to a question—I received the reply during my absence—it would appear that at that stage six people had applied for this specific scheme for safeguarding the homes of the aged and that no applications had yet been granted at that stage.

If hon members study the conditions linked to this, they will see that they are very comprehensive. A first or second mortgage of R2 000 must be registered, two quotes must be obtained and the legal and inspection fees must be paid. A few voters came to me about this, and when I started to read out the conditions to them, they said they were not interested because they did not want to register a mortgage on their home in order to try to get a loan of R2 000 to safeguard their home.

These gimmicks do not work. I know the Government is trying to help, but it is no use trying to help the people in this specific way, because we are not making any progress. I am appealing to the hon the Minister to give our aged something to ensure that they can live properly.

During the Budget debate one of the hon members of this House would seem to have had the audacity to use the privilege of Parliament to attack me in my absence. I am referring to the hon member for Springs, who said the following in his speech on 10 February 1988 (Hansard, 1988, col 496):

Right from the start I should like to enter into discussion with him and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition about political honesty and their onslaught during the coming byelections.

The hon member spoke for quite some time until someone asked: “What about Standerton?” He then said quite a number of things about the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke, who has just been elected, and the hon member will undoubtedly deal with this at some stage or another. Eventually, towards the end of his speech, the hon member got around to Standerton and said (col 504):

Things are not much better in Standerton. Mr de Ville has his own idiosyncrasies, such as having a Black attorney’s clerk. Is he a CP at heart? Why does he not appear at meetings, why was he so reluctant to be the CP candidate? More and more voters are beginning to realise that the CP can offer them no stable future. I do not know what this party’s field workers told him, but if they do not inform him as to the true cause of the campaign in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton there will be a rude awakening awaiting the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition when 2 March dawns.

In consequence of the information he gave us about Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton, I am glad he is not the information officer of the CP. However, that is not what is at issue. What is important is that he alleged that I had employed a Black attorney’s clerk. I do not want to talk about the principle of Black attorney’s clerks, but about the truth of this statement.

The hon member for Sasolburg, who announced here yesterday that a Black will probably never be able to live in Sasolburg again, carried on with these allegations in a tabloid which they distributed, Die Realis. In an article under the caption “De Ville het swart hulp. KP-LP het kat by stert” the following was said:

Terwyl sy kollegas in die Parlement dit heftig ontken, maak mnr Rosier de Ville lustig van ’n Swart professionele assistent in sy prokureurspraktyk gebruik.
Mnr. Tom Langley (KP-LP vir Soutpansberg) het beweringe in die Wantrouedebat, dat die KP-kandidaat ’n swart assistent het, as ’n ‘openbare leuen’ afgemaak.
Mnr. De Ville het òf sy kollegas in die Parlement waningelig òf mnr. Langley het die kat aan die stert beet.

This is what hon members proclaim in this tabloid of theirs.

*Mr T LANGLEY:

Now he is smiling about it.

*Mr J R DE VILLE:

I have received a certificate from the Law Society of the Transvaal, of which I am a member, which confirms that I have no Black professional assistant or any Black clerk in my employ. When that hon member made that allegation he was aware of this. This allegation was made before in the constituency, and he was aware of the facts. If in future he sticks to the truth instead and does not try to score political points by resorting to such trifles and untruths, that party may fare far better in the by-elections.

*Mr P J S OLIVIER:

Mr Speaker, I do not want to react directly to what the hon member for Standerton said. I merely want to say that to a great extent the tone in which the hon member addressed this House was acceptable to me as a member of this side of the House, although he said many harsh things.

I am starting in this way because I want to refer to the speech of the hon member for Lichtenburg. This hon member introduced the debate here today in a tone which I cannot describe as anything other than disgraceful. He attacked the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare, and specifically the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly, very sharply and unnecessarily maliciously on the basis of an argument which did not take all the facts into consideration.

Let us consider a few of the points of attack of the hon member. The hon member made the disgraceful allegation that R400 million had been voted and that this scheme was intended to fail.

*Hon MEMBERS:

Disgraceful!

*Mr P J S OLIVIER:

Where was the hon member when last year’s Budget included the R400 million? Where was he? Did he tell the people at that stage that it could not and would not work, and that there would not be the demand they expected?

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

But that is not my job!

*Mr P J S OLIVIER:

The hon member says it is not his job. If it is not his job, it is even less his job to try in this way to denigrate an effort by the Government to try to save farmers from sequestration. Why did the hon member not analyse the Budget in more detail and put forward the true facts? Was it too much trouble for the hon member to read, in the Budget under Programme 6 of the Vote: Agriculture and Water Supply, that as regards production means there was, for example, an increase of 50%, from R62 million to R90 million. No, Sir, the hon member did not take cognisance of this. He does not want the farmers of South Africa to know this, because it does not suit him politically. He said absolutely nothing about this important item.

As regards the item “Land and Improvements” under the same programme, there was an increase of R2,8 million to R35,9 million. Now my question is whether this hon member thinks that he is justified in launching such a malicious attack with regard to the R400 million scheme. If he does think that this is justified, that is his business, but then I want to tell him that he must be fair, and for the sake of integrity and meaningful debating in this House …

*An HON MEMBER:

He cannot debate meaningfully.

*Mr P J S OLIVIER:

…also mention these other items in the Budget.

No, Sir, the hon member does not see his way clear to doing that.

Let us consider further what the hon member said. He said we should be careful that when agricultural credit committees were appointed, there should be absolutely no appointment in conflict with the wishes of a local farmers’ association. I say that will be the day. That will be the day that we, when we and the hon the Minister notice that some of these appointments are being used to promote the political objectives of certain political parties, agree to such an appointment being made in any case. The hon member is asking too much of us. He knows he is asking too much.

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

Then you must not whine when we take you to task.

*Mr P J S OLIVIER:

No, I am not whining. That hon member is whining. He would do well to sit back and listen.

The hon member also alleged that the reform policy of the NP was ostensibly the reason for all the economic and financial problems of this country. That was the statement he made. [Interjections.] Very well, the hon member says that is the reason for them. I am almost too ashamed to read this paragraph, but let us consider what the policy of that hon member’s party will cost the country. I am quoting from Die Burger of 25 April 1987 in which the hon member explained how he would destroy this tricameral Parliament. He had a very strange way of wanting to do this. He said:

Indien die KP aan bewind kom, kan die Staatspresident—wat dr Andries Treurnicht sal wees—alle departemente behalwe Buitelandse Sake dupliseer in die drie Huise.

This is that hon member’s kind of reform. This is the way in which he wants to use the funds of this country. Will there be three Ministers of Justice? Will there be three judicial systems? What nonsense is this! Will there be three Ministers of Finance? Is that what the hon member is advocating? That is what he says. [Interjections.] It is on the basis of these statements, which are totally devoid of all sense, that he is trying to win votes in the country. I cannot do otherwise but continue to quote. The hon member went on to say the following at this meeting in Welkom when he spoke about how this tricameral Parliament would be destroyed:

’n Ander moontlikheid is dat die Blanke kan aansoek doen om onafhanklikheid soos enige Swart volk.

This is the hon member’s statement. [Interjections.] Now the question which I and many others ask ourselves is: Within what specific borders is the hon member going to bring about the independence of the White people? [Interjections.]

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

Do not worry about that.

*Mr P J S OLIVIER:

Very well, I shall not worry about that, as the hon member said. I am going to let his own people reply to that, because his leader in the Cape Province explained the way in which the CP wanted to create this White State. Who is going to decide on it? The former member for Kuruman was reported as follows in Die Volksblad of 20 March 1987:

As die KP aan die bewind kom, sal sy Minister van Staatkundige Ontwikkeling …

Now hon members must listen carefully—

…mense soos prof Carel Boshoff en mnr Eugene Terre’Blanche in ’n komitee aanstel om ’n eie grondgebied vir die Blanke Afrikaners te identifiseer, het mnr Hoon gesê.

I find it very significant that this committee now consists of prof Boshoff—who in a certain sense is still acceptable to me—and Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche. [Interjections.] Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche will now decide on the borders. [Interjections.]

Then the leader of the CP in the Cape said that they were not going to pay much attention to what the other population group said in respect of the borders of this new state—

…as die KP aan die bewind kom en die opdrag van die Blanke Afrikaners wil uitvoer en dit bots lynreg met die opdrag van die Kleurlinge, dan sê die KP: ‘Na die hel met konsensus’.

This is the approach of the party we have to tolerate as the Official Opposition in this country. [Interjections.] We can ask what the costs would be of the CP’s reform. I want to quote—I do so with the greatest of pleasure—from the CP’s Program van Beginsels. The following appears on page 5 under the caption “Swart volke”:

Nywerheidsdesentralisasie, landbou-ontwikkeling, finansiële en ander maatreëls sal verskerp word om die grootste moontlike vestiging van elke volk op sy eie grond onder sy eie owerheid te verkry.

What about the costs?

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

It is cheaper than yours! [Interjections.]

*Mr P J S OLIVIER:

The hon member may think so, but I do not know how he arrives at that.

When the CP wants to explain their policy to us, they always have one specific example they like to quote to us, namely Israel. This is true, after all. Only last year the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition held up Israel to us as an example. Another leader of the CP also said the following, referring to Israel:

Nieteenstaande weerstaan Israel al die jare lank die toets van die tyd omdat hy sy eie staat het waarin slegs sy eie mense burgerskap en stemreg het.

Now the CP says that this is their policy too. Is that not true? They are now hesitant to admit this, although I have quoted this example from a speech by a CP leader. What is the constitutional position in Israel exactly? What is the example the CP wants to hold up to the people of South Africa, which according to them is a representation of the CP’s partition policy? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Losberg happens to be in the House, and I am very glad about that. On a previous occasion I crossed swords with the hon member on this issue. The hon member must remember that this example, which is used by him and his leaders, is not at all comparable with CP policy because Arabs have franchise in Israel. [Interjections.] When I said this last year, the hon member for Losberg said: “That is not true”. That is what he said according to Hansard: House of Assembly, 12 June 1987, kol 1335. Now I want to ask him with tears in my eyes why he uses a country as a model—the CP bases its policy on this—and does not make sure of the facts about the composition of the constitutional set-up in that country.

Mr S C JACOBS:

[Inaudible.]

*Mr P J S OLIVIER:

At that stage I told him he should please take the trouble to make a single telephone call to ascertain the true facts so that he could inform his leaders. The hon member probably did not do this, but I did it for him. The Department of Foreign Affairs reported back to me as follows:

Alle Israeli burgers—Jode en Arabiere (dit is Arabiere woonagtig binne die oorspronklike grense van die staat Israel of gebiede wat daarby ingelyf is, soos Oos-Jerusalem) en wat Israeli burgerskap aanvaar het, is stemgeregtig.

What is more, in the Parliamentary election on 23 July 1987, five Arabs were elected to the Knesset. [Interjections.] The CP must accept this. This is now the CP’s model. It is not I who said this was their model; they said so themselves.

It has taken them years to get to the point where they say that the White state will not be totally White. The hon member for Lichtenburg made a slight concession and said that only 70% of the population could be White, but the other 30% would be Black. I want to ask the hon member for Lichtenburg whether, on the basis of the model he held up to us, the other 30% would be entitled to vote. [Interjections.] No, Sir, they will pretend not to be listening to me, but they can hear what I am saying. [Interjections.]

I should like to go further and refer to what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said during the television debate. Perhaps I should conclude my speech with this. I would have liked to debate this point, but unfortunately my time has expired.

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

Sit down then.

*Mr P J S OLIVIER:

No, Sir, I know I am bothering that hon member; that is why he wants me to sit down.

I should like to mention the fact that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition objected to what he referred to as a propaganda document of the NP. In this the NP said that we wanted to give the Black metropolitan communities as great a degree of autonomy as possible. Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that he had reacted to this and had stated that in this regard the NP was thinking along the same lines as the CP, namely that it was not feasible to relocate billions of people from one place to another.

However, it is possible to give large metropolitan communities an elevated form of self-government, but also to link those people up so that they do not vote elsewhere.

What did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition accept? He accepted that what the CP had said up to then was not feasible. He accepted that one could not relocate millions of people. Up to then it was the basis of the CP’s policy that they wanted to relocate millions of peoples.

Unfortunately my time has expired. [Interjections.] I would like to debate this point further at a later date.

*Dr M S BARNARD:

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Fauresmith raised a few very interesting points here. I should like to tell him I find it rather interesting that, as a member of the NP, he quoted the five Arabs in the Knesset as proof of other groups with representation in parliament. [Interjections.] I want to ask him whether those five Arabs have representation in their own Houses and debate own affairs. Surely the reply is that they all sit together and are able to participate freely in debate, just like the Israelis, and not separately; they may also vote.

Furthermore I want to ask why, if the Arabs are able to be in parliament, the Blacks in South Africa are not also permitted representation in this House—like the Arabs in Israel. [Interjections.] It is very good to raise a point, and I appreciate the point made by the hon member against the CP, but surely one cannot stop there if one wants to prove that one is right. The hon member proved that he was wrong too …

*Dr F J VAN HEERDEN:

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

*Dr M S BARNARD:

Mr Speaker, I really do not have the time.

I should like to address the hon member for Standerton, who is unfortunately not here now, but his colleagues may reply on his behalf. With great verbosity he proved to us that he did not have a Black clerk in his office. Today I want to tell all hon members in this House that in my hospital I work with Black nurses and Black staff, as well as with other coloured persons, and I am proud of it. [Interjections.] I find this argument totally unacceptable. Do hon members know what happens in the hospital where we work together? The patients all get better. People’s colour poses no problem. We all work together with the object of jointly doing the best for our patients.

I now want to ask hon members of the CP what they would do today if they were lying in one of these hospitals and a Black nurse approached them. [Interjections.] Would they agree to let that nurse treat them or not? [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER:

No!

*Dr M S BARNARD:

Sir, I hear an hon member saying no. I find that interesting. Then they must really be exceptional people because there are patients from all race groups and all parties in the hospitals we run, and until today I have not heard of anyone refusing to be treated by a non-White nurse.

In addition, I want to ask the hon members—the question deals with their dream of a separate state in South Africa, and they have never explained their envisaged health policy here— whether they will have separate hospitals for all race groups.

*Dr W J SNYMAN:

Yes. [Interjections.]

*Dr M S BARNARD:

Will there also be White nurses for White patients, Black nurses for Black patients and so on in those hospitals? This appears to be the case.

I now want to ask the hon members whether they realise that the NP followed the same policy in the past and that it no longer works today. Non-White nurses attend to White patients too. Why? There is an enormous shortage of White nurses and it is impossible …

*Dr W J SNYMAN:

What is the reason for this?

Comdt C J DERBY-LEWIS:

It is because they don’t pay decent salaries!

*Dr M S BARNARD:

I now want to ask the hon members how they will obtain enough White, Coloured and Indian nurses to treat all the patients of the various race groups separately.

*Dr W J SNYMAN:

We shall pay them better! [Interjections.]

*Dr M S BARNARD:

Sir, it seems that good remuneration will put everything right. [Interjections.] May I ask them further whether they also intend using Black doctors for Black patients in those hospitals—after all, they will pay them well—and White doctors for White patients?

*Mr J J NIEMANN:

Yes, ask them that.

*Dr M S BARNARD:

Are they going to apply the same principle in that case as well? Will Black patients therefore be treated by Black doctors and nurses? The hon members will then have to become witch-doctors because they will certainly not have enough Black doctors in South Africa to treat Black patients.

*Mr W J D VAN WYK:

Why not?

*Dr M S BARNARD:

Because there are not enough Black doctors in South Africa and because those hon members also belonged to the NP in the past and therefore advocated the same education policy as that adopted by the NP—in fact, it still does—which resulted in the present situation concerning Black nurses and doctors.

*Comdt C J DERBY-LEWIS:

Oh, nonsense! [Interjections.]

*Dr M S BARNARD:

It is the result of the policy of apartheid and discrimination that there are not enough Black doctors in South Africa.

*An HON MEMBER:

And in the rest of Africa? [Interjections.]

*Dr M S BARNARD:

Yes, it is a problem in the rest of Africa too. There was no proper policy and no provision was made for Black people to acquire sufficient experience …[Interjections.] Sir, if the CP were to come to power today, health services in South Africa would collapse. There is no way in which the health policy in South Africa, based on their policy of partition, can develop in such a way that there will be an equal, genuine and honest approach to health services for all our races.

I want to ask the CP how one can separate health services.

†My fight with the NP also has to do with the fact that they have differentiated health services greatly. That is my argument with them. Sir, if one counts very carefully, one will see that we have at present 14 Ministers concerned with health matters. In fact, there are actually 15, because the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is also a Minister of health in South Africa. He has the biggest department of health of any of the hon Ministers. So we have 15 Ministers concerned with health matters.

I should like to judge this in view of certain remarks made by the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare in his introductory speech. He made some very interesting observations. He said:

Daar moet beklemtoon word dat daar met die oordrag van funksies sorg gedra word dat dit nie tot ’n vermeerdering van personeel of groter Staatsuitgawes aanleiding gee nie.

*Sir, just think of all these departments, officials and facilities. I should like to ask the hon the Minister how they intend ensuring that there will not be increased expenditure on health services. He continued:

In fact, an attempt is being made as regards the transfer of functions to promote further rationalisation of services and where possible even the scaling down of services.

This differentiation of departments simply makes it an impossible task.

If one traces the development of health services in South Africa, one sees that the NP now has a small separate state as far as health services are concerned. In this way group identity is protected at the expense of all other staff. It also requires major monetary outlay. If one examines the budget for health services in the own affairs plan, one sees that it is not a department that is involved. If one looks at the Department of National Health, one sees that it, too, is hardly a health department any longer. Provincial administrations have taken over health services, just as in the past, and own affairs are merely a bluff to retain apartheid to some degree.

†In the short time left to me I would like to raise an important matter, and that is that 7 April is the day declared by the World Health Organisation as International Non-smoking Day. It is a very important day and the World Health Organisation has asked that there should be no smoking on that day. I mention this today because I received a copy of a letter as well as a pamphlet circulated by the Tobacco Board and a book with the title Smoking Scare Debunked. I find this book shocking, and dishonest. I think it should be refuted, and I ask the hon the Ministers responsible for welfare, agriculture, health and education as well as their departments to see that this book is not circulated in South Africa.

I just want to read some of the statements they make. The author, a Dr William T Whitby—no reference to his past is made—says:

As I have retired from active practice the opinions in this book are not offered in a professional capacity. If I had the slightest doubt I would not advise those nearest and dearest to me to smoke. But I am not advising the public at large to smoke. The main purpose of this book is to expose the complete lack of a basis for the claims that smoking is harmful.

*This is what this book says. The writer continues:

The anti-smoke case has been soundly rejected by numerous leading scientists … Your chance of getting lung cancer appears to be much less than of getting hit by an automobile.

He adds:

Saying that smoking is beneficial will cause some of the anti-smoking leaguers to just about have a seizure; well, that cannot be helped for it is the truth.

In this book the writer states that smoking is not hazardous, and the Tabacco Board is distributing this book in South Africa. It is also distributing a pamphlet in which his statements are quoted.

I want to indicate to hon members what tactics the Tobacco Board is using to stem the antismoking campaign of the SA Heart Foundation and other organisations. The quotation is from page 7 of the book:

Not one of my smoking patients in 40 years has to my knowledge got lung cancer, although some non-smokers did.

This is what is stated in this book. I shall quote further:

In most cases the diagnosed cause of death rests on the opinion of a doctor who is likely to have been brainwashed into thinking that it must be lung cancer if there is the slightest suspicion that the patient has ever smoked. The USA government’s new cancer study states that asbestos is the leading occupational carcinogen. It estimates that 17% to 20% of lung cancer cases are due to asbestosis.

Of course this is true … [Interjections.] He adds:

I have mentioned how it relieves bronchitis and asthma.

I should very much like the hon the Ministers and Deputy Ministers responsible for health and education to be aware of a pamphlet which is worthless. I very much want it to be banned, if possible. The Tobacco Board should be ashamed of such an absolutely untrue and unsubstantiated book which it is distributing in the country.

*Dr P J STEENKAMP:

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parktown addressed us very briefly and put forward the example of the five Arabs in Israel. Was he suggesting that we should include only five Blacks in this Parliament so that we could outvote them? That would be typical Prog “tokenism”; otherwise he should explain to the House how many Blacks he wants to include.

I do not want argue with him about smoking habits as I do not smoke either; on the other hand, my family are tobacco-farmers!

†I want to address a different question here today. White politics in South Africa is plagued by a new phenomenon—alliances between the incompatible. Prior to the election we had an Indaba-based alliance between the PFP and the NRP, as well as between the Worrallites and the Malanites. On the other side of the political spectrum there was, and still is, the alliance between the dictatorial AWB-“boerestaters” and the quasi-parliamentary CP carefree partitionists.

The indaba alliance destroyed the NRP and wrecked the PFP. After the election the alliance between the independents was unmasked as having been an exercise in opportunism too, and hence it also crumbled. The election results brought quite a few people down to earth for a while, but now renewed efforts are being made by those on the left of the political spectrum to rediscover each other as well as some assumed communality between them.

The most pathetic part of this drama is being enacted in Natal where Mr Sutton, the leader of the sole survivor of the NRP, the hon member for Mooi River, is doing his utmost to induce Dr Worrall to preside over the funeral arrangements for the skeleton of the NRP.

They are encouraged in this by the faltering indaba propaganda office, which is frantically trying to encourage almost any alternative to Government policy. This indaba propaganda machine even goes so far as to abuse so-called surveys in attempts to convince Natal voters that their province is in reality the stamping ground of outside saviours of the likes of Dr Worrall, Van Zyl Slabbert and the hon member for Randburg.

Furthermore, these indaba propagandists still operate under the assumption that Natalians— our voters—will submit to the domination of Inkatha, or the UDF for that matter. They even indoctrinate our children at certain schools in this regard. I want to tell the schools concerned that they are playing with fire. Our children are not to be made into political stormtroopers.

I want to tell the indaba propagandists that Natalians see what is happening in Pietermaritzburg. Natalians interpret what is happening in Pietermaritzburg. Natalians draw conclusions from what is happening in Pietermaritzburg. Consequently, Sir, Natalians are not amused. Furthermore, we have our pride and self-respect.

I do not want to waste any more time on these indaba propaganda clowns. I will leave them to their toys. I want to warn the sole survivor of the NRP, the hon member for Mooi River—a nice old chap—to look before he leaps this time. Beware of the false prophet!

In the meantime there are also those who, for the time being, and because of the shocking clarity brought by the recent election results, prefer to work furtively behind the scenes. They are the leftwing academics and their sponsors in the private sector. They are very concerned about the tendencies in White politics, tendencies which go completely against their hopes and even against their predictions. They were forced to admit that the political left is in complete disarray, and the end of that chaos does not seem to be in sight.

The left sector of the private sector is withdrawing its support from the PFP, as the Progressively Failing Party, in order to channel it into other hopefully more promising political avenues like Idasa, the indaba’s propaganda office and even the various bands of independents. Unity is strength, however, and therefore academic institutes at various universities are sponsored to fabricate anti-Government ideologies, philosophies, policies and simposia in an attempt to consolidate the left once again.

Is this possible? I say no! [Interjections.] Let us just compare the PFP plan—they should read this in case they have forgotten about it—with the NDM manifesto. From their national convention the PFP excludes, on paper at least, those who practise violence or subversion. The NDM mission has no such distinction. In a national convention the fundamental principles of a PFP government would be non-negotiable—according to this document. The NDM mission, on the other hand, maintains an open agenda. On paper the PFP still stands for a minority veto. This, however, is distinct from a veto in respect of the population groups, although the PFP conveniently prefers not to dwell too much on this distinction. The NDM mission, on the other hand, does not believe in veto rights at all.

The PFP still believes in Parliament as the sovereign body. The NDM does not distinguish between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary politics. That is why the three hon members of the NDM are not in the House this afternoon. The PFP convention must be initiated and supervised under White control. The Whites also have to interpret and execute the convention proposals. According to the members of the NDM mission, however, all must do these things together, at least as far as I can gather. At the PFP’s convention decisions must be taken by consensus and the convention will last until consensus has been reached.

With the AWB, the CP, the NDM, the UDF and the ANC present the convention will become an eternal happening. The mission, on the other hand, is in a hurry. It is, after all, their impatience which brought the three missionaries together. To those who now want to instil a common vision between, for instance, the PFP and the NDM I can only say good luck.

In view of the above comparison I believe the hon leader of the PFP will have to adjust his views in relation to the position of the NDM. They are to the left of his party, not to its right. [Interjections.] In fact, during the election the leader of the NDM placed himself between the PFP and the NP. There, however, he was guided by opportunism not by his principles. I do not want to dwell any longer on the PFP except to say there must be some capable and fair-minded people among them.

Mr J B DE R VAN GEND:

Of course!

Dr P J STEENKAMP:

They find themselves in a cul-de-sac, and one can only feel sorry for them. Their latest effort at an alliance has already become a sorry spectacle. To my two friends the hon member for Pinetown and the hon member for Durban North I want to issue a warning. They should not, in their political desperation, begin to instigate discontent in education in Natal in the hope of regaining lost political credibility.

*Mr Chairman, I want to concentrate briefly on the prospects of the political novelty—Wynand’s National Democratic Movement. The movement itself is an alliance—an alliance between people who are dissatisfied. The hon member for Randburg was dissatisfied with the NP. That is his right. The CP is also dissatisfied with the NP. The hon member for Durban Central was dissatisfied with the PFP’s uninspiring leadership and the lack of a viable vision. On top of that he was punished for Dakar. The same goes for the hon member for Greytown. He is even less impressed with parliamentary politics than his two colleagues. For that matter, the hon member for Greytown is going to cause tension in the NDM. Involuntarily that is his mission. He is doomed to eternal searching. His philosophy disregards nationalism; even despises it—regardless of whether it is Afrikaner or Zulu nationalism. This brings him closer to the ANC and the UDF than his two colleagues. When all is said and done, that is where he is going. That road is going to lead to the downfall of the NDM mission. Surely the mission should unite everyone across the political spectrum by means of process politics. However, he has already chosen the side of the UDF as opposed, for example, to Inkatha.

Attracted by a vague promise of a vision, these two dissatisfied Progs joined the hon member for Randburg. Now they are being confronted with the promise of a meagre mission that must be realised through process politics. They are not going to be satisfied with such amateurish politics propelled by a cherished but vague political leadership. On 27 July 1987, when those hon members were still members of the PFP, I summed them up here in the House as follows [Hansard, 1987, col 2404]:

These two hon members are here on borrowed time. They realise it and are looking for alternatives which they have the nerve to call “democratic alternatives”. Desperation forces them to become political travellers to somewhere or to nowhere, accompanied by a few drifting Afrikaners.

It still applies. They are still not at home. They are going to “drop” Wynand.

Where does the movement want to move to? They want to make partners of inter alia the UDF and the ANC. In fact, these organisations are not entirely disapproving of this approach, and that is the irony. According to the intellectual leaders among the politicians on the left, this hesitant willingness to negotiate with certain Whites in Parliament is a result of the election results and of the successful administering of the state of emergency. Therefore, it is, ironically enough, as a result of the NP. Therefore, the Whites are not collapsing. They—I am referring to the ANC and the UDF—should rather talk to those Whites who may be flexible, those who are naïve and who may be used to divide the Whites and convert them to their point of view. Nevertheless, confrontation is the hinterland of the NDM. Boesak of the UDF is already saying:

Hulle moet nou besluit of hulle binne of buite die Parlement is; anders het hulle geen legitimiteit nie.

And Boesak also says: “Die UDF moet die basis vir die opposisie wees.” [Interjections.]

Nevertheless, the NDM wants to get everyone moving, from the AWB to the ANC, and preferably in the same direction. That is a tall order! [Interjections.] I predict that the NDM is going to degenerate into inactivity, and that will be the tragedy. Even the hon leader of the NDM is already beginning to realise it. Circling high above all this Sturm und Drang and at a suitable academic distance, is El Condor Super-Van, gazing intently at the political corpses of his past and searching for alternatives. Following in his slipstream, angelic wings a-flutter, is a certain Boraine, uncomfortably close to his tail feathers. And they are on their way into oblivion along with the investments of the leftist segment of the private sector.

If the private sector is looking for investments it should study the State President’s opening address. They should rather make their contribution in their own field this year. If they are searching for a better future, they should come and listen to the NP’s realistic idealism.

The NP is on the road to a respectable future for everyone in this country—economically as well as politically. Therefore, we shall ensure that the White man will also maintain his political self-respect in the future. At the same time—this is what the CP is shying away from—this will demand dedication, sacrifice and perspiration, but that will not deter us, because we do indeed believe in the path that we are following.

*Mr T LANGLEY:

Mr Chairman, I briefly want to refer to a few statements made by other hon members, especially on the opposite side, but before doing so I want to place on record that last Sunday, 20 March, the CP celebrated its sixth anniversary. That was something we could celebrate with pride and gratitude, because we could also celebrate knowing that at this point in time we have the support of the majority of Afrikaners on our side. [Interjections.] I think it is the most important achievement for a political party in South Africa to know how it has grown. [Interjections.]

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING:

You do not believe yourself.

*Mr T LANGLEY:

I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that I am trying to adhere to the truth, and as far as this statement of mine is concerned, it is not a question of believing or disbelieving; it is a fact, a clinical fact which I think his hon leader in this House would also acknowledge. [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! I keep on hearing the hon member for Meyerton’s voice. He must give the hon member an opportunity to make his speech. The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

*Mr T LANGLEY:

Sir, I shall continue by referring to the hon member for Klip River. Apparently he tried to present a very learned argument here about the CP’s policy. I say a “learned argument”, because it was so elevated that I really could not understand him, but what I did manage to make out was that his argument was based on documents that had nothing to do with the CP, or with any official CP policy. What did he do? He, like the hon the Leader of the House and their newspapers, set up skittles as far as the CP was concerned and then knocked those skittles down themselves. I think it suffices to say that that hon member’s policy is a game of skittles.

The hon member for Rosettenville said she wanted to deal with the problem of inflation. She did so and dragged the CP into the argument, but I think that that is something which in fact belongs to the general budget debate. I think we shall deal with it there, together with the Government’s economic policy. I merely want to tell her at this stage that this Government’s reform policy, with its abandonment of influx control and its acceptance of centralisation, is geared towards an inflationary spiral which will eventually ruin this country’s economy completely. I shall let that suffice at this stage.

Then I want to come to the hon member for Yeoville. The member is not here, but I do not think he would mind if I replied to him in his absence. It is very clear that the hon member, like his party colleagues, is very concerned about the growth of the CP. He said that as long as the CP does not accept the principle of parity in South Africa, we may not govern because we are a dangerous party and are going to unleash a revolution in South Africa. Oh, Mr Chairman, that refrain is as old as 1947. It is the refrain of the old United Party in 1947 when they saw the progress the real NP was making. That is the refrain now, not only of the PFP but also of the NP, which can see a CP victory coming. I believe the hon member is reading the signs correctly. The CP is going to govern in South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member, however, that just as a revolution did not occur in South Africa after the NP of Dr Malan took over the reins of government in 1947, there will be no revolution in South Africa when the CP comes to power. The CP, as its opponents present it, is an apparition. That is a monstrous version of what it really is. That lies about and the vilification of a party disappear once it is in power and it can be seen in its true colours.

I want to ask the hon member for Yeoville in his absence: In South Africa we have our neighbouring states, namely the TBVC countries, Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana—besides Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe—but where in those seven countries does parity exist between the citizens of those countries and those of South Africa? Is there a revolution there? Do they contain the threat of a revolution in South Africa? How do they arrive at this story of parity? Is there parity between Iberia and the USA? [Interjections.] No, that is exactly the point. When one makes a hotchpotch out of it or throws it into a melting pot, one can look at it. The CP’s policy will give every people the opportunity to develop within its own geographical areas to as high a level as it is capable of. That was the situation in South Africa before this Government came to power. That was the position in South Africa before disaster struck South Africa and Mr P W Botha’s NP Government took over and moved away from a policy which did not embody revolution. In that policy there was no inflation or confrontation. Everything was developing in an orderly and peaceful fashion, with standing room for everyone and its own place in the sun for every population group in this country.

*Dr W J SNYMAN:

Then they went and upset the applecart!

*Mr T LANGLEY:

As the hon member for Pietersburg said, they upset the applecart. We will eventually be the ones who will have to clear up the mess they made.

I want to know from the hon member for Yeoville whether, in the South Africa that he and the governing party want to create for us, he sees an opportunity for the Whites in South Africa, as a First-World component, maintaining the standard which they have thus far maintained. Do they see in that plan which they have for South Africa a situation in which the Whites, while also being useful in respect of the other population groups in fulfilling a task and a calling in the country, will be able to maintain themselves in the way they have done thus far? They know the answer is no, but they are stumbling along until they eventually arrive at the precipice. Thank heaven the signs are there—they are now saying so themselves—that at most they could win one more election, and no more after that.

We believe that decentralisation—there is a little chorus in their ranks which asks every time how much it is going to cost and how it is going to be done—will give everyone in South Africa the opportunity for development and survival on a partition basis without any need for confrontation. We believe that decentralisation is cheaper and less inflationary, and has in any event a lower potential for confrontation than the Government’s present policy.

Before I get to the point I want to make, I want to address the hon member for Parktown. He attacked the hon member for Standerton, but he misunderstood him. It was not a matter of the employment of a Black clerk or a professional assistant but also a lie which the hon member for Springs spread in respect of the hon member for Standerton.

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “lie”.

*Mr T LANGLEY:

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. He spread an untruth. I must add, however, that the hon member for Standerton refuted the statement, which the hon member for Springs had made in respect of him in newspaper reports, by means of a statement of the Law Society of the Transvaal. I have, however, withdrawn the word. He took him to task about those false facts which the hon member for Springs had spread.

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! I do not think the word “false” is in order.

*Mr T LANGLEY:

No, Mr Chairman, it is permissible. [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw the word “false”.

*Mr C UYS:

How must one tell the truth in this House?

*Mr T LANGLEY:

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the word.

The hon member for Fauresmith tried to take the hon member for Lichtenburg to task about the matter of the R400 million. As I expected, he denied that the R400 million was a calculated failure by the hon the Minister of Agriculture. He did not, however, deny that it was in any event an abortive plan—deliberate or not. I do not think that there are many people left in South Africa who try to argue these days that it was not a failure.

I do not have time to argue at length about it, but I want to refer to the hon member’s reference to the fact that it is now going so well that this year R35,982 million is being budgeted for land purchases and improvements. He presented that as being something wonderful, but last year only R2 million was available for that purpose, and now he considers it to be a tremendous achievement. How does one argue with such an hon member? I think that since 1983, when Mr Kotzé was still the Deputy Minister, no money has been available for land purchases and improvements. He said a stop had been put to it.

In the last few moments available to me I want to touch on another matter which falls under this Vote, namely the question of municipal elections. Before 1981, when we were all still in the NP, we said the next municipal election was going to be held on a political basis. It would be politicised. As Nats, we said the Progs were going to do it, and therefore we would have to accept that even at local government level we would have to have political elections. Last year the hon the Minister held a conference about this with his party office-bearers and adopted the same standpoint. In my constituency—I think the same applies to most constituencies in the Transvaal rural areas—I am saddled with this problem, namely that one cannot find a Nat candidate for the municipal elections! [Interjections.] When they are not standing as independents, they are standing as non-aligned members, and those are acknowledged and well-known Nats, Sir! What is going on? The hon the Minister must not come along and tell me that it is a question of tactics, because it is not. Nor is it a question of strategy, because that strategy will not work. The only conclusion I can draw, is that the NP’s candidates have become so ashamed of their party, and are so scared of their party that they are truly no longer even prepared to associate themselves with the NP at local government level. They are therefore not only independent or non-aligned, they are invisible and inaudible as well, and eventually they will also be unacceptable to the voters of South Africa.

*Comdt C J DERBY-LEWIS:

They do not have a policy either!

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! Just before I call upon the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to speak, I should like to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that he is quite correct that the word “false” as such is not unpermissible. The word does, however, also insinuate that a person was aware of it, and that was the only difficulty with it. That is how I interpreted it, and if I have wrongly interpreted it I apologise, but I shall nevertheless consult Hansard.

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg referred to the municipal elections. I have already announced my candidates in my constituency, and the CP’s attitude is that they have established a ratepayers’ association.

*Mr J P I BLANCHÉ:

That is the case in Boksburg too!

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

The same applies in Boksburg, Sir! The hon member must employ his tactics as he sees fit. I want to tell the hon member that I am, in fact, getting feedback from certain areas indicating that some good Nationalists are hesitant, and do you know why they are hesitant about standing as NP candidates, Sir?

Mr T LANGLEY:

[Inaudible.]

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

No, Sir. They are hesitant because that hon member’s party has sunk to the level of organising official boycotts against businessmen! [Interjections.]

*Mr J J NIEMANN:

Yes! Yes! That is it exactly.

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Just like the UDF! Just like Cosatu! Just like the ANC!

*An HON MEMBER:

They have the same mentality!

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

We can bring along evidence from the Schweizer-Reneke constituency where Nationalists are being directly intimidated by the CP, and where they are more or less on an equal footing with us, they also have power. How low are hon members of the CP, who frequently refer to their Afrikanerhood, prepared to sink in splitting the Afrikaner people, if the tactics of those radicals are the tactics they are employing? If there has ever been proof that the CP finds it necessary, because of a marked lack of political vision, to sink to such levels, this is it.

*Mr T LANGLEY:

Is this going to be the level of your speech?

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

No, Sir, I shall lift the level of my speech higher than that of the CP.

*Comdt C J DERBY-LEWIS:

You yourself do not believe that!

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Let me begin by telling the hon members for Standerton and Soutpansberg that we do not begrudge them an opportunity to gloat a bit about their victory. That small pleasure is part of what politics is all about. [Interjections.] We do not, however, agree with their analysis of the significance of this fleeting victory. I want to say that the CP has succeeded, by doubtful means, in temporarily confusing the voters.

*Dr W J SNYMAN:

Was that on the strength of the TV debate?

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Their propaganda has sunk to such a low level that their candidate in Schweizer-Reneke, who was not prepared to accept responsibility for everything, was compelled to state that he was only prepared to accept responsibility for the portion he drafted. In their propaganda they reprehensibly fed on our country’s insurmountable economic problems at the present time. The last issue of one of their propaganda documents was 20 pages long. I read it. Their policy, after all, is partition. Nowhere on those 20 pages could I find the word “partition”. It was one long smear-pamphlet, 20 close-knit pages.

In that way one can perhaps achieve short-term success in a by-election. In the long term, however, they will find that it does not pay. We want to congratulate them on their sixth birthday. Their mentality is more or less reflected in their age. [Interjections.] If they are six years old now, let me say that I think they are going to be insufferable when they reach puberty. [Interjections.]

They complained because the hon member for Klip River quoted several other sources to illustrate what their policy supposedly was. We are compelled to have recourse to other sources, because we do not get statements about their policy from their leaders. We are, after all, quite a way into this session now. When has a CP member stood up here and delivered a fundamental speech on CP policy? I challenge hon members to give me a Hansard reference to a fundamental, properly elucidated speech by them on CP policy. Even in the TV debate the “tactics” were that we would come to that at a later stage; we would get round to that at a later stage; at a later stage we would “get to that”. [Interjections.] We never got round to that; and in this debate, too, we again never got round to that. We must look to other sources, but I am going to come back to CP policy and to an attempt at a uniform interpretation of what it is. Firstly, however, I specifically want to react to the hon member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! I hear continual interjections to the left of me. Hon members must restrain themselves. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

In this debate the CP firstly tried to create an image—they do so regularly—of the Administration: House of Assembly being given a raw deal by the hon the Minister of Finance in the general Appropriation, and therefore we are again supposedly giving the Whites a raw deal. That is the gist of the hon member for Lichtenburg’s speech.

That is not true. The hon the Minister of the Budget will probably reply to this in greater detail. For the sake of a balanced view at this stage in the debate, I merely want to focus hon members’ attention on the following fact. A meaningful comparison—not a wilful, malicious comparison—of the new financial year’s Appropriation with that of the previous year requires one to omit the one-off amount of R400 million for assistance to farmers—not the R400 million for agriculture about which a great deal has been said. On that basis the Appropriation increases by R511,4 million or 9,6%. Those are the actual facts. The figures do not represent a decrease, but in actual fact an increase.

Why does the CP not express its gratitude for the fine services rendered to the Whites? I am not saying they should not criticise us. I want to mention a few facts. Despite decreasing numbers of pupils during 1985 and 1986, 26 additional schools for Whites were established—15 primary schools and 11 new high schools. The amount for the promotion of culture has been increased by more than 20%.

I now come to agriculture. In the 1986-87 financial year there were 25 schemes for assistance available to White farmers in South Africa. An amount of R220,7 million was made available to farmers under the various schemes. The drought, however, continued. What did we do? We introduced additional schemes. We reintroduced other schemes that had been shelved. If one compares the figures up to 31 December 1987— a period considerably shorter than a full year—an amount of R292,6 million was granted to farmers under the various schemes. That is considerably more than in the previous full financial year.

Not only does this prove the Government’s compassion for the farmers, but the following figures I want to mention undeniably indicate the generous extent to which farmers have been accommodated. As far as the consolidation of debt is concerned, in the 1986-87 financial year an amount totalling R56,6 million was granted to 761 applicants. In the 1987-88 financial year— again up to and including 31 December 1987,

only a portion of the year—a total of 889 applicants, considerably more than the 761 applicants, were granted an amount of R79,6 million, as against the R56,6 million for the previous full financial year.

In regard to crop-production resources, for the corresponding periods amounts of R111 million and R120,6 million respectively were allocated. In regard to stock-feed loans in 1986-87, existing participants and 62 new participants were allocated an amount of R15,8 million. Up to December in the subsequent financial year there were 317 applicants and an amount of R17,8 million was granted. In subsidies on stock-feed purchases and incentives an amount of R46 million has been spent in the present financial year up to 31 December; this is R6 million more than in the previous financial year. Does this look like a government which does not, within the limitations placed upon it, have an open-hearted attitude towards the farmers?

As far as housing is concerned, from 1 April 1987 to 28 February 1988 the following amounts were spent: On family housing an amount of R33 734 988 was spent on the establishment of 495 units, and on welfare housing an amount of R47 325 000 on the establishment of 741 units to accommodate 751 persons. The amount spent indirectly on the provision of housing totalled R16 955 044, relating to a subsidy scheme in terms of which the interest for a first purchaser was subsidised by a full third, under certain conditions, for the first five years, and at present 12 600 individuals are participating in this scheme. An amount of R662 585 was spent on the servicing of stands for self-help building schemes for Whites. Does this look like a government, a Ministers’ Council or an administration that does nothing for its own people?

In the sphere of welfare there have been important developments. We do not only grant pensions; there is large-scale expenditure on other methods of granting assistance to the aged, the infirm and those who cannot care for themselves. As far as subsidising such institutions is concerned, in 1977-78 the total amount spent on subsidies was only R18,3 million, whilst in the 1986-87 financial year it amounted to R155,6 million. That is an increase of 750% over a period of 10 years. Against the backdrop of inflation, hon members can work this out in whatever way they choose, but it is a dramatic expansion of the services furnished.

The subsidy on homes for the aged amounted to R96,7 million in the 1987-88 financial year, whilst it is estimated that in the 1988-89 financial year it will amount to R121,7 million. This is an increase of 25,8%. Does this look like a party which is indifferent to the interests and needs of its own people?

As far as service centres are concerned, there has also been a noticeable increase. During February 1988 110 service centres, with an enrolment of 29 105 aged, were subsidised in comparison with only 87 service centres one year ago. That is dramatic progress. There was an increase of 23 new service centres within one-year, with an additional enrolment of 4 764 old people. The subsidy on service centres during 1987-88 was R5,7 million; it is estimated that in 1988-89 it will be R8,8 million. That is an increase of 54,3%. Does that look like a raw deal? When they hear the actual facts there is not a murmur from the CP. [Interjections.] I am saying that despite the stressful economic conditions at present, the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly and its departments still manage to furnish continuous and effective service to the Whites of South Africa.

This year, however, has been a difficult year. It has been a year in which a soundly based appeal was made to us by the hon the State President in his opening address, an appeal to make this year a watershed year to reverse economic trends and to place the medium-term and long-term prospects in this country on a firm and secure footing. We can play politics with the question of precisely why we are experiencing economic difficulties, conducting long debates about that. It is nevertheless a fact that if we do not bring about that reversal in trends, then salary and pension increases, etc, will simply disappear into a bottomless pit. Those are the economic realities. Even though an appeal was made to hon members on the opposition side to recognise the truth inherent in this, and to rise above petty politics, they did not do so.

The CP must stop its negativism and, for the benefit of our people, rather support us in what we are doing. Apart from the fact that it is generally negatively inclined, these days the CP is specifically focusing its attention on education. All kinds of stories are being spread with only one object in mind: The electorate’s confidence in the NP, as far as this sensitive matter is concerned, must be undermined.

I think that the CP’s reckless attempts at petty-politicking in the sphere of education is detrimental to the profession. When the NP ventures into the sphere of education, it is venturing into an area which it regards as one of its top priorities. Own administration and control of own schools is fundamental to the maintenance of an own character and community life. That has been the case, is the case at present and will remain so as long as the NP is the majority party in this House. [Interjections.]

CP stories about the opening up of White State schools is nothing but scare-mongering and is devoid of all truth. The same applies to the ominous visions presented by the CP about the decline of standards. There is no question of the Department of Education and Culture, the relevant hon Minister or the Ministers’ Council allowing the high standards, which we are proud of and which have been achieved in White education, being jeopardised. The rationalisation which is taking place is necessary as a result of decreasing numbers, shifts in the population and the necessity of effective financial management in the light of the present economic circumstances and the other major challenges facing our country. That rationalisation is being implemented with great circumspection, specifically to ensure that standards are not affected.

That is why we are also telling the CP, as far as this is concerned: Stop the petty politics in regard to education. In what they are doing and saying as far as education is concerned, they are not doing our youth any service.

I said I would come back to the CP’s political policy. The hon member for Soutpansberg has again made the broadly-based general statement that their policy is clear: Everyone will have his own place in the sun-—his own sun, too—in his own country. Before millions of people, in the correspondence conducted in Rapport and in the television debate, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made a few admissions which contribute to a slightly clearer definition of what the CP is saying. The leader of the CP stated that the AWB’s “Boerestaat” was out. It was not CP policy. The smaller “Volkstaat” of Prof Carel Boshoff was not CP policy. He therefore repudiates the AWB and its leadership, including the constitutional visions of the Afrikanervolkswag and Prof Carel Boshoff.

*Mr C UYS:

Now you are absolutely wrong.

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! The hon member for Barberton is making a great many interjections. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Sir, if Prof Carel Boshoff is no longer advocating a drastically smaller White state, it is news to me. We shall have to ask him to comment on that himself. I thank the hon member, however, for elucidating the matter.

He did the same thing in regard to a second point. He said, by implication, that his other chief spokesmen on this matter were wrong in saying that there would be a massive shift of Blacks. He can go and read what was said. He has intimated that there would be no massive shift of Blacks. [Interjections.]

I have quoted two statements he made. If what he has said is true, things will generally remain as they are when it comes to where people are located. That is a logical consequence of this. If it is true that people will generally remain where they are, this means that they accept the permanence of millions upon millions of Black people—according to their view of things possibly a few million less than at present—now living with us, more or less throughout the Republic of South Africa, the boundaries being what they are at present.

*Dr W J SNYMAN:

That is accepted by you!

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Then it is relevant to this debate, in which we are discussing White interests. How are we, in such a situation involving the permanent co-existence in the same magisterial districts, regions, areas and provinces—ie the same general land area—going to deal with and safeguard the interests of the Whites? How are we, in such a situation, going to place the security of the Whites on a steady and permanent footing? [Interjections.]

I want to state today that the course adopted by the CP would prove fatal to Whites. What is their course? Let us examine a few of their statements. Their course is one of continued, prejudicial discrimination against everyone who is not White.

*Dr W J SNYMAN:

That is not correct.

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

I want to quote a few examples. Let us first examine the constitutional sphere. They say that despite the fact that people are here permanently and are South African citizens who were born here—in terms of legislation on citizenship dating back to 1910—they would deprive them of their citizenship. That is CP policy, is it not. [Interjections.] The CP also states that those people must live here permanently without any fundamental political rights—despite the fact that they are possibly third-generation, fourthgeneration, fifth-generation or seventh-generation inhabitants of this country. [Interjections.] That is prejudicial discrimination, Sir.

We now come to the economic sphere. The CP says it is going to reintroduce salary discrimination. It is going to pay people less because they are not White, even though they have the same training and experience. That is prejudicial discrimination, Sir. The CP also states that it will only be possible for them work here if they have work permits. That is also prejudicial discrimination. What is more, the CP states that they cannot have property rights here in the country of their birth. That is prejudicial discrimination, Sir.

What does the CP have to say about the social sphere? It states—this is based on that party’s concept of “White money”—that they themselves have to pay for everything they want. That is, after all, what the CP is telling the voters. It says it is no longer going to use any White money to promote the interests of people of colour.

In a nutshell, the CP is telling the White voters: “Don’t worry; we’ll keep the Black people and the people of colour in a subservient position forever.”

*Mr C UYS:

Are you going to make the same speech in Randfontein?

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Yes. [Interjections.] Sir, what are the logical consequences of this? The logical consequences are that a prosperous minority, the Whites, will increasingly be dealing with a dissatisfied, seething majority which it has to keep in check. I am referring to the Coloureds. How is the CP going to do this? More policemen? Longer national service? [Interjections.] After all, it is no longer going to have Black policemen. That is also something it spelled out in its policy documents. [Interjections.] So who is going to do all the Whites’ work if the CP takes people out of productive jobs to become policemen? More Blacks? The logical consequence is that the ANC will make the breakthrough it is seeking to make. What is that? It is also seeking the mass support of the silent majority. What choice does the CP want to present to the silent majority amongst the Black people? The CP wants to present them with the choice of moving to a poor country to which the CP will not add any land and on which it will not spend any White money. They must either move to that poor country where there is no work or remain here without any fundamental rights and put up with permanent White domination. [Interjections.]

The CP policy is a recipe for revolution. If it were ever implemented, as advocated by them, CP policy would be the dagger that pierced the Whites to the heart. [Interjections.] Strikes would be the logical consequence. I could go on. Chaos and crisis would prevail. Let me state here today that they are acting irresponsibly in the light of the realities which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition himself has now acknowledged. I can understand why they do not put forward this policy with any conviction. I can understand why they reserve it for discussion in their inner sanctums, for kitchen-talk and for discussion during by-elections and do not have the courage to spell it out in public debate. [Interjections.]

I am saying today that the NP unashamedly advocates White interests, and if one were to ask what was in the interests of the Whites, let me say that it is in their interests for us boldly to accept certain risks. Without creating a situation in which we are dominated, here where we are we shall have to find a way to grant others a fair and just way of life, economically speaking, and a reasonable opportunity to obtain full-fledged political participation. With due regard to the balance that has to be created between the pursuance and maintenance of White interests and the creation of opportunities for the other population groups in all spheres, we shall unashamedly and fearlessly have to travel the road towards reform. The time will come—it is closer than hon members think—when the electorate will discover the CP’s transparent lack of policy. [Interjections.]

*Mr J VAN ECK:

Mr Chairman, since my time is limited, I shall not react to the speech made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

There is no broad South African nationalism in South Africa today. South Africa is a very deeply divided country today. This is illustrated, among other things, by the fact that national symbols such as the national flag and the national anthem, symbols which normally unite a nation, are today rejected by the overwhelming majority of our population. The reason for this deep division can be found in the Government’s divisive apartheid ideology, which has culminated and is being perpetuated in own affairs, particularly in the Government’s apartheid education. I want to argue today that own affairs education is preventing the development of a true, broad, inclusive South Africanism.

†It is especially our White school-going youth who are most detrimentally affected. The fact is that although Black, Coloured and Indian children are also to be kept apart and educated in the straitjacket of apartheid education, they are progressively breaking out of the confines of own affairs and are substituting for own affairs education an alternative education system, an education system which aims to develop a true, broadly based South African nationalism.

*They are even developing an alternative form of Afrikaans at school.

†The fact is that a true South African nationalism is developing in South Africa today in spite of the divisions created by this Government in all the population groups. While this nationalism is developing among the youth of our land, our White youth are being prevented from becoming part of this broad movement because of an apartheid policy which is rigidly enforced by the White Ministers’ Council of this House.

While the majority of South Africans are breaking away from own affairs education and are developing alternative education structures, structures and systems which are laying the foundation for a broad nationalism, White pupils and teachers are being kept behind in the clutches of the apartheid monster of White own affairs, a monster which they have created and will have continuously to feed at the cost of the taxpayer of South Africa. Own affairs education is a cancer that will destroy the ability of White South Africans of coming to terms with their fellow South Africans.

*I want to conclude. We are not preparing our children in White schools to meet the challenges of the future. We are not preparing them to get along with their Black and Brown fellow South Africans. Apartheid is preventing us, in the long run, from finding one another.

*Dr J T DELPORT:

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Claremont will pardon me if I do not react to him at length. [Interjections.] The world of politics is a hard one. The hon member for Claremont is a political orphan. That is why he is a political welfare case, and politically indigent. [Interjections.] I take note of what he is saying, but I am not going to react to it.

However, I nonetheless want to link my speech to one of the things he said when he was referring to symbols. I shall nonetheless do so in a somewhat different vein. As far as symbols of Afrikanerdom are concerned, I feel the greatest reverence for them because I myself am an Afrikaner. Objects such as a powder-horn, which I like wearing, as well as an ox wagon and a muzzle-loader are things to which I refer with great appreciation as symbols of our wonderful history. However, there are people who now make a mockery of fine symbols. Here I want to refer to a pamphlet called the Patriot, of 26 February 1988, in which the question is asked: How does one recognise an Afrikaner: How does one determine his identity? The following philosophy emerges:

Daar is ’n eenvoudige eksperimentjie waarmee ’n mens so ’n identiteit bo alle twyfel kan vasstel. Die resultate is altyd onmiddellik sigbaar en beslis altyd korrek. As jy wil weet of iemand kwalifiseer vir die benaming Afrikaner, sit jy eenvoudig ’n Voortrekkerkappie of konsentrasiekampkappie op sy of haar kop en jy kyk hom of haar in die oë. Daardie oë sal nie net vir jou wys of die persoon ’n Afrikaner is nie; jy sal selfs kan sien watter soort van Afrikaner voor jou staan. Wanneer iemand so ’n kappie op die kop kry, gebeur snaakse goed in sy gemoed.

Mr Chairman, the hon members of the Official Opposition will pardon me when I say that this article gives me a great deal of pleasure—not so much because of what is written in the article, but because this article obliges one to give free rein to one’s imagination a little. I should very much like to see what that team on the other side would look like with such pretty little bonnets on their heads. [Interjections.]

One can take this little game even further. The Official Opposition, inside and outside Parliament, could even design bonnets of different colours for themselves. [Interjections.] The AWB could get red bonnets; then they would be the “Rooikappiekommando”. [Interjections.] One could even imagine the leader of the AWB, Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche, heading the procession in a beautifully hand-embroidered bonnet with all kinds of trimmings on it. [Interjections.] I do not want to speculate too much now on what the hon leaders of the Official Opposition can do here in Parliament. It is nonetheless possible that the front-benchers, middle-benchers and backbenchers could all have bonnets of different colours. [Interjections.] As a back-bencher I am not going to enlarge on how the hon gentlemen in the front benches would look. [Interjections.] Someone is referring here to Sleeping Beauty, but I do not want to say anything further about that. [Interjections.] What I do want to say—I just want to keep to my own level—is that I can see them in my mind’s eye, more or less from the hon member for Losberg right to the back, wearing such beautifully embroidered pink bonnets on their heads. [Interjections.] On top of that each one also has a rattle in his hand. Then we could really enter them into a show for hyperactive infants. [Interjections.]

I was being silly now. I should really almost apologise to the House for my silliness. Why have I used these examples? Why did I go on this flight of fancy? The reason is that those hon members are creating a caricature of the Afrikaner. [Interjections.] What is tragic, however, is that not only are they creating caricatures of the Afrikaner as a person, but also of Afrikaner thought and intellect.

I want to discuss what I am saying here with reference to a specific standpoint which recurs again and again like a refrain and to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also referred. This is the standpoint that is being accepted willy-nilly about White tax money not being used for Blacks. This principle is stated in all kinds of ways. Today I want to subject this principle to a close scrutiny. Contained in this principle, as the hon member for Yeoville also indicated earlier on, is the idea that there should be separate pools and that each should only pay for itself. The hon members of the Official Opposition cannot deny that this is their standpoint. It is stated everywhere by them. In every rural constituency this is the refrain that keeps recurring. [Interjections.] Let us view this standpoint from a political angle. Let me immediately say that this is a politically opportunistic standpoint to say the very least. I should like to refer to the Patriot once again—this time to the issue of 24 April 1987. In reaction to a standpoint adopted by the hon the Minister of Finance, some or other great academic gives a detailed exposition of what percentage of this money in the Budget is being spent on Blacks. This academic comes to the conclusion that approximately 28% of the Budget is apportioned from general affairs directly to the Blacks. That really does not sound good enough to him. He takes it further and says a fair share—a one-third share he calls it—still has to be allocated to posts such as Justice, Environment Affairs, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Mineral and Energy Affairs, Police and Roads. The Blacks, he says, should at least realise that a third of this money is actually being allocated to them. There you have their approach, Sir! Fifty-two percent of this country’s money—virtually all of it White tax money of course—is being spent on Blacks.

Surely we could make other calculations as well. We would, after all, also be able to work out how much agriculture brings in and how much we spend on agriculture. This is most certainly not the way in which one goes about running the economy of a country. We could also have made calculations and come up with the following estimates: When a White person has two or three children at school and a defence force and a police force are provided to guarantee his safety, and on top of that an agricultural loan and so forth is granted to him, what would his share be? How much does he pay and how much does he get back? No, it is obvious that it is precisely those who pay the least tax who complain the most about what is now supposedly being done with our tax money.

I want to ask if the CP is going to put a stop to Black housing. Would the CP, if it were to come to power, stop providing housing to Blacks? Are they going to put a stop to commuter transport? Are they going to stop Black education? Are they going to close our courts to Blacks? Are they going to withdraw our police? The reply from the CP side is really simple: No, you have it wrong, we are going to have partition and when we have partition, people are independent and everyone pays for himself.

Oh, could the hon members of the Official Opposition not go and attend simple lessons on the economy for a change? How can one place a Third-World country on its feet without First-World aid to that country? Surely it is unthinkable to help an underdeveloped or developing community to get going without any financial aid coming from elsewhere. This has as much chance of happening as partition has of succeeding. There is as little chance of that happening as there is of hon members managing to achieve White majority occupation of the rural areas.

I wonder if they have told the farmers who vote for them how many labourers they may keep on each of the farms [Interjections.] No, that they do not say. The hon member for Ermelo said that the Black labourers are going to be paying tax and, says the hon member, they are also going to be voting on the farms where they live and where the CP is in the majority—we might as well speak of “their part of the world”, because they demand that for themselves—namely in the Transvaal rural areas. I wish those hon member luck. I wonder how many votes the hon member for Ermelo is going to receive from that electorate.

The standpoint that White tax money should only be used for Whites is employed to give the impression that a situation has arisen for which the NP is responsible. That is an old tactic. It is an old dodge of the CP. They outline a situation and then they scare the voters with it. We have many problems and we shall have many great challenges on the road ahead, but the voters are being told that the NP is responsible. All the voters have to do is to vote for the CP and the problem will disappear. I want to warn the hon members. People say Hitler also believed himself after a while. They should really not repeat the old chorus so often that they perhaps start believing themselves eventually. [Interjections.]

From a political standpoint they are engaged in political opportunism, but let us examine this principle which they are propagating from a constitutional point of view. Do those hon members realise that what they are creating when—in the words of their hon leader—they are going to create areas that will be independent and in which no so-called “White money” must be involved? Do those hon members realise what dens of disaster and revolution they are going to be creating there? Do they not understand history? Have they never read about the revolutions in history? They are involved with an absurd constitutional policy. It is a policy that does not seek peace or prosperity. For the sake of cheap political gain and for the sake of the juicy story that the Government gives away money to the Blacks, they are prepared to gamble with the future of South Africa.

Let us examine their principle that White money should only go to Whites for an economic point of view. I do not have time to go into detail on what we can learn from our own history, but I do at least want to ask what the Afrikaners’ contribution to taxation was in 1948 when the NP came into power. Some people estimate it at 7% or perhaps 10%. Was it wrong to uplift the Afrikaner with “English” tax money? Most certainly not, because the Afrikaner had to become part of the economy for the sake of the economy itself. For the sake of South Africa he had to become part of the economy. One can therefore not measure a population group’s share in the economy by means of the tax that it pays. The Afrikaner, after all, played a big role in agriculture as an employer, with his co-operatives and with the stabilisation of the rural areas. It was a contribution far greater than could be measured by his contribution to the Treasury.

The Government has known this for years, but now we have learnt from this that we cannot simply think the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians out of our economy. We really cannot work with a splinter-economy, because for the sake of the progress of South Africa as a whole and our total economic package, every group and individual in South Africa has to become part and be a part of the total spectrum of economic activity.

South Africa needs manpower, because it has to increase its labour and production capacity. South Africa’s manpower is part of its infrastructure, and those who overlook the role of Blacks and the other population groups in the economy from that point of view, do not yet understand how the economy functions. Our greatest investment is in the creation of human capital. This is the investment that is going to render the highest dividend in the long term. The question is whether the CP wants to put a stop to this. Do they want to stop developing and spending on education for these people?

*An HON MEMBER:

Not a word from them!

*Dr J T DELPORT:

It seems so, because the CP does not have an economic development policy. After he ran down the hon member for Parow’s speech as rubbish, the hon member for Soutpansberg—I shall not take it upon myself to pass judgement on the quality of a speech of a frontbencher of the Official Opposition—stated with great satisfaction that they stood for the Blacks in South Africa developing to their full potential in their own areas. Who is going to do this, and with what capital are they going to achieve it?

The economic policy of the CP is based on a warped economic view of things. It is the surest way to impoverish the Whites in South Africa.

Finally let us examine the policy of the CP from a moral point of view. “The money of Whites not to be used for other people”. That is an economic policy of greed and of “keep what you have”. When I realised that, I realised for the first time how the minds on that side of the House functioned with regard to privatisation. They cannot let go of anything they have. They do not understand how the economy functions, but they have to keep what they have, because they find security in that. When they speak of upliftment, they think of the surpluses or the crumbs that fall from the table. After they have first of all taken everything they need themselves, the surplus may be used. I want to go so far as to say that apart from a warped economic understanding, the meanest petit bourgeois morality imaginable underlies that approach.

I do not want to pass judgement on morality. There is a parable about a man who was travelling from one city to another one day. He was attacked and robbed. A man from another people passed him and came to his assistance and also took out his money to pay for his treatment. Am I not hearing correctly when I hear a voice saying: “Go and do likewise.”

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

*Dr J J SWANEPOEL:

Mr Chairman, when business was interrupted we had just been listening to the hon member for Sundays River, who in a calm but well-thought out way focused on the economic policy of the CP. I think he did this very effectively and I congratulate the hon member. [Interjections.]

In the brief period of time available to me I want to deal with an aspect of the constitutional policy of the CP, and specifically with the question of how the CP is going to change the Constitution if it wants to implement its policy of partition. If the CP wants to put its policy of partition into operation it will not be able to get around the fact that it will have to change the present Constitution. I want to dwell on this this evening.

Before I do this I want to say that the debate on the Appropriation of the Administration: House of Assembly is of great importance to the NP because it has to do with one of the cornerstones of its Constitutional policy, namely own affairs. It is the conviction of those of us on this side of the House that the interests of each population group can best be served by the maintenance of full and equal self-determination for all population groups through the extension of the concept of own affairs. That is why the NP devotes its energies to achieving maximum self-determination for all population groups over their own affairs, and a joint say in respect of matters of common interest in such a way as to obviate domination of any one entity by another. That is the essence of the NP’s constitutional policy.

Opposed to this we have the policy of partition of the CP. It is interesting that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, in an interview published in the Patriot of August 1986, paraphrases the policy of partition of the CP as follows, and I quote:

Die KP se beleid is een van partisie en wel só dat, afgeskei van die ander volke, die blanke gemeenskap van die Afrikanervolk en Engelssprekendes wat met horn geassosieer is, ’n eie Vaderland het waarbinne hy slegs deur sy eie mense geregeer word …
*Dr W J SNYMAN:

Hear, hear! That is correct!

*Dr J J SWANEPOEL:

The hon member says that is correct. I am pleased that he concedes that.

There are two key concepts in this definition by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition which I want to deal with for a moment. The one is “afgeskei”, and the other is “’n eie vaderland”.

A little further on in the same article in Die Patriot the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition describes the “eie Vaderland” concept as “’n spesifieke eie grondgebied” in which the Coloured, Indian and Black peoples will not have “gelyke regte met ons…”—namely the Whites.

To sum up, therefore, one can say that the partition policy of the CP has as its aim an own fatherland for the Whites, which will come into being through the hiving off of a specific own territory from the rest of the RSA where people of colour will not have equal rights with the Whites.

*Dr W J SNYMAN:

That is still correct.

*Dr J J SWANEPOEL:

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is correct when he speaks here of separation because the generally accepted definition of partition as a political concept is precisely the division of the territory of the State into two or more areas that function as independent States after the division.

Constitutional law also teaches us that partition is a negotiated process. In democracy there is no such process as unilateral partition. Partition is a negotiated process. Logically this means that a CP Government will have to negotiate with the other peoples on an own fatherland for the Whites—an own specific territory, separated from the rest of South Africa. [Interjections.] I shall deal with the questions about where this specific territory for Whites is going to be and how the CP is going to put it into practical effect. I am limiting myself only to the way in which the CP is going to change the present Constitution to put its partition plan into effect, because that is the first step.

According to the definition of partition the CP will have to negotiate with the other peoples on this if it wants partition to take place in a democratic way. In my view this is their first stumbling block, because the CP is not really known for being a skilled negotiator. [Interjections.] I am saying this precisely on the grounds of our experience in this tricameral Parliament. [Interjections.] They do not really negotiate with the other groups in the standing committees. That is our experience. They do not even negotiate with fellow-Whites in the standing committees. They do not even negotiate with the NP. During the no-confidence debate earlier this year in this House we had to listen to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition telling the hon the Leader of the House across the floor of the House that he was not actually interested in discussing sensitive security matters with the hon the State President. I contend that the CP cannot convince the other populations groups, through negotiation, to agree to a policy of partition. I also want to assert that the CP knows that it cannot persuade the other groups to accept a separate White territory, and what is more, it is not worried about that. That is why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition hints at an amendment of the Constitution under CP rule, something about which thinking Afrikaners have grave misgivings.

In the TV debate with the hon the Leader of the House, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said, amongst other things, that the Constitution could only be amended if the majority vote in the three Houses was in favour of the amendment. He even went so far as to point out that if the White and the Coloured Houses reached unanimity on the Constitutional amendment, the Indian House could, with a majority vote of only one, throw out such an amendment. That is how difficult it is to amend the Constitution. However, in the same breath he said that when the CP came to power—that was during the TV debate—it was going to campaign very strongly for the amendment of the Constitution. He said:

En ons sê hy moet…

That is the Constitution-—

…gewysig kan word anders sit jy met die wil van ’n Blanke meerderheid.

That is very important. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition says, on the one hand that it is difficult to amend the Constitution and that it can even be voted down by a majority vote of only one in one of the other Houses, but on the other he says that if the CP come to power it would be representing the expressed will of the Whites, and one could not allow that to be vetoed by the other two Houses. The question is, and the CP must reply to this … [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! The hon members are speaking too loudly. They must please lower their voices. The hon member may continue.

*Dr J J SWANEPOEL:

The question is whether the CP is thereby saying that a majority in the House of Assembly will not allow the other Houses to stand in its way if it wants to change the Constitution. These words—if words have any meaning—can only mean that when the CP comes to power it will amend the Constitution even without the consent of the other Houses. This will be an undemocratic action and will amount to nothing less than a suspension of the Constitution.

Are we to conclude from this that a CP Government, if it were not able to amend the Constitution by means of negotiation, would impose its will undemocratically? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did, after all, say in the TV debate that the other two Houses could not be allowed to veto a White majority. The CP must give us an answer to this question. South Africa wants to know what their answer is.

*Mr P W COETZER:

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon member for Bloemfontein East on his speech. [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg is interjecting a great deal. The hon member for Springs may proceed.

*Mr P W COETZER:

The hon member for Bloemfontein East made an outstanding speech. However he should not have any high hopes of getting answers from members of the Official Opposition, because they do not really specialise in answers. [Interjections.]

I should like to react to the speech by the hon member for Standerton earlier today. I take pleasure in congratulating him on his election results.

*Mr C UYS:

What about your prediction?

*Mr P W COETZER:

The hon member for Standerton attacked me about some of our information documents and about a speech I made here. It is interesting that the hon member refers to a speech that I supposedly made in the Budget debate, whereas in fact it was during the no-confidence debate. That, of course is a minor technical error, and I forgive him. [Interjections.] However, technical errors are not so serious; that is not what this is really about. The hon member for Standerton is upset about my referring to a Black man employed by his firm of attorneys because I had supposedly said that he was an apprentice or a professional assistant. Technically he is correct, and I concede that. [Interjections.]

However, let us look at the full facts. The Black man in question described himself as a “general office clerk” in an interview in The Sunday Star of 21 February. The article went on to describe his duties at the firm as follows:

He takes instructions from Black clients, and interprets for the partners when they interview Black clients.
*Mr T LANGLEY:

What is wrong with that? [Interjections.]

*Mr P W COETZER:

Indeed, the Black man in question is probably very well-equipped to take instructions from clients, because he has a law degree. In other words, he has a good academic grounding. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! If the hon members for Barberton and Soutpansberg do not heed my appeal, I shall forbid them to make interjections. The hon member for Springs may proceed.

*Mr P W COETZER:

The fact is, therefore, that the hon member for Standerton is using this Black man in a professional capacity or for professional purposes. [Interjections.] He elevates this man’s title to the alpha and the omega, but that is not the point at issue. The point concerns the role that he plays. [Interjections.] The question is whether the hon member for Standerton has ever offered this Black man with a law degree, whom he trusts to provide professional services within his firm, a contract as an apprentice. [Interjections.] Has he ever considered affording this Black man the opportunity to obtain full qualifications?

*Mr C D DE JAGER:

You thought so!

*Mr P W COETZER:

He referred to the principle of employing such a Black person, but he did not elaborate on it. Surely it is quite clear that his principle merely revolves around a title, and that is typical of the CP. If one just gives something the right name, then one can do what one likes with it. If the name is right, then by the same token the principle is right.

*Mr P C CRONJÉ:

Can he vote?

*Mr P W COETZER:

I should like to apologise to this House for one thing as far as that speech of mine is concerned. On that day I doubted whether the hon member for Standerton was really a CP. I must say that today I am convinced that he is a prototype of the CP. His principles are as shallow as a title. The hon member also reproached me for trying to score petty political points by way of this matter. [Interjections.] Let us gauge for a moment…

Mr C D DE JAGER:

[Inaudible.]

*Mr P W COETZER:

We shall speak to that hon member about Mr Albert Luthuli later.

He reproaches me for having scored petty political points in the election, but now there is another very interesting matter. The hon member who is now accusing me of petty politicking extended a special welcome to the foreign Press at a Press conference in his constituency on 25 February. He mentioned that he treated them to a meal at his farm that afternoon.

*Mr T LANGLEY:

Are you envious?

*Mr P W COETZER:

Not at all.

He said that he had been particularly impressed by their objectivity. He urged Afrikaans newspapermen to learn from these foreign Pressmen about objectivity. [Interjections.]

However, what is happening now? One of the people that he entertained and that he praised so highly as an example to Afrikaans Pressmen reported on this some days later in a British newspaper. Listen to what this man from the Financial Times of London has to say about that hon member’s voters. I quote from a report which appeared in Beeld on 2 March, quoting the relevant newspaper report:

In ’n berig in die Financial Times word geskryf dat Schweizer-Reneke en Standerton regte Afrikaanssprekende “Boer country” is waar “knobbly-faced farmers carry huge beer bellies, drive bakkies (battered pick-up trucks) and wear short trousers and knee-high socks.

At home their ample wives pad barefoot around the house and cook sticky-sweet delights like koeksisters and thick boerewors sausages.”

[Interjections.] That hon member can go and learn objectivity from that foreign newspaperman with pleasure. That is not the Afrikaner that I know. [Interjections.] The Afrikaner that I know is a noble man of the people.

Mr J J WALSH:

Mr Chairman, it would be impossible for me to follow on the line adopted by the hon member for Springs. I would, however, like to say that to me it is somewhat distasteful that the circumstances whereby a Black man is unable to defend himself or to have any representation here, is used as a political football in this debate. [Interjections.] I find that particularly distasteful.

It is my intention tonight, with some difficulty, I think, to try to return to the matter at hand, namely to discuss the Appropriation Bill that is before us, and to support the amendment as moved by the hon member for Yeoville.

Might I first of all say that it is gratifying to note that the modest increase over the revised estimates for last year of only R20 million is less than 0,5%. I have done a comparison with budgeted expenditure on a per person basis among the White, Coloured and Indian groups. I realise that this is a very crude measure which is open to all sorts of pitfalls, but I nevertheless believe it gives some insight. Using the figures to be spent out of the State Revenue Account and the population figures for 1984, the amounts allocated are as follows: The House of Assembly, R1 099; the House of Representatives, R817; and the House of Delegates, R938.

Compared with last year the expenditure on Whites has in fact decreased by 2%, whereas that for Coloureds and Indians has increased by 17% and 14% respectively. Nevertheless, expenditure for Whites per person remains at 35% more than for Coloureds and 17% more than for Indians.

In the absence of details regarding the formulae used and the underlying reasons for this allocation, I can only assume that the gap is, in fact, closing but that the amount spent on Whites per person remains significantly higher than that spent on the other two population groups. Unfortunately, I am unable to calculate a similar comparative figure for expenditure on Blacks per person, but I have no doubt that the amount will be very much lower.

In his opening remarks in his introductory speech the hon the Minister emphasised that where functions had been transferred to the respective administrations care had been taken not to increase overall expenditure or the number of staff employed. In the light of this I wish to query certain aspects.

There have been increases in the number of personnel. Under the Vote Education and Culture—this excludes people employed in institutions—the number has increased by 93 people, or 15%; under the Vote Local Government, by 57 people, or 10%; and, under the Vote Budgetary and Auxiliary Services, there was a staggering increase of 294 people, or 60%. I wish to ask the hon the Minister the reasons for these increases, obviously particularly for Budgetary and Auxiliary Services. On the surface this appears to be an unwarranted increase in administrative personnel. This may well have resulted from the transfer of functions to the Administration: House of Assembly; if so, I should like to know whether there have been comparable decreases elsewhere.

Secondly, I wish to enquire how much money was spent in renovating the Raadsaal building in Pretoria and precisely to what purpose this building is now being put. I would like to know what the total expenditure in this regard was, including furniture and equipment installed. I should also like to know which departments are now being housed in this building and how many persons are involved.

The hon member for Yeoville dealt with the question of pensions. I should like to support him in what he had to say. I too believe it is a crying shame that no increases are provided for in this Budget. The one-off R60 bonus for White pensioners represents an increase of R5 per month, or a pitiful 2%. The situation in the case of Black pensioners is obviously far worse. This party acknowledges the need to achieve parity with regard to old-age pensions and I am pleased to note that the House of Representatives has decided to grant an increase to their pensioners. However, I believe that, at the very least, pension increases should go most of the way, if not all the way, towards keeping pace with inflation. Assuming that the inflation rate is 14%, we have now effectively reduced pensioners’ income by 12%. This is a bitter blow to people who are battling to survive in the light of increasing costs. The State has a duty to provide for these people. The starting point, as far as pensioners are concerned, should be to compensate them as far as possible for inflation. Thereafter, we should strive to achieve parity as quickly as possible.

In the time I have left I should like to make an appeal regarding Groot Constantia. This is a matter which was dealt with at some length by the hon the Minister. Sir, may I say at the outset that I am amazed that this is a Whites-only affair. Groot Constantia, a monument of such significance, beauty and historical value, is important to all the people of South Africa. However, I suppose this is yet again one of the many anomalies in the contrived distinction between own and general affairs.

Groot Constantia has run up a debt of some R13 million of which R5,7 million is now to be settled by the State. This state of affairs was due largely to heavy capital expenditure, but was to some degree also the result of mismanagement. In 1985-86 a special investigation by the Auditor-General disclosed many irregularities, some as a result of normal commercial risk, but others which amounted to fraud. An amount of R203 000 was written off as a bad debt in that year. In addition to that a company formed by employees provided services over a number of years to the extent of R60 000, for which the normal tender procedure had not been followed; accounting records were falsified; unauthorised interest-free loans were made out of the estate funds to employees; records of assets were not kept; and personal expenditure was charged to the estate.

In dealing with this issue I believe the important matter is what is to happen to Groot Constantia now that it is in this position. Mention has been made of privatisation, but I cannot support this concept. I believe the beauty and historical value of Groot Constantia must be preserved intact for generations to come, and the State has to bear this responsibility. Some 200 000 to 250 000 tourists visit the estate annually, many of them from overseas.

Heavy capital expenditure was incurred largely as a result of restoration—the original cellars were restored and cottages for labourers were provided. Other very worthwhile expenditure was also incurred, but this kind of expenditure cannot be borne by commercial enterprise. Therefore, I think it is unrealistic to believe that the estate could ever fund its own operation. If privatised—this is why I am against it—an investor motivated by profit will not, I believe, be as sensitive as he should be to the historical significance of that estate. Maintenance will deteriorate, and the temptation will no doubt be there to sell off part of the estate in order to cover the needs of financing the operation.

It may well be possible to privatise certain aspects such as the farm itself and the restaurant—I believe the restaurant is already privatised—but it must be recognised that this will not produce a surplus and that there will be a shortfall which, I believe, the State will have to finance, but which is acceptable and well worthwhile due to the importance of that particular monument.

I do not pretend that this is a simple issue, neither do I pretend that those are all the answers, but I appeal to the hon the Minister to look at alternatives to privatisation of the estate as a whole which, I believe, will ultimately be detrimental.

Mr R S SCHOEMAN:

Mr Chairman, I do not intend responding to the hon member for Pinelands and no doubt he will be furnished with replies to his many questions in due course.

However, Sir, I would like to refer to certain events in Natal concerning the extremely important matter of education provided for in this Budget to the amount of R3 750 million—that is R346 million or 10,2% more than in the 1987-88 financial year. I would also like to welcome the assurances given earlier in this debate by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in respect of the rationalisation of education. However, I feel this House should know that there is a serious threat of a pointless politicisation of the education issue in Natal by members of the PEP. [Interjections.] I have no doubt in my mind that this will be to the detriment of all—teachers, parents and especially pupils.

As a parent who also tries to be involved in the schooling of my children and as a member of Parliament for a constituency in which there are a large number of White schools, I was very disturbed to observe the degree of concern and restlessness in respect of education matters in Natal of late. The question arises as to the reason for this. Obviously, some of the concerns are or were based on problems experienced during a transitional phase and which have been acknowledged and, in the main, sorted out.

One of the main reasons for the disquiet, however, has been an emotional and sensational portrayal of the situation by certain people, and even one or hon members of this House, like the hon member for Durban North. For example, one finds the dramatic words in a press interview earlier this year, headed “Mike Ellis on education—situation critical, he says”. He goes on to say:

…proposed legislation would change the structure of education control drastically and could have a devastating effect on the education system.

Like Churchill of old he calls on parents and teachers to:

…get together and take up the cudgels against this threat posed by the State.

[Interjections.] This is fantastic melodrama; he must have studied Shakespeare! [Interjections.]

Another example is his Press interview on 26 February about certain measures being envisaged by the Government. The hon member for Durban North alleges:

The Government is carrying on a relentless programme of centralisation of control with the enforcement of its rigid and dogmatic philosophy ….

[Interjections.] I want to quote another dramatic example:

…the new Bill will be a final nail in the coffin of true liberal and democratic ideals ….

[Interjections.] However, this horror story is not scary enough for the hon member. He climaxes, as he so often does ….[Interjections.]… with these words …[Interjections.]

The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order!

Mr R S SCHOEMAN:

Mr Chairman, I cannot help it if the hon members of that party are not used to climaxing. [Interjections.] He says:

The own affairs concept is going to destroy the base on which White education in many parts of this country thrived, notably freedom of thought and expression.

[Interjections.] Mr Chairman, that to which those hon members are saying “hear, hear” in a mindless chorus, is utter rubbish! [Interjections.]

The last example I want to give is by this same hon member who seems to spend all his time talking …

The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! There are members of the PFP who have just finished their speeches and who are continuously interrupting. Will they kindly refrain from doing so? The hon member may continue.

Mr R S SCHOEMAN:

Mr Chairman, this hon member also tries to denigrate the Natal Education Department by describing it as a mere figurehead for Pretoria. He also tries to denigrate the ministerial representative of the Administration: House of Assembly, Dr Gerald Hosking, to whom I will refer shortly.

The fact of the matter is that these statements and allegations are simply not true and do not stand up to critical, unemotional and objective examination. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, the alarmist style, tenor and superficiality of these remarks, is such that no matter how hard the hon member for Durban North tries to dress up his arguments in educational garb, he is just another party political operative trying to score party political points; even if it is at the expense of … [Interjections.] … the Natal Education Department, which, in his heart, he must know does much good and has a great positive potential.

In Natal we have the tremendous good fortune to have as a ministerial representative representing the hon the Minister of Education and Culture a man that has been involved in education management in Natal for 22 years. I am referring to Dr Gerald Hosking who served for 11 years as a member of the Committee for Provincial Education Heads and who for five and a half years was one of the most distinguished Directors of Education that Natal has ever had.

He and the very capable and dedicated Director of Education in Natal, Mr Ohmsdahl, are doing an outstanding job together with their staff members and many teachers and supportive parents throughout Natal. I believe they should be given support. They do not deserve the irresponsible whipping up of emotions which we have witnessed of late. My advice to the parents and teachers of Natal is that they should put their trust in men like Dr Hosking and Mr Ohmsdahl and in responsible leaders in the teachers’ and parents’ communities in Natal, and not allow people with opportunistic political motives—by the way, that reminds me of the hon member for Durban Central … [Interjections.]

The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! The hon member for Pinetown must contain himself. The hon member for Umhlanga may continue.

Mr R S SCHOEMAN:

Mr Chairman, the hon member cannot take his medicine. That is his problem. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! The hon member for Bryanston must also contain himself.

Mr R S SCHOEMAN:

Mr Chairman, people like them, who are hell-bent on destroying education as an own affair at any cost and who want to turn this important and sensitive area of education into a political battlefield, should realise that at the end of the day education and our children will be the losers.

*In conclusion I wish to say that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, his Superintendent General and his department deserve the support of every hon member of this House. At a difficult time in our history they have a Herculean task, which is difficult enough without the opportunistic politicking that I have just referred to. This evening I want to call on everyone who is guilty of this to stop doing it.

*Mr D S PIENAAR:

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umhlanga did not follow the general trend which speakers on the opposite side displayed here this afternoon. He must therefore pardon me if I do not react further to him. In the first place, I should like to react to the hon member for Springs. In a short speaking turn, which apparently was specially organised for him for this opportunity, he tried to defend the indefensible. [Interjections.]

With regard to this hon member I should like to quote two witnesses here. One group of witnesses who probably will have the last word to say about the hon member for Springs, are the inhabitants of his own constituency. In this regard I want to quote the following to this House from a local newspaper in his constituency, the Springs en Brakpan Adverteerder:

Die grootste meerderheid kiesers wat mnr Coetzer Parlement toe gestuur het, sou dit nie gedoen het as hulle beter ingelig was nie.
Nog ’n ongelukkige inwoner sê dat mnr Coetzer, wat slegs die afgelope twee jaar in Springs betrokke is, nie met sekerheid kan beloof dat eiendomme nie in waarde sal verminder en nie sal omgee as eienaars skade as gevolg van hierdie ontwikkeling ly nie.

Secondly, I should like to quote the words of the hon member for Springs himself. With reference to the CP, on 10 February this year, he said in the House [Hansard, 1988, col 504]:

I do not know what this party’s field-workers told him, but if they do not inform him as to the true cause of the campaign in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton, there will be a rude awakening for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition when 2 March dawns.

Of course I think that the evidence from this hon member’s own constituency and the words of the hon member himself were a reply to his attempt to try and justify, earlier this evening, what could not be justified. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also tried, in his usual way, to defend the indefensible, the unjustifiable. He said we were creating the impression that the hon the Minister of Finance and the Government wanted to neglect own affairs. Unlike the hon member for Lichtenburg, who said that the appropriation for White own affairs decreased by 1,75% in this year’s budget, the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said that this appropriation had in fact increased by 9,6%.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s motivation for that was that the CP was gossiping again and being unjustly critical when it said that White own affairs were being neglected. Surely the fact of the matter is that in real terms White own affairs are being neglected. With the inflation rate being what it is, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s figure of 9,6% is surely not progress in real terms. Surely that is not the expansion of own affairs on which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council usually prides himself. Surely that is not the reinforcement of the own affairs leg—the other leg being general affairs—upon which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council usually prides himself. In real terms that amounts to retrogression, and the whole country knows it. Everyone understands it as such except hon members on the other side of the House. [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

There are quite a few general departments as well.

*Mr D S PIENAAR:

The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare said that even when he referred to the formulae which are going to be given statutory recognition, and I quote:

By giving statutory recognition to the formulae, it means that the respective administrations can be assured of financial means which will enable them to provide a minimum standard of service, previously specified, in respect of specific own affairs.

I want to repeat the words “minimum standard of service, previously specified”. In the meantime the fact of the matter is that the percentage appropriated from the main budget for White own affairs has decreased, while that of the Coloureds and Indians has increased. Theirs increases, yet ours from the main appropriation decreases.

The fact of the matter is that the so-called departments and so-called departmental heads of own affairs are not departments and departmental heads in the true sense of the word. Last year the hon Minister tried to create the impression, in the Vote discussion on national education, that I allegedly was incorrect in saying that the department head, as the hon the Minister of Education and Culture calls him, does not have the status of a Director-General. The hon the Minister was as usual incorrect. The hon member for Brentwood, who spoke after him, was also incorrect. The fact of the matter is that in the entire White own affairs administration there is only one person who has the status of a Director-General, and that is the Director-General of the Administration: House of Assembly. All the other so-called department heads are subordinate. That is done merely to confirm what is a so-called “equal” other leg, and which in fact is a permanently subordinate administration for Whites in order to console White voters, but which makes no impression on the true state of the national economy.

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

That is not true.

*Mr D S PIENAAR:

When we talk about standards, and the “minimum standards, previously specified” to which the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare referred, I am able once again to refer to what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said on various occasions in the past. With reference to the 10-year plan in education and the rationalisation which was going to be applied as a method to implement that plan, he said it would happen—

… without lowering education standards as such or having an excessively disruptive effect on educators, students and pupils.

With that, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself, without our having to argue about it, admitted that there would be some disruption, but that it should not be excessive. In plain language that means the Government accepts that there is going to be a lowering of standards as well as some disruption. The most one can say for them is that they are trying to keep it within reasonable limits.

The fact of the matter is that the education budget has also decreased in real terms within the White own affairs budget. It has once again decreased in real terms, as was the case last year. That came as no surprise to us. Every year we expect the Whites to fall behind, and this year’s figures are once again no surprise.

If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council still does not want to concede that my argument is correct, we must refer to repeated concrete examples of the lowering of White educational standards, which we mentioned in this House. As recently as the week before last we supplied the figures and made specific projections during a debate on a private member’s motion. We said that in accordance with the secret funding formula, which the Government does not want to publish, and the concomitant rationalisation programme there will be a reduction of 50% in White pupil occupancy over the next eight years. We received no answer to that from the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. I hope he participates in this debate so that he can use the second opportunity he has to reply to this. We have not received the particulars nor the formula from the Government, and that is why we have simply done our homework as well as we could. We are now presenting specific figures to the hon the Minister and he has the opportunity of replying to them.

We said that the pupil-teacher ratio was also going to decrease by 50%. We said that the average class size was also going to decrease by 50% over the same period. We also said that probably 35% of the staff in White education would have to be got rid of. We also said that the salary policy followed by the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of National Education confirmed our conclusions arising from the information available to us, namely that some of those teachers would have to be got rid of by means of a salary policy in order to spare them the agony of dismissal.

The impression is also created that although White teachers are not receiving general adjustments, they will, however, receive notch increases. The fact of the matter is, that more than 40% and probably just over 50% of White teachers are already at their maximum notch and will therefore receive no notch adjustments this year. The hon the Minister of National Education, the Minister of Education and Culture and the Government as a whole tell us we should not be concerned because standards are being maintained. In the meantime we are losing vital people of quality in education. The figures are there for everyone to see.

Universities and technikons are finding themselves in dreadful circumstances. The hon the Minister, however, continues to say that standards will be maintained. According to the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare there will even be minimum standards which have been previously specified. As a counter-argument to this I want to mention that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture conceded a few days ago that there were insufficient funds to provide the basic educational needs, to purchase essential equipment and to provide important educational services.

I should like to return to the general trend that has become apparent in this debate, namely that the NP and the PFP have joined forces from the start in leading an attack on the CP and its policy. One could for a moment think that the CP was already in the Government benches and that it was a motion of no confidence which had just started. [Interjections.] It is astounding and I do not know whether one should ascribe it entirely to chance that the NP and the PFP speakers have concentrated on the CP right from the start. They have good reason to concentrate on us, of course.

I want to conclude by discussing two matters. The first one is that the hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare talked at length about own affairs. I want to put a simple question to them. In the light of the open agenda for negotiations, in other words the National Council, the “End Apartheid” pamphlet which the Government has been distributing abroad and the minority of Whites who are going to serve on the National Council to work out the new Constitution, I want to ask whether the entire own affairs dispensation which is now being discussed at great length, but which is constantly being put on the back burner every year, is not also going to be negotiable at the National Council.

The hon the Minister of National Education is shaking his head. I do not see the point of talking about an open agenda and that even the question of the release of political prisoners can, according to last year’s report by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, be part of that agenda at the negotiating table.

*The MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE:

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to start by thanking the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for the part in his speech which dealt with education and culture. [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! There are a few front-benchers here who should perhaps continue their conversations outside the House. The hon the Minister may proceed.

*The MINISTER:

I want to thank him for having made a particularly important contribution which obviates the necessity for me to elaborate on it any further. I want to thank him especially for having dealt with the question of the maintenance of standards to which the hon member for Potgietersrus has just referred.

I might return to the hon member for Potgietersrus if I have any time left.

I also want to express my thanks to the hon member for Umhlanga, who broached an extremely important subject, to which I should also like to refer in the limited time available to me, namely that the hon member for Pinetown and the hon member for Durban North, inter alia, abused education in the sense of trying to use it to score party-political debating points. I shall come back to that, since I respect the hon member for Pinetown as far as his empathy for education is concerned, because he was a teacher. At times I am astounded, however, by the fact that this hon member, in his attempts to make a contribution to education, makes certain statements and employs certain methods which do not promote the cause of education. I am sorry that the hon member even goes so far as to co-operate closely with a teaching association in Natal—the NTS— which in written statements does not hesitate to deal not only with professional matters relating to education but also dabble in matters that are solely political. The hon member for Durban North, who is a former president of that association, proceeds along the same lines, by making statements which do not serve the cause of education and especially not education in Natal. Time permitting, I shall come back to that at a later stage.

Allow me immediately, Mr Chairman, to talk honestly and openly to this House about the challenges confronting education—and specifically White education—and let us try and see what the place and position of White education is in respect of specific realities in this country. The first challenge we are grappling with is that we are in fact dealing with a declining population rate, which necessarily contributes to a decline in the demand for teachers. As painful as it might be, that brings us to the process of rationalisation. There is no doubt about the fact that it is painful.

At the same time we also have another challenge, however, namely that against the background of the hon the State President’s guidelines on the economy, all departments in this country—including the Department of Education and Culture—have made significant contributions. When we make a significant contribution under these difficult circumstances of rationalisation, however, it does not necessarily imply a lowering of standards. In fact I have discussed this and have already challenged the Official Opposition to indicate to me scientifically where White educational standards have been lowered. Education is also saddled with a further challenge, namely that at times we might not have been administering the various aspects of education cost-effectively—and we might as well admit that. Perhaps we had grown too accustomed to the luxury of a time when money was freely available. Now that we have to rationalise, whether it be in the KG-sector, universities or the technikons it does not necessarily follow that we are lowering standards, but that we are acting in a cost-effective manner. There is an idea prevalent among the general public, one which is being encouraged and inculcated by the Official Opposition, that this necessarily means a lowering of standards.

We are also struggling with another dilemma, namely the maintenance of White own education within a multicultural society. We cannot escape that. This multicultural society also contains specific implications in view of the population ratio in respect of numbers, but it also contains a particular problem in respect of the level of educational development of these various population groups. This also has to be taken into account.

Finally I want to say that we are also dealing with political parties that want to use education purely for political gain. I have various examples I can refer to if I am able to deal with this matter at a later stage. At the moment, I want to be brief,

Sir, by saying that the Official Opposition can shout as much as they like; they can try to do everything possible to denigrate the own affairs concept, but the fact of the matter is that the concept of own affairs is constitutional, and this Government has committed itself to proceeding with this own affairs concept and building upon it. Only the future will show whether all this suspicion-mongering by the Official Opposition will become a reality.

The fact of the matter is that education is entrenched in the Constitution as an own affair. We shall proceed with education as being an own affair because it is also educationally justified. The Official Opposition can carry on as much as they like, but we shall proceed with it and continue to maintain standards.

As far as the PFP is concerned, they can keep on trying to bring about integration in education. We on this side of the House believe that as long as this Government is in power we shall continue with a pure, educationally established principle and standpoint that education cannot be divorced from the cultural group which it serves. That does not mean that it has to have a negative effect on other population groups. I want to dwell on this point for a while.

I should like to furnish the answer myself to the question as to where we stand with education within this complex and problematic situation with which we have to struggle. Firstly I want to say that education is based on a Constitution which has as its premise that in a multinational and a multicultural country provision will have to be made for communality as well as diversity. People who cannot see that do not want to see it, and there is surely nothing we can do about that. There will have to be a continual search for a balance between this communality and diversity. In this standpoint of the Government we have own and general affairs, education being classified as an own affair. We must therefore have an educational system which takes the plurality of the population structure as well as the unity of the body politic into account. There cannot be an educational system which is divorced from that, because then one is not dealing with reality. It is also true, however, that such an educational system will have to take the reality of the population’s multicultural and multinational character into account. Surely education cannot be presented in a vacuum. No educational system can function in this way. In the RSA we cannot speak of a shared outlook on life which applies to everyone. There are differences between the various population groups, even within a specific population group, in terms of the way of life they follow. The reality in South Africa is that we shall have to accept differences and diversity as a fact of life. There must be an insoluble link between the community and educational system serving it, especially in such a society. There is nothing strange about that; nor is this only the case in the RSA. It is true of many countries in Europe.

Surely it is true that in West Germany, with its 11 Lander, they have 11 different Ministers of Education. Surely it is true that in Switzerland with its 26 cantons there are 26 different educational systems. [Interjections.] Surely it is so that in Belgium provision is made for an educational system for the Flemish and the Walloons. Surely in Nigeria there are 11 different educational systems. Surely it is the case in the United Kingdom where there is a Welsh and a Scottish office. One is therefore justified in having different educational systems for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, without it signifying that the education systems of any of these groups are inferior. All these groups I have now mentioned acknowledge, to a greater or lesser extent, the truth of communality and diversity. What is important—and I am saying this to the PFP—is that separate education departments do not necessarily result in poor inter-group relations. That is what the hon member for Claremont accused us of. That hon member, like so many others, makes the mistake, in his eagerness to denigrate the old apartheid system, of discovering the spectre of apartheid in every difference or grouping which exists. That is a misinterpretation, and we achieve nothing with it. It is true that the heart of education definitely lies in the principle of being bound to one’s culture. It is quoted everywhere, but I hasten to add that it may not, however, mean that inferior facilities and opportunities should continue to exist for certain groups. It is true that at the moment there is a difference in educational opportunities. The Government admitted that right from the start when the White Paper was published. We are trying to attain those equal educational opportunities in the years which lie ahead, whenever they might be attainable, and we make no apology for that. It is not, however, to the detriment of the Whites; of course not.

*Mr D S PIENAAR:

It has been proved that it is to their detriment. Reply … [Interjections.]

*The MINISTER:

I challenge that hon member to present a scientific example. He must not merely play with a lot of figures and take up the House’s time with those games. He must present scientific evidence and proof that standards have declined.

*Mr D S PIENAAR:

It depends on whether it is scientific in nature or not.

*The MINISTER:

Culturally-oriented instruction does not mean that the already existing gaps between the various cultural groups should be widened any further. Our efforts must be aimed at bridging those gaps in the best interests of everyone in this country. [Interjections.] Own education cannot therefore take place in a cocoon.

I want to tell the hon members of the CP that if ever the disaster of the CP’s coming to power administering own education in a cocoon were to afflict this country, they would stifle White education to death, and that would be to the detriment of the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks of this country.

*Mr D S PIENAAR:

You are the product of such a stifled system.

*The MINISTER:

Own education has set itself the task of building bridges. Obviously it is true that own education primarily looks after the interests of the group for which it has primarily been established, but it is also true that it has a specific task of building bridges. Within a week or so we shall announce a new sports and cultural policy, in which hon members will also note that we are continuing to maintain the same principle that each population group has the right to preserve what belongs to it, but it is also the responsibility of education to prepare children for the society in which they will find themselves. I hasten to say, however, that this challenge does not apply to White education only. This challenge of building bridges and sound attitudes and relations also applies to the instruction and tuition being given in Black, Coloured and Indian education.

There is something I have reservations about. It strikes me that the hon members of the PFP have never asked what is taking place in the other educational systems in this country. Are positive attitudes also being fostered? Are attempts also being made to improve relations? I hope so.

I want to tell hon members of the CP—that also applies to the hon members of the PFP—that we are not serving education in this country if we aim at trying to create a climate in education in which teachers are unable to carry out their primary function, namely that of equipping children. Children must be equipped academically, but must also be equipped in respect of the position in which they will find themselves in this country.

Hon members of the Official Opposition often find themselves in the streets, where they conjure up all kinds of spectres regarding the percentage of teachers who will have to resign, a pupil/ teacher ratio which ostensibly is going to change, a period which will come shortly when Black children will also be allowed to attend State-aided schools and the fact that in the foreseeable future people of colour will also be teaching in White schools. As long as the Official Opposition continues to drag this sensitive and emotional issue into the political arena in this way, the Official Opposition is doing a disservice to education in this country. I am making a very urgent appeal to the Official Opposition: Cut it out! Let us try to keep education as far away from politics as possible. Let us not stir up emotions among teachers, parents and children. I do not like to talk about these things across the floor of the House, but it has come to my attention that the Official Opposition is concentrating on children in respect of certain party-political standpoints. [Interjections.]

*Mr C UYS:

What about you? [Interjections.]

*The MINISTER:

Now that is typical! There the hon member for Barberton comes along and immediately admits that they would use the child and implant political ideologies in him so that they will be perpetuated in education. [Interjections.]

*Mr C UYS:

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council does the same with the NP.

"The MINISTER:

Just give me a chance, and listen to me. [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

*The MINISTER:

That is the dilemma we are struggling with. Obviously it is the hon member for Barberton’s right—and the same applies to every opposition party—to put its standpoint in the political arena. I have no objection to that. I am, however, making an appeal tonight, in the interests of the CP children, and not only in the interests of the NP children, but in the interests of all children: Cut it out! Stop involving teachers and children in the party-political game. [Interjections.] Obviously it is not reasonable and fair if these children have nationalism in the broader sense of the word …

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

It is not only the CP that does that. You proclaim that in the schools that … [Interjections.]

*The MINISTER:

Mr Chairman, what is that hon member doing now, or what is going on? [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! No, we cannot carry on in this way. The hon the Minister may proceed.

*The MINISTER:

I make an appeal for us also to inform the children where they come from and tell them about their history and traditions. [Interjections.] I am referring to party politics. I accuse those hon members—the hon member for Barberton has admitted this evening that they do that—of dragging party politics into the school arena by involving children. [Interjections.]

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

In the home!

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! I have now asked hon members to desist from making continuous interjections. I am now mentioning the hon member for Lichtenburg by name. The hon the Minister may proceed.

*The MINISTER:

I also want to tell hon members of the PFP that in their striving to establish an educational system which in general parlance is known as “open”, in the sense that we should throw all the schools open to the various population groups, they must not exploit an emotional matter politically. They must co-operate and bring their deeds into line with their words and in that way serve education.

The hon member for Umhlanga referred to that. I have here a newspaper report in which it is amusing to see how the hon member for Pinetown and the hon member for Durban Central try to score political debating points off people. The hon member for Durban Central said that they had achieved something regarding private schools because he had encouraged parents to send petitions to the hon the Minister. The hon member for Pinetown then said, no, wait a moment, the credit for this is not due to the hon member for Durban Central …

Mr R M BURROWS:

[Inaudible.]

*The MINISTER:

That is what is written in the newspaper. The fact of the matter is that the hon member for Pinetown was able, in some way, to peruse the draft Bill and leaked that information. He was not, however, aware of the fact that the draft Bill was eventually changed and that provision was subsequently made for what the community in Natal would like. In the interests of education, which we are serving, I want to ask the hon members to desist from that as well.

*Mr J M AUCAMP:

Mr Chairman, it is an honour to speak after the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. As a former teacher, it is a pleasure to be able to say that I associate myself fully with what he said here tonight.

I am not going to react to what opposition speakers said. By way of comparison I want to say that tonight NP speakers dealt with speakers on the opposition side just as responsible fathers deal with rebellious, naughty six-year-olds.

The hon the Minister referred, inter alia, to the bond between education and the community. While we are talking about own affairs, I should like to mention the praiseworthy assistance granted by the Free State Department of Education during the disastrous floods in this province. As hon members know, the motto of the Administration: House of Assembly’s Department of Education and Culture for 1988 is “Education in Service of the Community”. I should like to quote a few examples from a letter written by the Director of Education in the Free State Department of Education, Mr Willem Odendaal. He wrote:

In gemeenskappe waar daar geen georganiseerde liggame was nie, het die skoolhoof en personeel mense in nood besoek, die nood bepaal en hulp verleen.
Personeel en leerlinge het in baie gevalle gehelp om huise te ontruim. Meubels is by skole gestoor en skoolhoofde en personeel het huisvesting help reel vir die noodlydendes. Heelwat onderwysers is polisie-reserviste en het op dié wyse aktief aan reddings- en beveiligingsaksies deelgeneem.
By ’n sekere skool is sowat honderd toeriste vier nagte lank in die skoolkoshuis gehuisves. In die tyd het die personeel die gestrandes ook moreel ondersteun. ’n Toergroep van 36 bejaardes het ook een nag in ’n koshuis oornag. Hulle is van beddegoed en voedsel voorsien. Leerlinge was ook aktief betrokke tydens die noodsituasie. Seuns het meubels help verwyder, skape van eilande gered, was gereed om sandsakke, waar nodig, te pak en ná die vloed het hulle huise help opruim. Dogters het gehelp met die voorbereiding en verspreiding van voedsel.
Oral het skole hul fasiliteite ter beskikking van die gemeenskap en Burgerlike Beskerming gestel.
Op baie plekke was die skool die skuilplek, ook vir anderkleuriges. Skole was die verspreidingspunt van kos, klere en watersuiweringspille aan alle lede van die gemeenskap; ook was dit die stoorplek van kos en klere van welsynsorganisasies.
Skole kon ook as skakel tussen leerlinge, ouers en die gemeenskap dien waar telefoonverbindings ontwrig was.

In addition, Sir, rugby fields were used as landing-areas for helicopters.

I want to avail myself of the opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to the Free State Department of Education’s Director of Education as well as the teachers and the pupils in the Free State for their selfless service and for the important part they play in the community.

We are more than familiar with the opposition parties’ criticism of the present own affairs structure, as determined by the Constitution. We heard once again today how this structure was denigrated and dismissed as being useless by the PFP because it was ostensibly discriminatory, and by the CP because ostensibly it did not provide sufficient protection for White rights.

Sir, the NP will have had an uninterrupted tenure of 40 years this year … [Interjections.] … and incidentally, the party is 74 years old this year. That is a proud achievement in the annals of world history.

Mr R M BURROWS:

It looks like it too!

*Mr J M AUCAMP:

The party could do this because the voters trust it to take care of their interests. [Interjections.] In addition the NP is sufficiently realistic to adjust its policy to changed circumstances and to permit the country to develop to its full potential in this way.

In the final instance the NP remains the representative of the White electorate. That is why it will not take part in any action which can be to the detriment of its voters. The NP once again received a mandate on 6 May last year to ensure self-determination and an own community life for all groups. The best way in which to take care of the interests of the Whites is to ensure that the interests of all the other groups are protected as well, so that each group can come into its own. [Interjections.]

This is not a new idea. Since 1935 when Dr Malan rewrote the original principles which were accepted when the NP was established in 1914, the NP’s programme of principles has remained essentially unchanged. This programme says, inter alia:

The party stands for the just and equal treatment of all parts of South Africa, and for the impartial maintenance of the rights and privileges of every section of the population.

An addition was later made to the rewritten and present programme of principles—

… with due recognition of the reality of its heterogeneity and the existence of minorities in South Africa.

Only the day before yesterday the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in this House that White rights were safe in South Africa only to the degree in which Whites were capable of acknowledging the rights of others. White rights and self-determination are tangibly expressed and are experienced in communities by means of the structure and operation of the Administration: House of Assembly. That is why we are not ashamed of what the Administration: House of Assembly does for Whites; in fact, we are proud to say that everything that is done by the respective departments of the Administration: House of Assembly is to the benefit of Whites on that level at which their daily lives are affected. Here I am thinking of agriculture, education, health services, welfare and local government.

As its point of departure, the NP accepts—the hon member for Bloemfontein East pointed this out too—the existence of a variety of peoples with a multicultural character, as well as the right of each group to maintain its own identity. That is why the NP’s plans are based on this point of departure that provides for a division of power on the one hand, but for power-sharing on the other. On the one hand, therefore, there is collectiveness, but on the other there is the effective maintenance of group interests.

In addition to the existence of a variety of groups and peoples, which no one can deny, it is true that despite the variety there is an intertwinement of interests which cannot be undone by anyone. That is why the NP believes in an own say on own affairs by means of own political structures and institutions, but also in a joint say in matters of common concern by means of joint political structures.

The acknowledgement of the importance of group existence is not discriminatory. It is a condition for peaceful coexistence. In addition there are certain fundamental affairs which are inextricably linked to group security, and on occasion the hon the Minister of National Education and the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has expressed himself clearly on this issue.

What is most important is that each people or group should have an own community life. This comprises own residential areas, own schools, own institutions and systems within which the group can maintain its own character and can control group interests. Each group must also have an own power base within which to control its own affairs for itself, and from which its leaders can co-operate, share power and decide, with the leaders of other groups, on matters of common interest.

The NP is committed to the effective protection of minority rights as well as the prevention of group domination, and regards own political institutions, schools and residential areas as important means by which to achieve these objectives.

It is a good thing to request tonight that we extend the own affairs concept in the country even further. More and more groups are becoming aware of the benefits this holds for everyone. What was the refusal of the LP a few days ago to agree to a motion to request the throwing open of Coloured areas other than confirmation of the premium they themselves place on group rights?

The NP has also identified the third tier of government as important to the group. We say that this is important in that the city council no longer needs to be the guardian over the services of other communities. What is required of the town council is close involvement with regional services councils, for example where co-ordination and co-operation have to take place. The town council of every community and group has an opportunity now, however, to gear itself to the interests of that community. The town council of the future may, therefore, be primarily concerned with group interests. That is why a White elected town council may be dependent upon the extension of White interests, which will also have to include co-ordination with the greater interests of other groups. The NP has made this possible. That is why it is ironic that the CP has indicated that they are going to take part in town council elections to save the Whites. The CP wants to claim for itself the instrument the NP has developed for the sake of group interests.

I hasten to conclude, but should like to quote what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said in introducing a motion about group security at the NP’s Federal Congress in 1986:

Die meerderheid Blankes besef dat hul heil nie gebou kan word op voortgesette diskriminasie nie. Hulle weet diep in hul gebeente dat die ou droom van volledige aparte selfbeskikking binne aparte soewereine state vir elke volk en groep nie haalbaar is nie. Daarom is hulle bereid om wesenlike hervorminge onder leiding van die Staatspresident te aanvaar.
Saam met die NP is die meerderheid Blankes egter ook nie bereid om hulself op ’n glybaan tot oorheersing deur ander te plaas nie. Daar is, by die meerderheid Blankes, soos verwoord deur die NP, ’n stille vasberadenheid, vasberadenheid om hier te bly, om hier hul waardes te handhaaf, hier hul Vryheid in stand te hou en om hier ’n veilige toekoms vir hul nageslag te verseker—om hier hulself te bly.

The NP will not neglect its responsibility in respect of the protection of group rights. Just as the party has also taken care of the interests of Whites for an uninterrupted 40 years, it will remain the only human guarantee for the continued safe existence of the Whites in this country.

The NP is in favour of a new South Africa which can be effected in an orderly and considered way as long as the end product, in the words of the Free State leader of the NP, the hon the Minister of Justice, is still better than what the Republic of South Africa has at present, and this will lead to greater freedom for ail, not to less freedom and slavery for some. [Interjections.]

Mr K M ANDREW:

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to hear that hon members sound concerned.

The hon member Mr Aucamp said some things at the beginning of his speech that I agree with about the valuable role played by some schools in the floods. I might add that this was not only the case in the Orange Free State, but also in Natal and elsewhere. I also want to mention their role of assistance in collecting funds to assist those who have suffered as a result of those floods.

The hon member then went on to discuss the history of the NP and tried to defend many elements, including own affairs. I found it very interesting. He talked of White rights, of self-determination and of minority rights. He might remember some 23 years or so ago, when Dr Verwoerd was Prime Minister and leader of the NP, he gave the same kind of reasons. Among other things he said that he did not want Maoris to tour South Africa with the All Black rugby team. That was one of the nails in the coffin of South Africa’s international sporting links.

Looking at the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare earlier this evening wearing his Springbok rugby tie, which he earned with great distinction I felt sorry—and he must feel so even more as somebody who has actually played sport at that level—to know what isolation in sport has meant for many of our young people in this country. It is not only White people who have been affected, but people of all races.

To that extent and not in any cynical way, in a sense many parts of the world have told us that it is fine if we want to have apartheid, but that our sport can then be our “own affair”. They will not make it a “general affair” but an “own affair”, and we can play by ourselves and with anybody else locally whom we can find to play with, but they will stay away. That is very sad, Mr Chairman.

I was pleased—not with what the hon the Minister of Education and Culture said this evening, because I seldom am—that at least he addressed something relevant to what we are, or should be, talking about under this Budget. I am going to make some remarks in respect of education, but I would first like to respond to some of the points that he made.

First of all, he made an appeal not to use education for political purposes. Of course one accepts that, and on face value it sounds very nice. However, he himself knows very well that the syllabuses in our schools have consistently been distorted over the years for the political purposes and the ideology of the NP.

He knows that the very entrenchment of own affairs or apartheid education in our Constitution, and hence in practice in our schools and even in this debate, is a direct result of the political policies of the NP. He should know of people such as a certain school teacher in King William’s Town who, during the last general election, used his own pupils and sent them out effectively to gather information for the sake of the NP. [Interjections.] He knows those things, Sir. [Interjections.] I would be interested to know what kind of action was taken there. [Interjections.]

He appeals for sympathy in relation to the rationalisation process. One knows that when there is a declining pupil population certain cuts have to be made. It is never easy to make those cuts. One has sympathy for that. What he called rationalisation, however, when he referred to many things that had previously not been cost effective, what he was actually talking about was not rationalisation of education but an own affairs concept. If he were actually rationalising and if the Government were rationalising education on a cost-effective basis across the board he would have the support of people throughout this country. We know very well that there are assets—people assets, financial assets and capital assets—in this rationalisation process that are lost to the detriment of this country.

Then he goes on to refer to the philosophy of education being culture-bound. We all accept that, Sir. He talks about the need for a provision for commonality. He also refers to existing differences, and one accepts that too. The point is, however, that when one talks about something being culture-bound there are certain important facets one has to bear in mind. The moment one talks about English language culture in South Africa, even among Whites, and also about Afrikaans language culture in South Africa, he is not interested. Then he is the emperor, the dictator. He is not interested in what the English language White parents want. He states what his cultural norms are and insists on those being accepted because that, according to him, is the way it operates. Part of the English-language culture in this country, and also in many other English-speaking countries in the world, is an openness and a willingness to accept others; a readiness to accept greater diversity. He is not prepared, however, to allow that, Sir. Yet he wants us to display sympathy and to believe that in some purely educationally motivated sense he wants education to be culture-bound.

Mr Chairman, I wish to turn to another aspect of education this evening. Along with the hon the Minister and others, I believe that education is among the most important developmental factors in any society. Among the objectives—there are certainly many, but I am listing only a few—are, firstly, the advancement of the education of every person in order to promote the potential of the individual and the well-being of society: secondly, the fostering of good relationships among all South Africans by promoting an understanding of and thus an appreciation for the diverse cultures, backgrounds, traditions and aspirations of the people of South Africa; and thirdly, the recognition of the right of children to attend schools paid for or subsidised by public funds.

South Africa is a fast-changing, complex and plural society, and in this context, I believe, private schools have a particularly important role to play. I say this for two particular reasons. First of all, Sir, in that sort of society they are able to cater for diversity because however widespread the State facilities are, it is not likely that they are going to be able to cater for the full range of demands in a particular society. Private schools can play that role. Secondly, Sir, they can play a role in providing for experimentation. It is only natural that any government responsible to an electorate may be a little nervous about doing experiments that might seem to be a bit too daring, but private schools can do that at a lower risk. To that extent they also have a valuable pioneering role to play. I believe private schools have made an invaluable contribution to the development of this country, and that they continue to do so.

I am not for one moment suggesting that they are a substitute for a properly funded State education system, but private schools are a precious asset to be nurtured.

Along with many others institutions, private schools are today facing severe financial pressure. Many schools have already closed down and many others cannot go on much longer if this trend continues.

The Government does offer some subsidisation. In 1987, for example, 104 schools received what is termed a 45% subsidisation. It is 45% of a certain formula and in most cases it is not even close to 45% of the actual cost to the school. Nevertheless they receive that subsidisation. Sixty-six schools received 15%. Six schools applied for subsidies but received none, and 28 private schools did not apply for subsidies. I would imagine that those were mainly the commercially oriented matric schools, sometimes referred to “cram colleges”, which I imagine would not qualify for subsidies.

The total amount paid out in subsidies in the 1987—88 financial year was R45 million. This is simply not enough. Many schools are struggling and will not survive without further assistance. I am not asking for charity, but the State accepts the responsibility for education. If all private schools were to have closed their doors last year, the extra cost to the State would have been R85 million for the 1987-88 financial year alone. That is over and above the subsidy of R45 million.

It is extremely short-sighted to starve private schools of funds. They are an important ingredient in our educational mix. I appeal to the hon the Ministers concerned—both to the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture—to ensure that further financial assistance is given to private schools. This should be by way of direct subsidies, tax relief or both. It is not equivalent to other subsidies, because they are, in fact, doing the State’s job for them and saving the State something like R85 million as I have mentioned before.

Private schools in a plural society should not be only for the very rich. Freedom of choice in education is highly desirable and should be available to as many people as possible. I call on the hon the Minister to take action before it is too late.

Col S G BLOOMBERG:

Mr Chairman, in supporting the Vote, I would like to depart from the political issues raised so far in this debate and concentrate on a more practical and human issue which concerns all youth.

The very wheels that drive the vehicles of State are the financing of the services we provide. The largest single item is education, and the way in which we spend this money will determine the future of our country, because education spent on youth is our greatest investment. The Department of Education and Culture is a remarkable department. It not only includes the four sophisticated education departments that previously fell under the provincial councils, but also includes the special schools formerly known as reformatories, schools of industries and special schools and training centres for the physically and mentally handicapped. It also has a cultural component that goes beyond the formal education that I have described.

Among other things in my address to this House on 23 February last year under the Vote of Education I appealed for a new subject to be added to our school curriculum. By your leave, Mr Chairman, I propose to enlarge on this subject.

There is a rather amusing quotation that states: “Youth would be an ideal state if it came later in life.” In the case of some people I know, it has, with disastrous results. It has made them childish. There has always been and there will always be a generation gap. The youth of Athens rebelled against their elders. When we were young we probably thought our parents were dreadfully old-fashioned and we most certainly rebelled against the mores of the day. Not too long ago parents were horrified at the Beatles and at Elvis Pressley, who have since become institutions of sorts. The non-conformist clothes and haircuts of the day were bemoaned by a generation of parents. Yet those rebels went on to become pillars of the establishment and citizens of which any country could be proud. As I see it, rebellion is part of the state of man and part of the process of growing up.

Having said that I must add a note of caution. Rebellion must never be allowed to get out of hand, and in this regard I am compelled to address myself to several factors which for the past 10 years or so have been increasingly distorting the equation.

The first is the drug culture which has reached horrific proportions overseas and the effects of which are felt on an increasing scale in this country. This insidious and evil drug culture has spawned a brood of ugly social offspring which each in its own way threatens to shake society to its very foundations and to undermine, perhaps fatally, eternal universally held values.

Repression may bring short-term relief but no long-term solution. In my years as head of Suicide Anonymous I was privileged to gain rather unique insights into the kinds of pressure that drive people to suicide, into personal and home problems which give rise to angst and despair, and into the almost insuperable problems caused by old age, loneliness and illness.

Without wanting to be simplistic, the cause of most problems in these areas is a lack of education, understanding and care. Obviously, no amount of legislation or allocation of funds can force people to understand and to care. However, steps can and should be taken to educate and prepare people in order to avert serious consequences later in life. It is here that I believe room exists for improvement. It is never too late to start educating people and the best place of all to start is at school level.

I would therefore appeal for the creation of a social responsibility and orientation course to be added to the curriculum at primary and secondary school levels. Such a subject should also be mandatory for private schools and be fully recognised as a matric subject. Quite obviously the content of such a course will of necessity encompass a vast field, will have to be compiled with the assistance of acknowledged experts in various disciplines and have a wholly South Africa orientation. I am certain that such a course would contribute enormously towards combating the social problems that beset us at this point in time, which problems are bound to increase as years go by. In the words of the philosopher, “It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.”

For too long there has been a certain reluctance—one might even say an inhibition—to inform pupils fully of their respective roles in life and their interaction with those of their own groups and with those of other cultures and sexes. I also perceive a gap in education as regards the civic rights or responsibilities of each individual.

Let us, for instance, look at the sexual aspect of relationships. Are these sufficiently emphasised in existing sex education classes? One is perturbed at complaints by certain parents and other individuals when it comes to education of this nature. These complaints reveal a shame or guilt over sex and this must of necessity be passed down to ensuing generations. Man must be aware that a wife is both a wife and a partner.

Lack of education in this field has led to marriages ending up in the divorce courts and to misunderstandings, bitterness and sometimes suicide and family murders. In some cases it results in adulterous relationships and, worst of all, even incest. I believe that full education at school level would largely eliminate these problems and avert potential tragedy.

Sexual education should be approached in a matter of fact, clinical manner devoid of pseudomoralistic indignation. Aids, for instance, a pandemic which sends shudders through every person who cares for the future of mankind, can be most effectively combated at this level, as can certain forms of deviant behaviour, without relying on the fire and brimstone approach. By counselling pupils with identity problems and by counselling pupils to be faithful to their partners and to avoid potentially harmful experimentation, the myriad problems experienced by society can be greatly diminished.

Another important field where the social responsibility and orientation course would be of vital relevance is in the fight against drugs and alcoholism. These can be fought by fully informing pupils of the horrendous damage done by these and other substances; by telling pupils that a dagga “zol” has more carcinogenic agents that a cigarette; by telling them that dagga is a stepping-stone to harder drugs and can make them make impotent for life; by informing them of the damage done to the body and mind by substances such as cocaine and heroin; and by telling them that angel dust is a one-way ticket to hell.

I wonder how many pupils—and their parents for that matter—are aware of the insidious damage caused by alcohol; how it damages, sometimes irreversibly, certain organs, and that in the final stages of addiction—that of Korsakoff s psychosis—the subject dies one of the most horrible deaths imaginable.

Education in this type of scholastic discipline cannot, of course, stop at sex and drugs. There are many other fields where pupils must for instance be taught to respect the sanctity of human life, to understand the nature of the problems experienced by their fellow-man, to be instructed in civic duties and responsibilities, the laws of the land and its institutions, the religions and customs of all our people and, in short, any matter that will foster a healthy life-style and good and sound human relations.

There is another very important field that I must not overlook, for it is very close to my heart. I am referring to the question of senior citizens and handicapped persons. To my mind, it should be imperative that pupils be taught to regain respect for their elders because the youth of today are tomorrow’s senior citizens. They should be taught that one does not shunt away mom and dad once one moves up the social ladder just because they do not fit in with one’s lifestyle and trendy friends. The old have dignity; they have pride, and youth must honour this. In this regard there is much that we as Whites can learn from our Black fellow-citizens when it comes to looking after the aged.

Similarly, as regards the handicapped, pupils must learn that a handicap is just a lesser form of perfection, in the same way that darkness is just a lesser form of light. They should be taught that there is no stigma attached to being handicapped. It is a condition to be explored and understood, and when one understands that most handicapped persons are proud and independent beings who want no charity or pity but who want to be regarded as full members of society, we shall have bridged an enormous gulf that will teach the world a lesson.

Sir, in conclusion I submit with respect that the best way to inculcate these values in people is at school level, and I would respectfully request the hon the Minister to make an appropriate sum of money available to introduce this extra subject at all schools.

*Dr W A ODENDAAL:

Mr Chairman, tonight I should like to express my respect for the hon member for Bezuidenhout. I think he is an expert on various social problems in South Africa. In his community he is known for involving himself in such problems, and if one listened to his speech tonight one would have perceived at once that he knew what he was talking about.

However, I want to dwell very briefly on the hon member for Standerton, who told the hon member for Springs a few minutes ago that he was more or less talking nonsense.

*Mr S C JACOBS:

Are you not going to discuss the AWB again?

*Dr W A ODENDAAL:

I shall not disappoint the hon member for Losberg; I promise him that. He need have no doubts on that score.

This hon member for Standerton tried in all kinds of technical ways to get away from the allegations made by the hon member for Springs. I want to ask him now across the floor of this House whether there is a Black person in his employ or on their establishment who does legal work for his practice.

*Mr J R DE VILLE:

Yes!

*Dr W A ODENDAAL:

There you have it. The hon member for Springs was therefore not talking nonsense. That is the important point. [Interjections.] He is trying to get away from this matter with all kinds of technical points. I have no objection whatsoever to his employing a Black man in his practice, who does legal work for him, but then he must not stand up in this House and accuse the hon member for Springs of ostensibly being a liar.

*Mr T LANGLEY:

But he is!

*Dr W A ODENDAAL:

He did not tell a lie, Sir. He told the absolute truth.

*The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES:

Order! No, I am not going to allow a dialogue across the floor of this House. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed, but if he asks questions, I am not going to allow hon members to react to them now.

*Dr W A ODENDAAL:

I appreciate the hon member for Standerton confirming what I suspected, namely that the hon member for Springs told the absolute truth in his information documents.

The hon the leader of the right-wing radical party said, inter alia, in the TV debate that we on this side of the House must stop referring to his party as right-wing radical party.

*Mr S C JACOBS:

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

*Dr W A ODENDAAL:

No, I am not prepared to reply to any questions now.

He said we must stop referring to his party as the right-wing radical party, because it was not radical. We need not tell them that they are rightwing and radical since members of the AWB are members of their caucus because the AWB is not such a terrible organisation as we are trying to imply it is. In the TV debate he said on the other hand that the Reformed Church had instituted an investigation into the AWB’s programme of principles and found no problem with it. With that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition now wishes to give out-and-out legitimacy to the AWB.

The hon member for Bethal, who is a selfconfessed member of the AWB, told me in a friendly conversation—I do not think he will mind if I mention this—that he thought we were overdoing the whole issue of the AWB because the AWB was not such a dangerous organisation. The members of that AWB were moderate fellows. He was so kind as to let me have the new programme of principles of the AWB, for which I thank him sincerely. I greatly appreciate that.

*Mr C D DE JAGER:

Unfortunately I did not do that. You are thanking me for nothing.

*Dr W A ODENDAAL:

The hon member will simply have to wait his turn to speak, if he wants one. [Interjections.]

The hon member let me know that he would make certain that I got hold of this programme of principles of the AWB. Approximately five days after our conversation I received in the post this red and black programme of principles of the AWB, complete with swastikas, eagles and what have you. I assumed that it had been sent to me through the kind offices of the hon member for Bethal. Whether it was him or not, I thank him for it.

I also received the new constitution of the AWB.

I had a look at this new set of rules according to which the AWB is operating and at the programme of principles of the AWB—the AWB which according to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is not such a dangerous organisation at all. Just in general I want to say that the AWB is now really dangerous. [Interjections.] In these two documents there is a sugared poison pill which is being fed to the young people of this country. It is deliciously sweet when one swallows it, but as soon as the layer of sugar around the pill has disintegrated, one begins to bleed internally. This is the problem. The AWB approach is written in such a disguised way that if one had not seen the original programme of principles one might allow oneself to be bluffed by this.

I want to refer to a few of the aspects. In the constitution the various boards and councils that the AWB has are set out. This movement’s highest council is the supreme council (opperraad). This council is constituted as follows: The chief leader, the deputy chief leader, as many members of the chief council (hoofraad) as have been appointed by the chief leader and as many members of the grand council (grootraad) as have been appointed by the chief leader. The powers of the supreme council, the highest authority, are as follows. The chief leader of the movement is ex officio also leader of the supreme council. The responsibility of final decision-making is vested in the chief leader. It is nothing but a dictatorial system. This is the supreme council, the highest authoritative body. There are many other councils, but I shall simply begin at the top. I could occupy a great deal of the time of hon members this evening, but I am only going to mention two or three of them. Hon members will see that the same basis applies throughout.

The second is the grand council:

Die Grootraad is ’n adviesliggaam aangestel deur die Hoofleier om die Hoofraad en Opperraad van deskundige advies te bedien …

There are no qualifications except that they are appointed by the chief leader. [Interjections.]

In the third place there is the chief council. This consists of the chief leader, who has a veto, the deputy chief leader, etc. It is made very clear that the other members of the chief council, including regional leaders or their secundi, have no final say. The chief leader has a veto right throughout. If I have ever seen an organisation based on a dictatorial system, this is it. Let us have no doubt about it; these people want to have absolutely nothing to do with democracy.

I have an important question. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has told us that the AWB is not a political organisation, but a cultural organisation. I now want to know from the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare whether he will allow the hon the Minister of Education and Culture to subsidise the AWB out of State funds because it is ostensibly a cultural organisation. [Interjections.] Does he consider the AWB to be a cultural organisation? What would his standpoint be if the AWB applied for a few rands from the State taken from the cultural funds of the own affairs budget? [Interjections.]

*Mr C D DE JAGER:

What would his standpoint be if the Broederbond applied?

*Dr W A ODENDAAL:

I would have serious objections if the hon the Minister said he would do that.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says it is a cultural organisation, and not a dangerous one either, and that is why the CP will continue to protect it. [Interjections.]

I then took a further look at this docile organisation the hon member for Bethal told me about, and consulted this black and red programme of principles. I am quoting from the main objective of the organisation, as stated on page 28:

Die stigting van ’n vrye … Afrikaner-Boerevolkstaat, afgeskei van die RSA.

The word “afgeskei” is printed here in bold type so that no one can have any doubt that he has read correctly. [Interjections.] Surely this volkstaat, which has now seceded, represents separatism; surely there is no question about that. If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition thinks it is partition it is proclaiming, surely this is not partition, but separatism. Just listen to the objective of the Boerejeug, their youth organisation. This is stated on page 18, if anyone wants to see it:

Die Beweging beoog om…’n aktiewe bydrae te lewer ten einde die Volkstaat so spoedig moontlik te laat oorgaan van minderheidsbesetting na meerderheidsbesetting …

This is precisely in line with the programme of principles of the Official Opposition. The reference to “meerderheidsbesetting” leaves no doubt, but this objective goes further than mere majority occupation:

… en daarvandaan na alleenbesetting as uiteindelike doelwit …

“Alleenbesetting” means absolute separation. [Interjections.] That is the objective of the AWB. [interjections.]

The hon members in the caucus of the Official Opposition sent me an AWB application form. I wonder whether the intention was for me to fill it in, but I do not know whether I will do that.

*Mr J H W MENTZ:

Enrol Harry! [Interjections.]

*Dr W A ODENDAAL:

Yes, there is an eagle and swastikas on this form as well. It is stated here:

Ek onderskryf die program van beginsels en grondwet van die AWB.

The hon member for Bethal signed a form like this, thereby indicating that he would adhere to the programme of principles of the AWB. Now I want to know from the hon member whether he will therefore work for the establishment of a Boerestaat, separated from the rest of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] Does he adhere to those principles? He signed to indicate that he did. [Interjections.] He supports them. He has no choice, because it is stated on this form and he signed it. Wherever he finds himself, and in every body on which he serves, he will pursue these objectives, and he is after all a member of the caucus of the Official Opposition. He is not replying to me. We were very friendly towards one another. He was friendly towards me when he discussed these matters with me.

Now I want to know from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he tolerates having people in his caucus who stand for secession from the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] I do not expect the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to reply to me. He is not exactly renowned for doing that as a rule. I am merely putting to him the dilemma in which he really finds himself. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition believes—I think that he really does believe this in all sincerity—that these people are not dangerous and that they present no problems. However, I maintain that what the AWB stands for is extremely dangerous for South Africa.

Let me immediately qualify what I have said. I shall make it my task to advocate to the hon the Minister of Law and Order that the AWB should not be banned. To the best of my knowledge these people have not yet contravened any law, and I do not think we should make martyrs of them now, or take harsh action against these people. The person who bears the greatest responsibility in respect of the AWB, however, is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He could prevent a bloodbath in this country if he adopted a strong standpoint against hon members who are members of his caucus. [Interjections.] He could take extremely important decisions in the interests of South Africa, before we, on the part of the Government, are going to find it necessary to take steps against people who, I see, are rowdy and who are going to get out of hand sooner or later. Before we have to take action against them, he as the Leader of the Official Opposition can adopt an extremely important standpoint in regard to them. I expect him, in the interests of South Africa, to adopt that standpoint.

This is not the only issue, however. This sugar-coated programme of principles of the AWB also deals with forms of government. The form of government advocated by the AWB is a form of government—this is stated on page 13—in which the division of the people into political parties will be excluded. Character, attitude, dedication and possession of the adequate attributes alone will apply as criteria for representation in the House of Assembly and other governmental councils and governmental posts. There will be no parties. There is going to be a one-party dictatorship in this country. Surely there is no doubt about that. It is not stated here in so many words, but everyone who can read, will see that that is what is stated here. This is the new programme of principles. That is what is stated in it.

It is also stated here that a member of the AWB will have two votes, and a person who is not a member of the AWB, like me, will only have one vote to elect a person to an advisory capacity. I received an application form which I must sign. I accept that that is the case. I thought it was for my attention, but it seems to me they want to recruit me as a member or something, and give me two votes. [Interjections.] However, I shall not exchange the one vote I have in the Boerevolkstaat for that form. I assure the hon members that I am not going to sign it.

Let me also refer the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to the economic policy of the AWB. The economic system must be controlled and managed by the people itself. It is not stated here that they are going to nationalise and confiscate. It is stated here that it will be a centrally controlled economic system. The people itself will control it. If that is not Afrikaner socialism, I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition what is.

As regards land ownership, the land of the people must be owned and occupied by its own members. Hon members can read here the same words which already appear in various AWB publications, namely that people who own land which in the opinion of the AWB is too extensive will have their excess land confiscated and shared out among other Afrikaners, because it must be owned by members of the people themselves, and not by anyone else.

I am going to conclude. I expect the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to adopt a standpoint on this question of the AWB. I think that those who have deemed that the programme of principles of the AWB is an innocuous little programme, are making a mistake. A new programme has been drawn up, with which there is ostensibly no fault to find. I include the hon member for Bethal when I say that anyone arriving at such a conclusion is making a grave mistake. He is deceiving himself. I honestly believe that he thinks the AWB is not dangerous. However, I have finally come to the conclusion that the AWB is an alien organisation, which we must uproot and destroy.

*Mr W J D VAN WYK:

Mr Chairman, it seems to me the AWB is soon going to have a new member, namely the hon member for Sasolburg. It seems to me he is going to sign the form. He will then be one of the AWB members sitting on the opposite side of the House. [Interjections.]

While I was listening tonight to how old the NP and the CP were, it put me in mind of two trees. The one is 74 years old, and is declining rapidly. The old bark is falling off and we see that the roots are not all that strong any more. It seems as though it is soon going to collapse completely. In the meantime a new young tree is coming up. It is six years old, and soon its branches will hang over the rest of South Africa. [Interjections.]

If one examines the Appropriation Bill under discussion, two matters are immediately apparent. Firstly, the tremendous fluctuation of those dealing with the portfolio is quite conspicuous. If one wants to observe things fluctuating one must not look at the leaves of the trees in Cape Town; their leaves only fall off once a year. It seems to me the fluctuation here is sometimes quicker than once a year. One regularly sees a dry wind-blown and antiquated leaf blowing across the floor of this Chamber.

Furthermore, after more than five years we have still not received any formula on how the funds of the respective Houses are being appropriated. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council gave an assurance in 1986 that we would have that formula soon. After five years we have still not received that formula. Sir, the reason for that is that they first want to attain parity. Things first have to be equalised; then they will give us a plan according to which they will continue to work. At present, until that parity is attained, there is an arbitrary allocation of funds.

What is also interesting is that the Ministers’ Council is merely a reflection of what it receives. It simply has to be satisfied with what it receives, which it then distributes as it sees fit. It reminds me of crumbs falling from a table.

Last year R5,4 billion was appropriated for this administration; this year the amount is R5,28 billion. Last year the appropriation for this administration comprised 11,3% of the total Budget; this year the figure is 9,8%. The Budget increased by 12,5% but the appropriation for the Own Affairs of the House of Assembly declined by almost 2%. This indicates a tendency and reflects the thinking of the Government, ie that Own Affairs must be watered down, eventually to disappear completely. [Interjections.] Hon members on that side of the House can argue whichever way they like, but this is in reality the consequence of what the Government is doing. In my opinion this administration is eventually going to disappear completely.

Why do I say this? Last year the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply indicated three reasons as to why the expansion of his department was so important. He also promised that he would expand own affairs, as far as agriculture was concerned. He spelt it out for us with zeal and enthusiasm. He spoke about the cardinal role his department played in providing South Africa with food. He also emphasized the envisaged reconstruction of agriculture. His solemn words were that that own affairs department had to be expanded.

What result do we see tonight, Sir? We observe a decrease of R224 million, or rather 22,6%, in the appropriation for his department—in only one year. This is an enormous decrease.

They are now saying that last year they donated a non-recurring amount of R400 million for agriculture, but the tragedy is that it was not possible to use that money because the department and the hon the Minister were unable to employ that money as they wanted to. They employed it incorrectly. That is true. I think it was perhaps done deliberately, so that they could see whether they could save the money. That is what is happening in the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. It is an indication of how rapidly agriculture is going to be destroyed by the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply.

It was not the farmers who left the NP first; it was the NP who first left the farmers in the lurch. The few farmers who have remained behind in the NP, will soon have left. This evening I predict a total collapse of the NP in the rural areas of South Africa. Hon members will see that this will soon come true. [Interjections.]

I am grateful that the report of the President’s Council which was published a few weeks ago is a good one, particularly in regard to our senior citizens. If one reads through the report one is deeply struck by the way in which inflation has simply caused the security which our senior citizens built up to vanish into thin air. According to reports, an inflation rate of 10% will cause the cost of living to increase sixteen-fold during the next 30 years; an inflation rate of 15% will cause costs to increase 58 times during the same period. A disparity is arising between the cost of living of our senior citizens and what they have saved over the years. With the few rands they have in their pockets they simply cannot keep up any more.

These people, who in the past were the builders of our nation and loyal workers who developed this country, are now finding that the wolf of inflation is devouring all their savings in their old age. Our senior citizens deserve not only our respect, but also our help. The State and society has a bounden duty to discharge, namely to care for those who already have their best years behind them in the home stretch of their journey through life.

Today there is a great need, particularly for care of the infirm aged. As long as one is healthy one can always manage somehow, but if the body cannot go any further and one is completely dependent on others, things become extremely difficult. Many elderly people have told me they are afraid of the day when they will have to look to others for help and assistance; when their physical strength has waned and they are no longer able to take care of themselves. I want to make an urgent plea to the department and the hon the Minister to do everything possible to establish homes for the infirm aged. There is a prevailing need for such homes throughout this country.

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! The spirit prevailing is quite a friendly one. [Interjections.] Nevertheless it is disruptive. Hon members who wish to laugh out loud, must please do so outside the Chamber. The hon member may proceed.

*Mr W J D VAN WYK:

Mr Chairman, we can economise in other spheres, but we may not forget or disregard those who blazed the trail for us, or only take them into consideration when we need their votes for political gain. But what is the NP Government doing? Last year they announced in February, with a view to 6 May, that pensions were going to be increased in October. In this way they tried to buy votes. This year, however, there is only the small non-recurring bonus of R60 in October. That is not even 3% of the total pension, while the expenditure budgeted for the total appropriation is 12,5%. All these things have been planned this way as a result of the reform policy of the Government. It is no wonder there is uncertainty in regard to the future among the elderly people; a fear of isolation, loneliness and economic misery which is becoming more and more tangible to them.

While the NP is in power things will not go well with our elderly people. The NP is no longer able to create the platform on which peace, prosperity and security are the watchwords. The hollow promises of the past few years are becoming more and more discernible—also to our elderly people. Indeed, our senior citizens are also longing for the day when a government will take over which will bring true peace, true prosperity and true security. That government will soon be in power. Randfontein will emphasize this further.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Mr Chairman, if I have to follow up on the hon member for Witbank, after having tried again to listen to and consider the facts he raised, and I also bear in mind what previous Official Opposition speakers put forward here today, and even if I wanted to react to it now, I do not really have any desire to do so. If I have to react to what was presented, and I look at the problems in this country, and the facts surrounding these problems, and I try to correlate them, I see that everything was discussed except the facts which emphasise the matter.

Having listened to the hon member for Witbank, who tried to imply that this side of the House was indifferent to old people, I say that it is not true. Within the means available to this country we have done everything possible for old people, but economic circumstances entail that we cannot give as generously as we would like. Now the CP is taking advantage of that and using it in a cheap way to stir up emotions. I think that is reprehensible.

If I consider the drought conditions and the assistance the Government has rendered to agriculture I notice that the only noises being made are about the R400 million under one scheme, which is a so-called failure. This is raised time and again. [Interjections.] What about the other schemes which gave the farmers a total of R2 400 million? What about them? Did any of those hon members say anything in that connection? [Interjections.] At the beginning of this year I sent every hon member of this House an item in this connection. Did the hon members receive it? Did the hon members read it? [Interjections.]

*An HON MEMBER:

It was not worth the bother!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Did the hon member for Lichtenburg read it? [Interjections.] Apparently not one of the hon members of the Opposition read it, because not one of them said a single word about it, but in it are the facts about agricultural financing. I suspect that they read it but then saw that they were not going to gain anything from it, and then decided to move the facts to one side and concentrate on emotions. What they then began to do was not to trifle with the facts, but to play the old game I warned the Official Opposition about a few years ago. If we drag politics into agriculture, we are going to kill agriculture.

*Mr T LANGLEY:

Then you must not come prowling about in my constituency to …

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I will do it…

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I shall go wherever I like there. I may do so, and I shall do so. [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg must give the hon the Deputy Minister a chance to make his speech. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I want to come back to my point on politics. I have always advocated, since all of us are interested in agriculture—I am very fond of agriculture—that we must debate agriculture, that we must take the facts and analyse them and seek solutions. However we must please not ignore or distort the facts, because as soon as we do that we are in fact dragging politics into agriculture, and then we are going to destroy it. [Interjections.]

What is happening here now? They are saying inside and outside this House that this Government is doing nothing for agriculture. In fact, in the words of the hon members for Lichtenburg and Witbank, as well as other speakers, they are saying that this side of the House—the hon the Minister—is deliberately devising schemes so that they will fail.

*Hon MEMBERS:

Disgraceful!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

They are now spreading this story abroad, and in this way they are dragging politics into agriculture. Then we have to refute it and go out with the facts and rectify the matter. It is being said about the schemes that they are a total failure. Prominence is given to the R400 million and the facts which I furnished in order to debate them are discarded because it does not suit the strategy of the CP. Those hon members are playing a dangerous game with agriculture. In that “sluippoging”, as the hon member called it, in his CP constituency I go and tell this to the people and then find that they do not know about certain schemes, because the MPs of those constituencies are not doing their duty. They are not telling the farmers about assistance which is available. They are not helping them. [Interjections.] I have a duty to do, and I shall make these things known to the farmers in this country.

I now come back to the hon member for Lichtenburg, who said that I was dragging politics into the composition of the agricultural credit committees.

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

Of course!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Let us have a look at the hon member for Lichtenburg’s own committee in Lichtenburg. Does that hon member know how it is made up?

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

Of course!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

It is made up—the hon member can correct me if necessary—of a Mr Coetzer from Klippan, Mr Mahne from Graspan, and there is also a Mr Roodt who served on it, not so?

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

Yes.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I replaced him with Mr Roodtman. Who is Mr Roodtman?

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

I know him very well.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Is he a Nationalist?

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

That is not relevant now. [Interjections.]

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

He is a member of the CP.

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

He did not accept the appointment!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I recommended him. I shall then have to find some other person, but that is the person I recommended. Consequently the hon member’s argument is incorrect. We act in the interests of agriculture. The hon member must therefore make certain of his facts before he accuses us of politicking.

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

I am fully conversant with my facts.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

We are on the right road. [Interjections.] When we no longer concentrate on facts, and drag politics into agriculture, we are going to quarrel, because we have political objectives in mind, while the agricultural problems remain unsolved. Hon members will agree with me that there are major problems in agriculture that we have to solve. Can we not rather deal with them in some other way, so that we can consider them together in a truly honest way?

*Mr T LANGLEY:

Who do you ask for recommendations concerning the people appointed to the committee?

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! No, this is the last time I shall admonish the hon member for Soutpansberg in this regard. If the hon member wants to ask a question, he should stand up and request an opportunity to do so. We cannot continue in such a disorderly way, even if it is late at night. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

When the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council spoke, the same situation arose. He furnished statistics based on facts and circumstances, which I thought were important. Once again the CP did not listen. It did not suit them. Facts are not something to which great importance is attached on that side of the House, but emotions are. We can also adopt that emotional course, but we do not want to. Hon members know what emotions do, but sooner or later we have to come back to the facts. We have to come back to the “green file”.

*Dr F HARTZENBERG:

The fact is that you made a debacle of these things!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

There it is deliberately being said again. I ostensibly made a debacle of the matter. It is the same kind of tone that was adopted by the hon member for Barberton earlier this year, on 1 March, in a speech in this House—I was amazed that he did so. He did not mention any facts or statistics, but said:

The agricultural industry in South Africa has been shabbily treated for the simple reason—I regret having to say this here—that our present hon Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply is not able to hold his own against the hon the Minister of Finance.

They play the man; not the ball. I quote the statistics to that hon member, but they do not say the statistics are wrong. They say I made a debacle of the matter. Those hon members do not want to give an answer to the facts. Therefore I toss it back to them. They are playing an emotional game, because they cannot cope with the facts and the realities of what the NP Government has done for agriculture in any other way but to cast suspicion on it by means of personal attacks. The hon members must stop doing that, because in the process they are going to destroy agriculture.

I do not want to carry on with this, but would prefer to talk to the former Official Opposition, and to the hon member for Pinelands, who made a very responsible speech here. [Interjections.] I must agree with him about that speech. He dealt with facts, realities and things that were not clear. He gave his view and tried to interpret it on the basis of circumstances. Among other things he spoke about Groot Constantia, and asked certain questions. I thank him today for a very responsible speech.

†I am grateful for the responsible way in which the relevant facts were brought forward and for the compliment he paid in regard to this important and very well-known monument of South Africa. I think that Groot Constantia must be regarded as one of the finest historic, cultural and aesthetic assets of this country. Since Simon van der Stel started farming there in 1685 and built the first homestead in 1692 many cultural groups have contributed to the success of Groot Constantia. That is why Groot Constantia can never be owned by any one specific group but is the cultural heritage of all the groups in South Africa. Even though it is managed by the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly today it is not there for the exclusive use of one group. It is managed this way because of the efficiency which is available through that organisation.

I am giving some of the history of Groot Constantia to come to the point of the relevance of what the hon member for Pinelands said. In the first place Groot Constantia accrued a debt which eventually amounted to nearly R13 million. Part of this debt was used for capital work and the rest was expended to make Groot Constantia more efficient.

*The problem with Groot Constantia was that the conditions and the vineyards there had become antiquated. These capital works were carried out to restore Groot Constantia to normal. I am grateful to the old board that did this. They did brilliant work by planting 340 000 new vines, by consolidating Groot Constantia, with small land purchases, to the 185 hectares it covers today, and by building a cellar and erecting other buildings.

We have constituted a new board which can take the good work of the previous board further. Under the chairmanship of Dr Dawid de Villiers, the board consisting of Messrs Kobus van Niekerk of the KWV, Sydney Back, Hendrik van Zyl, Dr Deist of Stellenbosch, laid a new foundation for solving the problems of Groot Constantia. We also gave attention to the historico-cultural aspect by constituting a co-ordinating committee to address the old problem between the control board and Groot Constantia’s historico-cultural aspects. The historico-cultural activities and the farming activities were therefore separated.

The capitalisation of the Groot Constantia debt means that this control board can, in a meaningful way, arrive at a profitable position within the next year and a half. Their objective is to try to restore the old Groot Constantia to its former glory by producing wines of high quality in the tradition of old wines. For that reason fewer wines will be made, and a maturing process will be applied in order to place some of the old wines on the market again.

The hon member for Pinelands raised the question of irregularities, and I am sorry that I do not have more time to deal with this. It was true that considerable deficiencies existed in the bookkeeping system, but the moment we discovered this we called for a special audit by the Auditor-General and he carried out a very thorough investigation.

During the course of this investigation we found all the documentation, also to the satisfaction of the Standing Select Committee on Public Accounts. With a few exceptions we found all the documentary evidence. Consequently we dealt thoroughly with that aspect.

The write-off of the R200 000 was as a result of the agency which marketed Groot Constantia wines. They went bankrupt and were not adequately insured. Consequently we had to take the knock. At present, however, we have adopted the standpoint that we must appoint external auditors—this is a private company—who monitor the books constantly. We have also intensified internal control. Perhaps I shall have more to say about Groot Constantia at a later stage, but all I want to say now is that we have created the basis for eliminating the polemic in regard to Groot Constantia, and in future we shall also address the problem of privatisation. I have just heard that I have been given more time, Sir.

Privatisation is an aspect one has to take into account these days, and when one is talking about the privatisation of Groot Constantia, one immediately unleashes a spate of emotions because all communities were in some way or another involved in Groot Constantia. Consequently when we place the privatisation of Groot Constantia on the agenda, it is not to prepare the way for the privatisation of Groot Constantia but rather to set a discussion in regard to Groot Constantia in motion until we have all the facts on the table. In this way we shall be able to get the facts concerning the complex nature of Groot Constantia on the table—there are historico-cultural aspects and farming aspects, and the 200 000 to 300 000 tourists who visit the place every year. We can then see whether we want to place this precious possession into private hands so that private owners can utilise the name of Groot Constantia and derive tremendous economic advantage from it.

That is why I agree with the hon member. As far as I personally am concerned, all the facts indicate that we should not privatise Groot Constantia, but just as I and the hon member would agree on that score, there are many other people who do not agree because they have still not been exposed to the discussion and the debate and the facts.

As regards the privatisation of Groot Constantia, there will consequently be an orderly discussion in which we shall place the facts on the table and, I hope, decide unanimously that Groot Constantia is a national heritage, that it is a historico-cultural monument which bears the stamp of South Africa and that its interests should be carefully looked after. That is the background against which I look at Groot Constantia.

Against that background we have now launched the management of Groot Constantia, on a course along which it can comply with the exacting requirements we set, and I think that we took a very important and meaningful decision on the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly. Consequently I now want to pay tribute to the previous board that enabled us to make these decisions, and I also want to thank hon colleagues for their co-operation so that we were able to address this difficult aspect and discuss it this evening.

*Mr K D S SWANEPOEL:

Mr Chairman, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE (Motion) *The LEADER OF THE HOUSE:

Mr Chairman, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at 22h28.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES Prayers—14h15. REPORTS OF STANDING SELECT COMMITTEE

The MINISTER OF HEALTH SERVICES AND WELFARE, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dated 17 March 1988, as follows:

The Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs having considered the subject of the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill [B 2B—88 (GA)], referred to it, your Committee begs to report the Bill with amendments [B 2C—88 (GA)].
Your Committee further wishes to report that the Standing Committee was unable to reach consensus on Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Your Committee is of the opinion that these Clauses should not be proceeded with, and it recommends accordingly.

Bill to be read a second time.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH SERVICES AND WELFARE, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dated 17 March 1988, as follows:

The Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs having considered the subject of the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill [B 1—88 (GA)], referred to it, your Committee begs to report the Bill with amendments [B 1A—88 (GA)].

Bill to be read a second time.

APPROPRIATION BILL (HOUSE OF DELEGATES) (Second Reading resumed) The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

Mr Chairman, in response to the budget speech delivered by the hon the Minister of the Budget, I wish to say that I should like to believe that this speech indeed provides an overview of the activities of the hon the Minister’s department. I should therefore like to deal with the issues—perhaps from a political angle as well.

I believe that the Ministers’ Council should not view its role only from a very parochial point of view and only address the parochial issues. I believe that the Ministers’ Council should be engaged in the type of programme and activity that will address the real issues affecting the country. It should be tackling the real political issues of the community that it purports to represent.

I have found no programmes, as I see it, in this budget speech which would in fact bring about a political upliftment of the community. On the contrary, what I see from this particular speech is the furtherance of the own affairs concept and the entrenchment of the philosophies and policies of the NP. I would have thought that there would have been some sort of political activity suggested by the Ministers’ Council aimed at bringing the community that we represent along the road of reform—activity which will in fact address the aspirations of the community.

I should like to submit that every single hon Minister on the Ministers’ Council had given an undertaking to the community at large that they would use participation to address political issues and use it in the process of political change. Four years have elapsed since then. Have we seen that type of change?

I have heard hon members on both sides of the House—and even from the ruling benches— speaking most vehemently in various speeches against certain measures, legislation and statutes that prejudiced people of colour. However, whilst they have articulated that in the House, little has been done to change that which entrenches that type of prejudice. I am referring here to the question of local government. I raised a question from this side of the House on a previous occasion and there was unanimity and agreement that local government must be on a non-racial basis. I would like to know—we have a ministry of local government in this Council— what has been done towards achieving that objective. What has been done towards achieving that ideal of non-racialism or multi-racialism at local government level? I would say nothing. In fact, most of us who serve on the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development— and even those who serve on the Standing Committee for Constitutional Affairs—witnessed that the ruling party has indeed supported legislation which entrenches the whole philosophy of local government as an own affair, and hence ethnicity. Mr Chairman, I do not think that is the purpose of our participation in this Chamber.

I had the occasion today of being at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal. Certain issues, very relevant to hon members of this particular House, were discussed and canvassed. The hon the Minister refers to the Phoenix Hospital in his budget speech. We enquired from the Provincial Administration whether a hospital is in fact going to be established in Phoenix. The answer we got from the MEC for Natal was that they do not know anything about it; there was no co-ordination with them and they are totally unaware of it. [Interjections.]

I shall take a question from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council later on, Mr Chairman.

Whether that is incorrect or not is not what I want to debate. That is not at issue. However, what is at issue here is that one has the province on the one side and the House of Delegates on the other side, both dealing with the same issues. That is the point I am making, Sir. There is this lack of, and breakdown in, communication. This also indicates once again to hon members on this side of the House that one has duplication of services and of decision-making processes. This is totally unnecessary and undesirable.

Here we have more than R800 million, and the largest portion of that amount is being utilised for administrative costs which cause confusion, rather than solutions. Therefore, I believe that this is not in the interest of the community whom we represent.

I am also going to raise a few questions in regard to the ministries on a very general basis in due course. I would, however, like to submit that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his Ministers should get down to the real political issues and engage in programmes that could bring about political upliftment of the community that we represent.

With these introductory remarks, I would like to make reference to certain other issues. I would like to refer to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture again because this is a local government aspect, and I would like him to advise this Chamber what his view is in respect of the devolution of power from the provincial authorities to local authorities. I ask this question and I am not casting any aspersions, because we were told when this issue came before the standing committee that it was supported at that level. If this is incorrect, I would like to set the record straight. However, if it is correct I would like to suggest that this would have been a dangerous thing had it gone through. The hon members of this House must be aware that that particular measure, had it gone through, would have given White local authorities absolute power in the allocation and alienation of properties, etc. Provincial executive members could have done nothing about stopping the sale of the property of the market site in Durban. In fact, members on the standing committee—from both sides of the House, because there is a lot of harmony between us on that committee—realised the implication of this.

Mr M RAJAB:

Not only on that committee—on other issues as well.

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

Yes, on other committees as well. We understood the implications, and therefore we objected to this. That is what made it possible for the provincial executive to take the decision it did in respect of the market site. Had it not been for that decision, we would have lost that site. There is no question about that.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Have we won?

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

Well, we have stopped it at this stage. It is ironic that the members of the executive committee of that province were canvassing us to support that measure of devolution of power. That was the irony of it. Yet, when the crunch came, what we did helped them to take that decision.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

This proves that we do have power.

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

Some limited power, yes.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

That is now recorded. We will quote you on that tomorrow.

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

Yes, hon members may. I do not run away from the truth.

Mr Chairman, I would now like to deal with certain aspects and I would like some answers from members of the Ministers’ Council. First and foremost I will address the hon the Minister of the Budget. A lot of statements have been made about the employment situation in the Administration: House of Delegates. I would like to know categorically whether the hon the Minister of the Budget is responsible for employment. I would not go into detail at this stage, but I will reserve that for the respective Budget Votes. However, I want to know quite categorically if he is responsible, because I want to know who to deal with in due course. I have heard a lot of statements in this regard but I would like to know from him whether, when it comes to the recruitment of personnel and their employment, he is responsible, and to what extent. Should he not be responsible, which other Minister would then be responsible? I would welcome an answer and I will then leave this matter until we come to the Budget Vote. Then we may deal with details in that regard.

I would like to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his colleagues about the Group Areas Act. I do not want to dwell on the controversies that have already been debated and discussed in this House, but I want to come to an issue that was publicised over the past weekend. It is said that the Group Areas Act will in future be dealt with as an own affair. Apparently, if a specific group wishes to have its area opened on a non-racial basis, this will be a decision to be taken by that particular group.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND AGRICULTURE:

Who said that? [Interjections.]

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

It was in the newspapers. I would like to know from the Ministers’ Council whether they had any input in that regard.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

No.

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

Is there any decision in that regard?

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

We have not heard a thing.

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

If there are no policy decisions in that regard, could it be mere speculation?

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Speculation.

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

When we talk about the repeal of the Group Areas Act, this should not mean different things to different people. Therefore I want a complete statement.

Concerning the question of housing, I expect there will be a full-scale debate in this particular regard during the budget Vote of the hon the Minister.

However, I have a few questions that I would like to raise at this juncture. There has been an unfortunate reaction from the people of Cato Manor by mouth of the Residents’ Association. I believe that I in my own right have played a meaningful role in getting that residents’ organisation to meet with the hon the Minister of Housing a few years ago.

It was as a result of my mediation that the two parties got together and engaged in meaningful discussions. Under the guidance of the hon the Minister, a body was then established on a multiparty basis. I was appointed to that body. Except for one or two meetings that I attended, there have been no further meetings ever since. However, we hear via the newspapers that a lot of progress has taken place with regard to Cato Manor.

I would like to know why this multi-party body has been discarded and disbanded. Are we still members of this body? What role do we have to play? Were our terms of reference withdrawn? I believe that if we had conducted ourselves within the terms of reference as set out when the body was first established, we would have given the development and the whole progress of Cato Manor a meaningful input, and probably averted the impasse which now prevails between the Ministry and the Residents’ Association. The hon the Minister must answer me.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

[Inaudible.]

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

The hon the Minister may answer me when he has the opportunity. At this stage one cannot deny the facts. The impression has been created that this has resulted in an impasse between the two organisations. We went out of our way to bring about communication. Having achieved this, it has now been broken down. We are again going to create conflict in the community.

I want to know from the hon the Minister what his attitude is towards certain community services, such as libraries, etcetera. I also want to know whether libraries are eventually going to be taken up as an own affairs function in the gradual process of co-option. Following the local government’s trend under which this is an own affairs function, I’d be very weary. As it is, it seems that notwithstanding the multi-racial structure of the province, there are still certain local authorities which refuse to have their doors open to people of colour. They want libraries to be on a totally ethnic basis. We must understand that these library and public services come from taxpayers’ funds. Those funds which end up in the coffers of the country, have no colour. They are colourblind. Yet we can use taxpayers’ money to satisfy the whims and fancies of people who want to entrench ethnicity and colour, even when it comes to public services like libraries. This side of the House completely rejects that concept and that type of thinking.

I want to conclude my speech with those remarks. Hon members on this side of the House will further develop the arguments on the other topics covered by the hon the Minister of the Budget.

Mr E ABRAMJEE:

Mr Chairman, I want to devote the greater part of my speech on the Appropriation Bill for the House of Delegates to the hon the Minister’s second reading speech. In the first paragraph of the hon the Minister of the Budget’s speech, he speaks about the tricameral Parliament. He also complains about a policeman’s lot. I definitely agree with the hon the Minister of the Budget that we have a problem here.

Our first problem is with the Department of Finance. The Main Appropriation Bill is first delivered in a Joint Sitting.

We already know far in advance what amounts are to be appropriated for own affairs. Therefore, the hon the Minister of the Budget in this House actually has nothing to offer us when he reads his Second Reading speech because we are already aware of the global sum that is to be appropriated for our House. This also leads us to wonder about whether or not we have any say in determining the amount of money that is to be made available to this House.

In his Second Reading speech on the Appropriation Bill, the hon the Minister of Finance mentioned a formula that has been adopted and I want to ask the hon the Minister this afternoon whether he is going to tell us in his reply what this formula is because we still do not know what formula is adopted when these funds are appropriated to the various Houses although we are told that there is a set formula in regard to the appropriation of money to the various Houses.

As far as the education Vote is concerned, we have also been told that certain formulae are used in appropriating money for education. This is unsatisfactory because I want to know what input our hon Ministers and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council have in the …

The MINISTER OF THE BUDGET:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether it is not true that he was Minister of the Budget at one time? [Interjections.]

Mr E ABRAMJEE:

Yes, it is a known fact. However, the formula that has been adopted, came in afterwards. It was announced by the hon the Minister of Finance in his Second Reading speech this year and I want to know what formula is being used. I think we in this House should know how and on what basis these funds are being appropriated.

Mr P T POOVALINGAM:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is not aware that the final decision rests with the Cabinet, of which his boss is a very important member? Why does he not ask his boss that question? [Interjections.]

Mr E ABRAMJEE:

Mr Chairman, I am not going to reply to the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

An HON MEMBER:

Also the hon the Minister of the Budget.

Mr E ABRAMJEE:

Yes, actually I think the hon the Minister of the Budget has misunderstood me. [Interjections.] My remarks in this regard relate to the formula that has been negotiated over the years and that has come to fruition now. What is the formula? How do they determine the funds that are made available to this particular House? Did we have a say in determining this particular formula? We are told that there is a formula and yet we do not know what that formula is. According to the hon the Minister’s own Second Reading speech we are not happy with the amount that has been appropriated for our various services. I am not blaming the hon the Minister of the Budget for this. I am merely asking the hon the Minister whether he can advise us as to what this formula is.

I must also congratulate the hon the Minister on his beautiful speech. It was a very elaborate and a very long speech.

An HON MEMBER:

What was so beautiful about it? [Interjections.]

Mr E ABRAMJEE:

It was a very good speech. It not only dealt with own affairs but it also covered the entire financial situation of the country as a whole, and I want to compliment him on that. However, I should also have liked him to have said more about own affairs than to speak in general terms on the subject of finance.

The hon the Minister went on to say the following in his speech:

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.

He admits that, Mr Chairman. That is why I do not know why he asked me the question. He himself said in his speech that we were not happy with this particular amount that had been appropriated to us. He continues as follows:

The universally accepted need to eliminate per capita disparities between the allocations of public funds to the various population groups for services of a similar nature has a high priority.

I agree with him, Mr Chairman. The tempo at which this is taking place is not satisfactory. He continues as follows:

Likewise, the wiping out of the backlog in infrastructure, housing, classrooms, teachers’ training etc is the scenario which falls within the five-year plan and must be seen as the best we can do on current assessment.

This is an admission by the hon Minister of the Budget that the backlog of the infrastructure in our housing division was created because of certain old ideologies. We cannot formulate a formula that is acceptable to us. We must formulate a formula of the particular budget itself to such a standard that we get a better share, instead of the inadequacies we have had in the past in the formulation of our budgets.

As far the backlog of our housing and school buildings is concerned, how are we ever going to reach a stage where we have parity? As far as parity is concerned, I want to refer to the statement issued by the hon Minister after the speech of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, when he mentioned equal pensions for our people. Are we going to accept this R60 once only after we in this House have already decided unanimously that we should strive for parity in pensions for all people? Will we ever be able to reach parity at this rate? There is not even a simple or minimal increase of R1 for our pensioners. I know it is not the fault of the hon the Minister of the Budget because a global sum was allocated for pensions for the different population groups in the country. Parity in the pensions of the different populations groups should at least have been a priority of the Government. This year, however, not a single cent was made available to those poor people who really need and deserve parity.

Dr M S PADAYACHY:

And the bonus?

Mr E ABRAMJEE:

The bonus is nothing new. We have received bonuses before. This bonus is also for all the different racial groups and will not narrow the difference in pensions between these different groups.

On page 3 the hon the Minister of Education and Culture talks about the rand for rand subsidy made available to schools. Here again, I can refer to examples or cases where particular schools in the Transvaal have collected funds and requested a subsidy on the rand for rand basis. This matter has been handled by the particular Ministry for years. In one particular case a school in Laudium wanted to build a swimming-pool and collected the sum of R30 000 over a period of three or four years. When they applied for financial assistance on the rand for rand basis, they were told the grounds were too small. Inspectors were then sent to investigate the school grounds, but after that inspection another six months went by without anything being done. The school principal and his school committee sit there with their R30 000 and wonder when they will ever receive the rand for rand subsidy to build this particular swimming-pool. In spite of this we were told again in this year’s Budget Speech that the rand for rand subsidy will be made available.

The hon the Minister in his budget speech also referred to the student intake at our colleges this year. We know of the instance when they wanted to close a particular college in the Transvaal—the only tertiary institution we have in the Transvaal—namely the teachers’ training college, because they said we do not need that number of students to be educated. It is a modern college, a college which cost us millions. It is also the only tertiary institution we have in the Transvaal that we can be proud of. We have not even decided how we can utilise this particular college, either as a technical college or as a technikon for the Transvaal. It has beautiful hostel facilities, etc. We know the problems experienced by teachers who are seconded from places in Natal to remote places in the Transvaal. What do these teachers do? They cannot find housing or boarding because of the acute housing shortage we are faced with in some towns in the Transvaal. This is not a healthy situation and despite that we are still talking about closing down such an institution!

A certain amount has been voted for agriculture, plus the balance of an amount which was voted last year. We welcome this. As has been asked time and again: How do we determine the own affairs and general affairs needs of agriculture? How will this particular sum be appropriated for the flood damage our people have suffered? [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I ask for your ruling as to whether this is allowed.

Rev E J MANIKKAM:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it befitting for the hon member for Reservoir Hills, whilst another hon member is addressing the House, to come to him like that and dangle a cloth in front of him, trying to reduce the dignity of this House to that of a circus?

The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! I understand the spirit in which the hon member for Reservoir Hills may have done this, but I appeal to him and all other hon members to desist from this type of act.

Mr E ABRAMJEE:

Mr Chairman, some time ago we raised an issue which was very topical at the time, namely the privilege of having our schools in the Transvaal close on Friday afternoons. We took the matter up with the hon the Minister of Education and Culture who issued a circular to the schools. However, this circular was so vague that the principals did not know what to do. We went back to the hon the Minister who gave us a written assurance that the matter had been sorted out. This was about two months ago. Only this morning I received a letter from the Islamic Council of South Africa which states the following, and I quote:

Thank you for your letter on the Friday prayer issue. This matter does not seem to be resolved as the schools have no clear direction on the issue. Please be kind enough to inform me when the new times will take effect, that is that on Fridays, schools are to close at 12h15.

This comes from the office of the secretarygeneral of the Islamic Council of South Africa in Pretoria. I spoke to the principals at the schools in Laudium and they still have no clear indication, nor has a circular been sent to them from the department head office as to how they should implement this particular clause—the “third option”, as the hon the Minister calls it. I do not think it was a third option. It was a clear indication to them to do this, but the hon the Minister has even delayed that by informing his own department to send out such a circular.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE:

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member a question. The hon member and other hon members in this House know very well that we have given them two options …

The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! Is this a question?

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE:

Yes, I am coming to the question, Mr Chairman. The third option is now being prepared. I want to ask the hon member whether he does not know that when there is a policy change, it takes a little while. One cannot change things overnight. The hon member knows that I have given him the assurance that all schools can close at 12h15, provided that certain aspects are met.

Mr E ABRAMJEE:

Mr Chairman, I concede that the hon the Minister has given us an indication that the schools will close at 12h15. However, I want to pose the following question this afternoon: Does it take this long, if there is a policy change, just to implement the accommodation of the 40 minutes that are lost on a Friday afternoon in another way? One expects that the principals will take another month or two—it is the end of the term in a few days time—to implement the changes in their timetables. If this circular could therefore have been sent to them timeously, they would have been able to implement this when the schools reopened for the second quarter. This matter has been hanging and dangling since August last year and has not reached a conclusion. This is not a situation we expect the Ministry to allow.

Coming to another matter concerning education, I have a letter here from one of my constituents who is a teacher. Because of his religious needs he has to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. However, the department says: “The educator does not qualify for such leave as he would have accrued 66 days and there are 67 days in the quarter.” In other words, the teacher is one day short. He wrote to the department saying that he was prepared to take the one day without paid leave but he has been refused. Can we tolerate such a situation? Do we not get criticised for such administration in our departments? We feel that this situation is not correct.

An HON MEMBER:

Blame the Chairman!

Mr E ABRAMJEE:

No, I am not blaming the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? Does the hon member know that we have granted leave to people who were up to five days short? Does the hon member know that?

The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! That is not a question but an explanation. The hon member may continue.

Mr E ABRAMJEE:

I will not dispute what the hon Minister said, but I have a letter in front of me. It is dated 3 March and it was the teacher’s second application. He was also refused such a privilege of leave last year. An end must be put to matters like this and we need a clear indication from the hon the Minister.

I want to compliment the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is also the Minister of Housing for the good work that he has done in trying to alleviate the great housing shortage in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] In Laudium which is my constituency the problem of housing has really been tackled since he became Minister of Housing and we have seen the results of that. I can only hope that the hon the Minister of Housing will speed up the process.

We know that there is difficulty with the identification of land. We have already discussed this during a special motion in this House. I think it is time that we must find a solution to this problem. It is no use always saying that there is money available for housing but that there is no land for our people. We must address this problem and I appeal to the hon the Minister of Housing to take this matter up at Cabinet level.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

I did that yesterday.

Mr E ABRAMJEE:

I now come to the problem of resorts in the Transvaal. There are some 40 or 50 resorts that are open to Whites, but the only resort that is open to Indians and Coloureds is the Roodeplaat resort. [Interjections.] I have a letter here that I wrote to the provincial administration. I received the answer that resorts have become an own affair and that this was decided at Cabinet level. If this was decided at Cabinet level, what have they appropriated for the provision of resorts for us? There is nothing under the votes of Local Government or Housing to provide resorts for us. Millions—I can even say billions—of rand have been spent on resorts in the Transvaal but not a single rand has been appropriated to establish resorts for Indians and Coloureds. They say it is an own affair but I do not agree with this. We do have existing resorts and they should be open to all the people.

How can we encourage tourism in this country when we know that we cannot go to particular resorts? These resorts are on the doorstep of areas where our people have lived for hundreds of years and they have used them before.

I want to mention the example of the mineral baths at Warmbaths, which was very sacred to the Indian community. Because of the belief that this particular mineral bath contained some minerals that can relieve arthritis, it had become part and parcel of the life of our Indian community for many years. That particular facility was taken away from our community and it was not replaced by anything.

These things must be addressed before we can go further. I am not going to touch on the topic of local government, because there is nothing to say as we do not administer local government at all. Of course we have three or four autonomous local authorities which fall under Indian control and that is in Natal.

I now want to come to expenses under “Budgetary and Auxiliary Services” in the printed estimates. I wonder what the upward movement of personnel is in these posts that are being held in own affairs. We are told time and again by the Commission for Administration and all general affairs departments that there is movement on promotion between one department and the other. Until now we have not seen a single member of our own affairs department being transferred or promoted to any general affairs department. This is not a healthy situation and I think this must also be addressed.

Returning to the question of health services, I want to state that we know that health services is up till now still not an own affair. I once again make an appeal here that we as an own administration should make our necessary inputs when these facilities are nonexistent.

We know of the problems at Lenasia Hospital and at Laudium Hospital. If one takes “platteland” towns, our people are not allowed to receive treatment, as they say it is a White community hospital, as was the case in Groblersdal in the Eastern Transvaal where a little child of five died during the Christmas period because that child drank paraffin and was refused treatment. Our people have to travel 200 km to the nearest hospital at Middelburg from those areas. Even if hospitals like this belong to one particular group, this is a sad state of affairs that we are faced with.

An HON MEMBER:

But they can spend millions on building one in Pretoria.

Mr E ABRAMJEE:

What the hon member says is true. Millions of rands have been spent on some academic hospital. Why do they not allow us treatment in cases of emergency at these community hospitals?

I know this is a matter that does not directly fall under our own administration at the moment but I appeal to our hon Minister of Health Services to take this up in his capacity with the provincial authorities wherever possible. He has been very helpful and I have no problems with him. Wherever a case has been brought to his notice he has always been helpful. He is one of those hon Ministers who has always helped us.

With these few words I shall resume my seat.

Mr M RAJAB:

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Laudium will forgive me if I do not comment on any particular aspect of his speech because his speech was really a potpourri of so many issues that it is beyond my capacity to comment on any one of them. I trust that the hon the Minister will in fact do so when he replies.

Before the hon member for Laudium leaves this House I should like to express to him my regret that he did not acknowledge that it was I, whilst he was the hon the Minister of the Budget in this House when this House was first constituted, who raised the issue of the formula and how the quantum of the budget was arrived at.

That hon member was a little less than honest in not doing so. This House will recall that from the time this House was constituted I have consistently raised the issue of the quantum of the budget and how it is arrived at. Up till now I have not yet been given an answer, not by that hon gentleman when he was Minister of the Budget in this House, nor by any of his successors. It is also therefore in that regard that I wish to express my disappointment in the hon the Minister of the Budget for also not taking us into his confidence when he delivered his Second Reading speech the other day in this House. I believe he should have explained to us how the quantum of the budget was arrived at.

Now, for the edification and the information of hon members of this House who are not aware of this, let me inform them that I have been told that a formula has already been arrived at, draft legislation has already been prepared in that regard, and legislation will be tabled in this House during the later part of this year.

I strongly object to the fact that I have to be informed on this issue by listening to what the colleague of the hon the Minister of the Budget had to say in this regard in the House of Assembly the other day. I am referring to the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Assembly when he said that legislation for own affairs formula financing would be tabled in Parliament during this session. He went on to say that the statutory formulas would mean that a great step forward for the financial independence of own affairs administrations would take place and that there would be a clear division in decision-making between own affairs administrations and a general affairs department.

What interested me was the following statement which that hon Minister made. This is what he said:

The allowance was calculated on the basis of a formula that is based on the needs of the various communities as well as the relative level of rendering service.

As a representative of the Indian community I believe I ought to have been given the opportunity of making representation at that committee when that decision was reached. I do believe that each hon member of this House should likewise have been afforded that opportunity. I would like to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget this afternoon why this was not done.

I also want to express to the hon the Minister my disappointment at the actual quantum of the budget presented by him.

A short while ago I made reference to the fact that according to a formula the relative needs of a community must be taken into account. I want to submit to the hon the Minister this afternoon that I do not believe this criterion was followed as far as this particular budget is concerned. In this regard I want to refer to the allocations that have been made to own affairs administrations in each of the three Houses of this tricameral Parliament.

As far as the House of Assembly is concerned an amount of R5 284 602 000 has been set aside for own affairs; for the House of Representatives the figure is R2 302 677 000; and for this House the paltry amount of R831 769 000 has been set aside. This works out at 62% of the amount of the budget that has been set aside by the hon the Minister of Finance for own affairs administration.

Sixty two per cent of that amount has been set aside for the White House of Assembly, 27% for the Coloured House of Representatives and 9,8% for the Administration of this House.

I am not sure what formula was taken into account, but I do know that everything connected with the constitution of this Parliament, is done on the basis of the 4:2:1 formula. If one is to apply that, I would say that the White House of Assembly ought to have received an amount of R4 810 884 000 and this Administration should not have received an amount of R831 169 000, but rather an amount of R1 202 721 000. What I am saying is that we have been short-changed by the hon the Minister of the Budget and by all of the colleagues of the hon the Minister of the Budget.

Mr P T POOVALINGAM:

Especially the Cabinet.

Mr M RAJAB:

It is not only we who have been short-changed; I believe that the Coloured House of Representatives has likewise been short-changed.

Mention was made of the needs of a community in the particular formulae. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether or not it is true that we represent a disadvantaged community. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether we represent a community whose needs are amongst the greatest when we compare ourselves with the White population of this country. If this is true— as indeed it is—then I believe it was and is the duty of the hon the Minister of the Budget, together with his hon colleagues, to have ensured that we received a far bigger allocation for the Administration of this House. I say that the hon the Minister of the Budget has failed us in this regard.

I also wish to say to the hon the Minister that I also take great exception to the fact that because the hon the Minister was unable to obtain a larger share of the cake, this House will not in fact be able to close the parity gap in so far as social pensions are concerned. We read a report the other day that indicated that the hon the Minister Health Services and Welfare in the Coloured Chamber had already taken a decision that in order to close that gap that exists between the amounts of pension paid to Whites, Coloureds and Indian pensioners, progress would be made in that regard. I find that even if it is true that such amounts of money would now have to come out of the budget of the own administrations, I believe that firstly, if the hon the Minister had ensured that we had a larger share of the cake, and secondly, if he then ensured that the cake that he had was evenly spread throughout his department we could have achieved that. I said to him that he should have ensured, for instance, that this administration was not involved in useless expenditure. When I look at the useless expenditure that goes on in this administration, I am appalled.

It has come to my notice that this administration is now responsible for paying a certain sum of money—I am not sure what it is—for having photocopies made of political articles that have appeared in various newspapers being sent not only to individuals in this Chamber, but also to the community at large.

In particular I want to refer to this article which I received by mail. Several members in my constituency also received this article in the post. The article appeared in The Daily News of Saturday, 20 February 1988. The headlines read: “Rajbansi keeps bouncing back.” [Interjections.] I would like to ask the hon the Minister where he gets the money for this kind of activity. Why has this administration been “defrauded” for this kind of activity? I want to know from the hon the Minister who paid for the stamps on all the envelopes that were used.

However, that is not all. I would like to refer to only one or two of these items and shall come back to these issues in more detail when I have to address each individual Minister, when we discuss their particular votes. The hon the Minister talked about the utilisation of the resources to the best of our abilities. This is what the hon the Minister indicated in his speech. I want to ask the hon the Minister how can he reconcile his statement with the experience we have had in each of the by-elections that went on—I am referring in particular to the by-elections in Tongaat and South East Transvaal—when I am aware that the personnel of each of the ministries of this administration were involved for a period of two weeks in active canvassing and back-up support in each of those by-elections. [Interjections.] If that hon Minister is concerned about utilising scarce resources, I ask him why does he have to see to the waste of taxpayers’ money in regard to a political matter.

Mr M GOVENDER:

What about the servants who assisted you? Was that not a waste of taxpayers’ money?

Mr M RAJAB:

Mr Chairman, that hon member for Umzinto has suddenly found his voice in this House but when it comes to other speeches in this House, he reads from memorandums which have been presented. Now he has raised a very interesting point and I shall answer him. [Interjections.]

Mr M GOVENDER:

You must listen carefully.

Mr M RAJAB:

I want to tell the hon member for Umzinto that not one single civil servant of this administration—or any other administration— has ever helped me in an election campaign. [Interjections.] I want that hon member to give me a similar assurance.

Mr P C NADASEN:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Springfield a question? [Interjections.] Does the hon member for Springfield also say that votes were not cast on a Sunday?

The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! The hon member for Springfield may proceed.

Mr M RAJAB:

Mr Chairman, would that hon member know anything about votes that had been cast on Sundays? [Interjections.] Where is he on a Sunday? [Interjections.]

I want to raise another issue. This issue had been raised in this House on countless occasions. I refer to the question of political interference. I want to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and of Auxiliary Services, who is really in control of the administration of this House, whether it is true or not that a certain individual was brought here from Durban to take a position in the department of the hon Minister Naicker as a result of an advertisement placed inter-departmentally? The individual concerned was a Mr Basil Munsamy. He applied and got the position of … [Interjections.]

Mr M NARANJEE:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I believe the hon member for Springfield unintentionally addressed the hon the Minister by his name.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! I believe the hon member for Springfield said “Minister Naicker”. I would like to direct the hon member’s attention to the fact that he should address the hon the Minister by his portfolio.

Mr M RAJAB:

Mr Chairman, I bow to your ruling and I would immediately like to state that when I did forget the hon the Minister’s portfolio, this was not done because I wished to cast any aspersion on him nor did I wish to offend him in any way. If I did, I apologise.

I raised the issue of one Basil Munsamy who was brought here from Durban and whose wife had to leave her work so as to accompany him. They were employed in the service of the department of the hon the Minister of the Budget. As I understand it, when that gentleman presented himself to the department of the hon the Minister, one of the senior colleagues objected and that poor gentleman—who had forced his wife to leave her work in order to accompany him to Cape Town—was then summarily dismissed and sent back to Durban. [Interjections.] I would like to know from the hon the Minister of the Budget whether that is in fact true or not.

An HON MEMBER:

He says it is true.

Mr M RAJAB:

The hon the Minister says it is true.

Mr N E KHAN:

Must he resign if that is true? [Interjections.]

Mr M RAJAB:

I would like to ask the hon the Minister what he intends to do about that. I would also like to know what the hon the Minister intends to do so that other innocent people will not also be humiliated in that fashion.

I would like to ask the Ministers’ Council one more question relating to political interference. This concerns the suspension of a certain schoolteacher who apparently had transgressed the code of conduct of the teaching fraternity. As a result of that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in fact had to sign a suspension order. I believe that that decision was taken administratively because that teacher transgressed those rules. I am informed that those documents were prepared here in Cape Town and because the hon the Minister was not here, they had to be sent to him in Durban for his signature. I would now like to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget whether it is true that, before those documents reached him, an hon colleague of his telephoned him and instructed him not to sign those documents. I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether this is true or not. If it is true it has cost this administration money—wasted money—on litigation.

Mr A KHAN:

Mr Chairman, this morning nearly all the copies of the newspaper known as The Natal Witness were sold out. I have been informed that one cannot buy a single copy.

The newspaper headline reads as follows: “Group Areas Act to change.” I think this is good news. People were clamouring to find out what this was about. I have not read the contents of the article.

Mr M RAJAB:

Read it before you speak!

Mr A KHAN:

I beg your pardon?

Mr M RAJAB:

Read it before you speak!

Mr A KHAN:

Sir, I said I only read the headline. I do not know what the contents are. The hon member for Springfield has a copy of the paper. He can read it for himself.

An HON MEMBER:

You cannot buy one.

Mr A KHAN:

You cannot buy one. This is very good news. What the contents will be, is to be seen.

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

It is very good news.

Mr A KHAN:

It is very good news that change is coming. If hon members want to see change, they must have patience. I do not want to reply to the hon member for Springfield. I do not want to reply to other hon members. The hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Minister of Housing are quite capable of taking on all hon members of the opposition at once.

I want to refer to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. I have consulted him with regard to having debutante balls at schools. [Interjections.] We object to this. This is nothing to laugh about. Hon members will know what this means. We object to it. The hon the Minister has promised that he will see to it that other means will be employed to raise funds.

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

No more debutante balls.

Mr A KHAN:

No more debutante balls. That is right. [Interjections.]

I also raised the question of subjects being taught in schools during Fridays. While the Muslim children go to mosque, examination subjects are taught at schools. This is unfair. The hon the Minister also promised me that he would take up this matter.

Mr N E KHAN:

The Natal schools should be treated like the schools in the Transvaal.

Mr A KHAN:

What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. If Transvaal schools can have the opportunity of closing their schools at 12h15 on Fridays, why cannot the same privilege be allowed for schools in other provinces?

Mr N E KHAN:

They must close all the schools.

Mr A KHAN:

The same principle must apply to our children in Natal. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister of Education. He is understanding and co-operative. In his work he is an honest and decent man. I am sure he will take this matter very seriously and come back to me.

I want to appeal to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is also the hon the Minister of Housing as far as the Group Areas Act is concerned. We want him to get the Acre Block. If one drives along Acre Block, what does one see? One sees what I see. One sees grass growing over my head. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Housing can take this land back and give it to the people. Sell it to them at the market price. They are prepared to develop those sites.

Mr M BANDULLALA:

Sell the grass!

Mr A KHAN:

Cut the grass. Give it to the horses. [Interjections.] I also want to appeal to the hon the Minister to get on with the market business.

Mr P I DEVAN:

Mr Chairman, before I get on with the Budget speech, I want to take this opportunity of conveying my congratulations on the hon member for Laudium’s appointment as Chairman of Committees in this House. Unfortunately he is not present. [Interjections.] I did not get this from The Witness. I received this news via the ….

I thought this was a fait accompli. However, whilst that matter takes its course I have yet to congratulate him on having made what is perhaps the best opposition speech in this House this session. [Interjections.] I also want to congratulate him on his forthright comments with regard to the weaknesses in the Ministers’ Council. I admire his courage and tenacity in this regard for not mincing his words. I do not think he intended to demolish the House. I think his intention was to get the Ministers’ council to wake up and get on with the job.

In considering the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill (House of Delegates) of 1988 I have both bouquets and brickbats to offer.

The MINISTER OF THE BUDGET:

Give us the bouquets first.

Mr P I DEVAN:

I intend to dispense with the bouquets first. Never before have certain salient points in education been given such prominence in this House and I therefore feel obliged to seize the opportunity to compliment the hon the Minister of the Budget. I wish to comment on some of these points in the course of my speech. The hon the Minister’s observation that productivity is influenced, inter alia, by attitudes and responsibility, is commendable as it highlights the present situation and the sad climate prevailing in education in the House of Delegates in view of the diminishing value that is being attached to these cardinal needs. Correct attitudes and a grave sense of responsibility are extremely important, or rather a sine qua non, in education. For too long—almost four years—these values have been shrouded for the sake of political expediency. I fully agree with the hon the Minister that increased productivity, and thus a wider spread of wealth, are the prime ingredients for peace. We still have a long way to go to attain this increased productivity and wider spread of wealth.

The hon the Minister’s observation on curricular reform is highly relevant. I might point out that curricular reform in the department is long overdue. The review of the curriculum in our schools is of paramount importance in relation to economic reconstruction consequent to the development of an industrial society. Without attempting to score any Party political points, I want to say that in the interests of education in this country and of a community that has invested so much in it, there is a need for a commission or a committee of experts to examine very critically and objectively our educational system and in particular our curriculum. I think the hon the Minister of the Budget highlighted this issue. I think he made a contribution in this House towards education.

The hon the Minister is wise in emphasising the importance of the provision of education, in his own words:

… with demonstrably non-ethnic curricula and facilities and ultimately to have access to opportunities in the commercial and industrial sectors.

This is extremely important. We must not be seen an iota less than the other communities, in the absence, of course, of a unitary system of education. Of course, it is very often said that separate is equal. However, it has been proved beyond doubt in a supreme court in the United States of America that what is separate is never equal.

Many of us want to delude ourselves that what is separate is equal. It is unfortunate that that is the case. I must, however, give credit where credit is due. The hon the Minister of the Budget must be complimented for his bold statement, and I quote:

To the extent that the policies of the Government concerning the provision of education for different population groups may conflict with these ideals, they will have to be changed.

I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and I hope his colleagues will take their cues from him that systems and things will have to be changed in the interest of our people. I also want to refer to another statement made by the hon the Minister and I quote again:

… dramatic increases in spending on education to the detriment, inter alia of mass job creation projects.

I must express my admiration for the hon the Minister for his positive views in regard to the pupil-teacher ratio; education and productivity and curricular reform. These three factors are important in any progressive system of education and have been highlighted, not by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House, but by the hon the Minister of the Budget. For this he certainly deserves our compliments. The hon the Minister of the Budget has vast experience of the Indian community in SA and realises to the full the extreme importance of education. He has shown the necessary concern and need to nurture this segment of our community’s interest. This is understandable when harmful and ugly influences are gaining momentum in the field of education.

I also want to refer to the question of the financing formula for education and I must reiterate my stand on this issue. For the past two years we have indicated in no uncertain terms that the aforementioned formula is a disadvantage to the smaller departments. Ours is comparatively the smallest department. If this formula is accepted and applied without vigorous opposition, it would do our education incalculable harm. I will discuss this issue in more detail in another appropriate debate.

The suggestion is made that if we, as a House, were to spend more on education, that would have to be done by saving elsewhere in our budget. In this regard I am afraid that we will not be party to robbing Peter to pay Paul in order to get out of this dilemma. We cannot help but ask for more and see to it that we actually get it. It suffices to point out that the Government must take a decisive step to normalize the political structures in this country. Once this is done, South Africa will bloom like Japan or Taiwan in the economic field. There will be an economic upturn and there will be peace and plenty for all.

Mr Chairman, we must not adopt the line of least resistance and succumb to the pressures of the Government. Do we have enough money to effect improvements in regard to pupil-teacher ratios? The answer is no. Do we have enough money to employ all the qualified teachers in our schools?

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture will, I hope, indicate that we have accepted all qualified teachers into our department by reducing the sizes of classes. The other point which has startled some of us involved in Indian education is that this department has adopted a policy of reluctance to retain some of its highly qualified educationists. Of late, in the last six months, three highly qualified educationists have been discharged from the department. One of our teachers who has 15 to 16 years service went to the United States of America on a scholarship, acquired his Master of Arts and then, because of his brilliance, I understand the University asked him to continue his study to attain his doctorate. When he applied to the department for permission to do this, he was discharged from service. Another person who holds a high position in our department and has also finished his Masters degree, applied to our department to be allowed to study another year, I think, to complete his doctorate. I believe here the tendency is also to refuse him. Another case was widely published in our papers. This man went, I think, to the UK and asked for study leave. This was not granted to him.

Why are the officials in our department so reluctant to give people leave? We have enough teachers to continue the work in the meantime. What is the logic behind this? Is it because these people are doubly qualified? Are the people who merely have BAs ‘bad Aryans’? Can they not tolerate that the others are doctors? What difference does it make? It is a crying shame that we are not seriously considering the interests of our community. That is why I went out of my way to compliment this hon Minister who highlights issues which really need to be highlighted.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE:

It is mere speculation.

Mr P I DEVAN:

It is not; I can prove it. We can have a commission of enquiry. The hon the Minister has no leg to stand on. This hon Minister wants me to prove this and I can do so. I will bring these people to the board. Hold a commission of enquiry. I do not want hon members of this House to be under any delusion that everything in this House is well. I think if nothing else, the very statements in the speech of the hon the Minister of the Budget gives one enough food for thought and reason to suspect that certain aspects are not receiving the attention they should. Read between the lines! Make a critical analysis.

Mr A KHAN:

That is your opinion.

Mr P I DEVAN:

It is everybody’s opinion. [Interjections.] Is the hon the Minister aware of how our money is really being spent, so that we will get the maximum return?

I understand that the bartering system is in operation in our department. The barter system works like this: If one wants a job for one’s son or daughter or if one wants to transfer a son or daughter nearer home, one must first become a member of he NPP. The father must become a member of the NPP. I have proof. I know of such cases concerning teachers.

Mr A KHAN:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I believe that is an allegation against the NPP.

The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES:

Order! No, that is not a point of order.

Mr P I DEVAN:

Mr Chairman, I felt very elated when the hon member for Laudium made those critical observations, not because he was criticising the party, but because he was making pertinent observations, which, if looked into, would improve the performance of this House. That in turn will cause an improvement in bringing about better relations between the community, which criticises us, and ourselves.

I would like to ask this afternoon what the hon the Minister has done in regard to a second access road to Chatsworth, the representation on local authorities, the recommendations of the Moll Committee on the University of Durban Westville and the development of Clairwood which we discussed the other day. There is also the matter of the permanent appointment of qualified teachers as well as the development of Cato Manor to which the hon member for Stanger referred. Our community is hungry for land.

With these reservations I accept the hon the Minister’s Budget in the hope that he will be successful and that together with the support of his department there will be an improvement in matters over the next twelve months.

Mr N E KHAN:

Mr Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon the Minister of the Budget on his excellent speech. It is of course inevitable that his speech will be criticised from both sides of the House.

The hon member for Stanger spoke of the devolution of power. He referred to the decision of the members of the executive committee of Pietermaritzburg. It is true that we employed the politics of negotiation on that day and at that level we succeeded. The ball was thrown back into the court of the Durban City Council and they are going to go back to the members of the executive committee. What role can we play there? How can we satisfy the Indian stallholders? The matter will go backwards and forwards.

We have a problem with the executive committee. We have our own members sitting there and they are totally opposed to our decisions sometimes. Let us look for example at the demarcation board’s hearing of the case of Prospecton. We are always fighting for more money but when the money was in the plate what decision was taken on Prospecton? Isipingo is always fighting for more money and nobody helps us.

The other day a victim was attacked by sharks in our area.

An HON MEMBER:

No nets!

Mr N E KHAN:

Yes. There were no shark nets. What a stupid thing! What was the reaction of the Natal Sharks Board? They said that Isipingo never asked them for nets. [Interjections.] From where should we get the money? The Central Government is not prepared to help us and the House of Delegates is not prepared to help us. From where must we get the money?

When the issue of Prospecton came up our own nominees were hand in glove with the executive committee in saying that Isipingo would not be able to take care of Prospecton. [Interjections.]

We do not only have problems in Prospecton— we must look at the whole of South Africa. The hon the Minister of Housing has spoken of Operation 25 000 Homes but when is this going to happen? Will it be in 25 or 30 years time? [Interjections.] There are immediate needs. The hon the Minister of the Budget has given us close to R1 billion. How is it going to be spent?

The criterion for our participation here should be the needs of the South African community at large—not only the Indian community. We must not fight on the 4:2:1 ratio because this ratio is absolute rubbish. The tricameral system is creating even more confusion. How far are we going to go with this system? [Interjections.] What does our participation give us? It gives us more problems in this country.

If we are only going to fight for our little Indian community what will happen when the real politics take place in this country in 10 or 15 years time? Where will we fit in? Do we ever think of the Black community in this Chamber?

The Black community is actually squatting because there are no homes. In the Greater Durban area alone there are almost one million squatters. What are we doing for them? What is the Government doing for them? We are only concerned for ourselves and our own amenities. Why do we not open our own schools and our own hospitals for the larger community of South Africa as a whole? For how long is this still going to continue? As long as we participate in this system the country will crumble even further because of separate development. Separate development is going to bring us nothing but problems. It was most uncalled for and stupid of the Government to ban the ANC and the other 16 organisations.

Here we are in our own little Chamber fighting for our own rights. Where is this going to take us? It is only a temporary measure. I honestly and sincerely feel that this system is not going to take us anywhere. It is going to cause more bloodshed in this country. Since 1984 right up to this year violence has escalated. We all abhor violence and are against it but what is creating this violence? It is this unfortunate tricameral system and nothing else.

Since 1985 we have spoken about the National Statutory Council Bill and we are all patiently waiting for that Bill. What happened to it? Where is it? Are they still taking evidence; does it take that long to take evidence?

The hon the Minister has presented a good budget but I still feel this budget is for the smaller community which should not be the case. I am not rejecting this budget but on the whole we should look at the community at large in South Africa. We want to avoid violence and so-called blood baths in this country which are escalating. I ask hon members in this House to look back to what we have created since September 1984 to March 1988.

Last week we had a bombing incident in which innocent people lost their lives and were injured. I once more ask that we reconsider our position.

Mr M BANDULALLA:

Mr Chairman, I should like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister of the Budget not to get hot under the collar. I know it is his budget and that he is going to take exception to the criticism from this side of the House.

Why should there be criticism? That is a good question to ask. It is only because it does not meet the aspirations of the people whom we represent. That is when we begin to criticise. May I ask if it is unfair of any hon member in this House to criticise the budget? If one has gone through it and read it carefully one will realise that it is fraught with racial prejudice and one cannot deny that. This is especially the case with regard to welfare services.

After years in this hon House I should like to know why there is still disparity in pension benefits as far as the Blacks, Indians, Coloureds and Whites are concerned? It was only last year that the hon Minister of Health Services and Welfare, gave us an assurance and made a statement that in the next five years there would be parity between the Indians and the Whites—I am not talking about Blacks because this is an Indian Chamber.

With the type of budget that is before us in respect of health services and welfare with an increase of not even 14% to meet the requirements of the various sections in that Department of Health and Welfare I would like to know if it is not wishful thinking that in the next five years there will be parity.

I should like to refer to the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister of the Budget page 5, paragraph 2 and I quote:

Although an increase in pension beneficiaries is currently being experienced it is necessary that the number eventually be reduced so as to conform with 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.

I think this is a very idealistic view, but I am a realist.

I ask whether the Ministers’ Council is able to predict that there will be fewer people to receive pension benefits in the future. This is an unfortunate statement bordering on the realm of disinformation. Is it possible, with the kind of lifestyle we have had in the past, and still have, and with the kind of improvement we have had year in and year out—it is never more than 10% to meet the needs—for us to reach the stage at which we could enjoy good health and reduce the health needs of the community and at the same time bring about parity with regard to pension benefits? Over all these years we have helped ourselves and we are still helping ourselves at this stage. Allow me to put it this way: If it had not been for the joint family way of life we adopted in the past, many of the people receiving grants from us would have been dead a long time ago. It is the joint family system that keeps them going today. Many people do not even collect disability grants simply because it is against their principles, so they live with their families. My father never bothered about pensions and welfare although he was a poor man. He had nothing, but he lived on our land. He had his pride. He felt he was not entitled to charity. There are many living on charity but they are entitled to it. I appreciate that South Africa is not a charitable country and the social needs of the people must also be met by the people themselves.

I appreciate that there has been a call by the hon the State President to fight inflation. Yes, that is true, and we appreciate it. The public servants are paying a very high premium.

However, on the other hand, to improve the lot of our people is an essential and important part of the work of the Ministers’ Council, especially with regard to health services. I would like to know whether this amount of money, which represents only a 14% increase on the budget of last year, is going to meet the needs and desires of those people looking forward to health services? Where are the geriatric clinics we are talking about? Where are the other clinics we have been talking about? Is there no increase to meet this need in the community or has the situation been improved? I think it has deteriorated.

I can mention the R K Khan Hospital in this regard. I have an article here which appeared about two or three weeks ago about a statement made by the deputy medical superintendent of the R K Khan Hospital. I would like to quote:

Overcrowding at Chatsworth’s R K Khan Hospital has reached an all-time high and on some days 2 000 outpatients are attended by doctors, according to the hospital’s deputy medical superintendent, Dr Jaibalan Govender.

Dr Govender said since the beginning of the year between 1 800 and 2 000 outpatients were being treated daily, and the situation was worsening by the day.

A statement of this nature is a matter of concern. I feel that this hospital is …

The MINISTER OF HEALTH SERVICES AND WELFARE:

Mr Chairman, I would like to clarify something.

Mr M BANDULALLA:

Mr Chairman, may I finish?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES:

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr M BANDULALLA:

My call here is not for the hon the Minister to worry about the R K Khan Hospital itself, but this hospital could have served the people of the South Durban area. The kind of service the hospital is rendering falls under the purview of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House. That hospital would have been able to meet the needs of the people that require the kind of service the hospital would have provided. However, what kind of treatment do people go there to receive? They receive geriatric, psychiatric, and other types of treatment which are under the control of the hon the Minister. This is my argument. I am not asking the hon the Minister to improve the R K Khan Hospital. We do not believe in a fragmented medical system in this country. We have made it very clear that we do not want the R K Khan Hospital to be an own affair. However, we are also aware of the fact that the ruling party has the power to decide what will be done.

Even here it is the ruling party—the Ministry of Health Services and Welfare—that has to ask the central Government for funds to help the province to build up these facilities.

I am not arguing for the sake of argument; I am only trying to point out the deficiencies and the needs of the community. That is all. If the hon the Minister is not in a position to answer, I do not blame him. I blame the central Government. On the other hand, however, we expect those people in the Ministers’ Council to be people who would be able to go and fight for a cause, and to fight very vociferously. This is my demand. I do not say they have not done this, but I feel that with what has been given to us, especially in health and welfare, a 14% increase is not the answer for today. That is where our people are encountering problems. We talk about education and housing, and indeed these are also deficiency areas, but I am particularly concerned about the welfare of our people and I believe they should be living a decent life as citizens of South Africa, as the Whites are doing. My humble call to the hon the Minister is to have this at the back of his mind so that when it comes to essential services, he will give this priority.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES:

Order! Does the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare still wish to clarify this matter?

The MINISTER OF HEALTH SERVICES AND WELFARE:

Mr Chairman, I think the point has been cleared up. The R K Khan Hospital does not fall within our jurisdiction. However, I shall answer the hon member when I reply.

The MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND AGRICULTURE:

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by responding to the hon member for Stanger. He spoke about the Ministers’ Council and its activities in relation to parochial issues. I should like to remind the hon member that the Indian community in this country are, naturally, deprived of positive and legal platforms. This has resulted in a huge backlog of the various inadequacies within our community. Therefore, any structures established for the Indian community must be capable of highlighting those problems which are related to the welfare and the upliftment of the people as a whole.

He also went on to say that we have not tackled reform in this country. The hon member is fully aware that the Government that rules South Africa has ruled this country for many years, and it takes many years for the realisation of reform. This does not mean that I am making apologies for the Government; however, one has to be a realist in the given situation. Therefore, those of us who are participating will naturally have to give consideration, and give priority, to parochial issues at the same time as we consider reform. I agree with him that four years have elapsed, but one should analyse what has happened in those four years in these forums.

He also made mention of local government and the devolution of power. The hon member for Stanger is fully aware, since he is knowledgeable in this field, what is happening in that field of local government. He has somehow been given to understand that we have been participants in acknowledging certain factors in the devolution of power. I want to assure the hon member for Stanger that we have not been participants in this regard. However, negotiations and consultations with all organisations pertaining to the devolution of power are afoot at the moment. No final decision has been taken.

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

May I ask the hon the Minister a question? I am pleased that the hon the Minister is touching on that matter; I shall put the question more directly to him so that we can have a clear answer in this regard. On the question of devolution of power in respect of the amendment of the Natal Provincial Ordinance which, in effect, will devolve power to the third tier of government, did he or did he not support that? I should appreciate a clear answer in that regard.

The MINISTER:

Mr Chairman, I was not a participant in that Council. I want to give the hon member that assurance. Of course, this is a very sensitive issue. [Interjections.] That is what I was told.

Mr P T POOVALINGAM:

Mr Chairman, am I to understand that the hon the Minister is referring to devolution of power and not delegation of power? There is, of course, a difference between the two. Would the hon the Minister please clarify the situation?

The MINISTER:

The hon member for Cavendish, apart from his reservations, which are justified, says we must naturally ask for more; we must not succumb to any pressures. Naturally our representations are going to be dependent on the needs of the people. In that regard the hon the Minister is doing everything possible to be of assistance.

The hon member for Isipingo, a young and upcoming politician, might feel hurt. Nonetheless, he has not rejected this budget. Apart from his reservations, the hon member has commended the hon the Minister of the Budget. I too would like to say that we all find ourselves in the same position. We would like to see one South Africa and we would like to see one nation. It is in that direction we would like to move. That direction can only be reached by way of negotiation and participation in politics.

When he presented his speech, the hon the Minister of the Budget stated in his opening remarks:

Mr Chairman and hon members, the Gilbert and Sullivan character who complained that the policeman’s lot is not a happy one had, of course, not dreamt of the lot of a Minister of the Budget in our tricameral Parliamentary system who is charged with financial responsibilities. This indeed is no mean task.

This financial year, in particular, should be a signal to the entire country that, even in the face of unprecedented natural catastrophe—I am referring to the recent floods in South Africa—and while weathering the political storm blowing from many parts of the world, we were able to contain the situation and shoulder the responsibilities resulting from these catastrophes. Despite the calamatous politics and the natural disasters, I want to commend my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget on the fact that though he is short in stature, he is wide in vision and foresight and he was able to present a budget which has extended beyond our expectations. We owe him a debt of gratitude for his telling work in his particular portfolio.

HON MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The MINISTER:

The increase of 10,7% in the total budget also indicates an improvement over the last financial year. I want to make it abundantly clear that this is the fourth year of this administration and the administrative arm of this House is not entirely and satisfactorily restructured. This will take a long time, but we will gradually be able to establish that which we are looking forward to.

The overall awareness of people is increasing year by year, and their increasing demands as well as the various problems that have arisen over hundreds of years and which this administration has found on its doorstep, are evidence of the people’s acceptance of this administration. I am pleased that the hon the Minister laid strong emphasis on the educational aspects as well as the other departmental requirements.

Having acknowledged the increase in our budget, I should like my hon colleagues to take cognisance of the fact that in the last two years new pastures such as the Orange Free State and the Northern Natal Districts have been opened to the Indian community. There is tremendous excitement and enthusiasm about the developments in these regions. Apart from the backlog in housing in many parts of the country, new regional development would be a costly exercise and therefore I would like to call upon my hon colleague for additional financial provision to meet the demands of this new region.

Among the many inadequacies, the provision of school halls, particularly in rural areas where no other facilities are available, should be given priority. These facilities can be used on the basis of the shared concept. This may have been debated before, but taking into account what the Indian community is faced with in various areas, the fact that education and housing are own affairs and also remembering the economic situation in rural areas, we should be able to establish these facilities so that they can serve a dual purpose: An educational and a community purpose.

Furthermore we do not have boarding facilities and certain developing areas today have to cater for children from far afield. Hostel facilities have become absolutely imperative. In this respect I would like to mention the fast-developing area of Richards Bay where at present a hostel has been earmarked. I appeal to my hon colleagues to consider the immediate establishment of such hostel facilities, which are indeed much needed in that area.

With regard to the economic front we hope that all of those who have joined the chorus of the international community on disinvestment in South Africa have come to realise—just like Neil Kinnock, the British Labour Party leader and a firm supporter of sanctions against South Africa concedes—that sanctions alone will not achieve the end of apartheid. The 49 members of the Commonwealth for sanctions against South Africa have lost some momentum since the meeting in Vancouver last year. South Africa will remain indebted to that great Prime Minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher, for her spirited opposition to sanctions for South Africa.

Sanctions, together with other radical acts against South Africa, have had an effect on this country and have placed South Africa against the wall, obsessed with security. This has also had an influence on our community and the economy. British Labour leader Mr Neil Kinnock again says that the motive for any sanction against South Africa is neither vindictiveness nor vengeance, but for a speedy and certain change one way or another. The apartheid government has to go. What the Labour Party wants and what the vast majority of the people in South Africa want, is a non-racial, democratic and non-fragmented South Africa. Great thinkers say that a country belongs to all those who live in it—Black, White or Brown.

We are deeply committed as we contend with the First World and the Third World situation. In the process we make every effort to uplift the broad masses and our country’s prosperity. No civilised country should have the right to tamper with the economic infrastructure of this country. As a community we have suffered long enough to understand the difference between rhetoric and theoretical politics and committed leaders. There is an umbilical cord down to the broad masses— those people who need us more and more. We have shown so much progress in the field of housing alone in the last three years, which was not realised over the previous 60 years. This in itself points towards the wide gap that existed between the privileged and the underprivileged. South Africa’s priority can only be development. We should be able to identify ourselves with what is expected from us in politics. We should aim at development. This development should be directed towards the upliftment of our people. Africa cannot need anything other than the development of its socio-political sphere.

Any attitude towards South Africa should not further impoverish those who are already downtrodden. This amplifies the point that a Budget debate in any Parliament is the bearer of either failure or success of a nation and a country. I again want to commend my hon colleague for having been able to present an acceptable Budget during such a difficult and trying period of transition.

Those who believe that this Ministers’ Council has a panacea to all the problems of the Indian community in South Africa, are merely indulging in wishful thinking. It is only on the basis of gradualism, negotiation and understanding each other that the problems will ultimately be solved.

I want to ask hon members in all sincerity to evaluate the time spent on subject matters since they have been part of this forum. They must ask themselves to what extent it has been productive. Let us therefore start moving in a different direction, in which the economic factors of our country are first and foremost. With these words, I wish to compliment my hon colleague. I am satisfied that next year’s presentation will be a very acceptable and successful one.

Mr B DOOKIE:

Mr Chairman, no amount of increases in any Budget, and no amount of compliments will solve the problems of South Africa if we do not take into account the words mentioned in this House when we took office. South Africa needs to be one country with equal opportunities for all its people. We need a system in which all its people will be able to share power in the Government equally. Recent events in South Africa have, in fact, inhibited the progress that we have made. A debate has already taken place in this House concerning the actions taken by Government in respect of bannings and the taking of certain actions. I do not think that needs to be explained any further.

At the same time that this Budget is presented here, the hon the Minister of the Budget in his enthusiasm failed to address the real reasons for our being here. I believe he was fair in his comments, but I also believe that the reason we took office in this particular House, was to try and resolve some of the imbalances experienced by our community and other communities who are represented in Parliament. Unfortunately there is still one community that is not represented here, and we have a duty to them, too.

In these two paragraphs the hon the Minister of the Budget actually advises us that it is not possible to correct all those imbalances, as well as other things that we had set out to do. He said the universally accepted need to eliminate the per capita disparities between the allocation of public funds to the various population groups for services of a similar nature, has a high priority. However, the tempo at which it can be satisfied is dictated by the availability of funds. Likewise, wiping out backlogs in the infrastructure, for example housing, classrooms, teacher training, etcetera, must be seen as a scenario which falls within the five year plan. In a nutshell, he said, this must be seen as the best we can do on the current assessment.

It is no fault of his. He is in the seat, like all other hon Ministers, in the other Houses to do what he can. The Government alone, on this admission of my hon colleague, will not be able to solve the problems. I dread to recollect the words uttered by the hon member for Isipingo. His wise words should not be ignored.

He said that all the good work that had been done could not be appreciated in the long term because the problems in the long term would be greater. The own affairs system is not going to deliver the goods, and let me tell hon members why.

To my astonishment, my colleagues the hon members for Stanger, Isipingo and Mariannhill sat on the Natal standing committee for almost three days and it is abundantly clear to us that unless we put our house in order the House of Delegates, through the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, will not be able to achieve what is being said in this House if the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. It was made very clear to us that as far as the province is concerned there has been no consultation up till now. They have been given no advance warning and they have made no provision for any additional facilities—not even community health services—aside from the one that has already been established in Phoenix. In fact, as far as they were concerned, they were surprised that the announcement had been made without their having been consulted.

Am I to accept that we are now going to create our own works department in the House of Delegates in order to build our own health clinics and our own hospitals? It looks to me as if the walls of the own affairs and general affairs system are cracking, and that was proved to us in the Natal standing committee.

The hon the Minister went on to say:

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 to the changing possibilities.

I want to concur with hon members of this House that what is expected of Ministers—like myself, who was once on the other side of the House—is to make representations in an effort to obtain the maximum that is needed and to advise Government through the Cabinet committees that these imbalances have to be redressed before new work is done, particularly insofar as health services and welfare are concerned. Our colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is doing a wonderful job of work, as are the other Ministers. The point is, however, that the goods cannot be delivered if this is the way that budgets are going to be drawn up and apportioned.

Already there is a controversy between the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives because he appeared on television and said that there was no way he was going to get any more money to provide equal pensions. He said that if he did that, he should not come back to him if he had a shortfall under the other Votes.

With regard to this own affairs system of budgeting and the formula that we have heard of, an undertaking was, in fact, given in this House that by next year we would know what the new formula and this figure of 5% were going to be. Even today, I do not think that even the Ministers know what this 5% and this new formula are about. Therefore one can see that our whole existence is going to revolve around the question of budgeting and therefore we are critical about the issue here.

Mr Chairman, I want to take the opportunity to say something in this particular debate because I do not wish to do so during another debate. I was attacked by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is not here at the moment, and this is my only opportunity to correct the situation. I simply want to prove who uses the privileges of Parliament for his own convenience. After all, it has been said time and time again that hon members are using parliamentary privilege and leave other hon members no option to defend themselves.

On 7 March in the debate dealing with the motion moved by the hon member for Tongaat I said I did not understand why such a motion had been moved when the Housing Development Act (House of Delegates) Act No 4 of 1987 made ample provision for the hon the Minister of Housing to act when local authorities did not undertake housing development for the Indian community. For that reason the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said that the House of Delegates was suffering.

He not only used the words uttered in the wrong context but acted irresponsibly by accusing me that because of my action in introducing the Housing Development Bill in its present form, the House of Delegates is suffering. That is what he said.

The Bill was first submitted in draft form to the standing committee on community affairs. The reason for having one Bill, and why the provisions of the two previous Acts were combined, was fully explained. We were guided by the Director-general and his administration, including officials from the department dealing with housing matters in the House of Assembly. The Bill was checked and approved by the legal advisers as workable. The main objection of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was that there was no need for a housing board. He argued that the Ministers’ Council and the department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture could handle the work of the Housing Board. I refer hon members to what he said, and I quote:

I and officials of the department argued that the need for a board was to depoliticise the working of the department and the authority to sue and be sued should be with the board and not the Minister.

The standing committee approved the Bill to be tabled in this House and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council supported all the clauses. He did not raise any objections or introduce any amendments. The Bill was also discussed with the housing study group of each party and objections to certain clauses were made. Because of the urgency imposed by the Treasury as regards accounting and budget procedure, and on the insistance of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that the Bill must be tabled in the House urgently, the Bill, as drafted, was tabled by me. At that point, objections to certain clauses were again raised in the House. In order to have an acceptable and workable Act, it was agreed to appoint a select committee to examine and recommend changes or additions to the Bill. The members appointed were the hon members for Laudium (chairman), Central Rand, Cavendish, Umzinto, Southern Natal, Stanger and the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. Almost all the recommendations of the select committee were accepted. Thereafter deficiencies or discrepancies were pointed out by any member, including the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. The department and the select committee could have only made changes or additions within the jurisdiction and the scope of the provisions of the Constitution because of own affairs. In other words, there were some restrictions imposed. If, however, it is possible to make changes to be able to work within the framework of the Constitution, this should be done. Every year numerous Acts are amended by Bills introduced by hon Ministers. Why create all the fuss now? It was an irresponsible action by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and therefore the records should be put right. I want to remind hon members of the words he spoke and I quote (Hansard, Delegates, 12 February 1987, col 459):

Mr Chairman, I have confidence in all my Ministers. I know what time they start, what time they finish, their workload and their efficiency. Certain matters were raised about telephone calls, but I shall not comment on that.
I want to deal with the legislation that is before us. I want hon members seriously to take note that in a normal society and normal country one makes provision by way of enabling legislation for the normal provision of housing. What we are doing today is introducing legislation to replace the administration of two Acts which are entrusted to the Ministers’ Council via the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. These Acts are the Housing Act and the Community Development Act. Hon members must know that the norms applicable in respect of the administration of these two Acts will still have to apply when this House passes the Housing Development Bill.
I want to explain what I mean by this. I want to give the assurance that the intention behind Parliament’s passing the Community Development Act will still prevail in respect of the administration of the Bill which we are about to pass.
We are not following the House of Assembly, neither are we following the House of representatives. The House of Representatives has passed two different pieces of legislation, but we are rationalising. Instead of having a National Housing Commission and a Community Development Board, we are combining both and the functions will be performed by the Housing Development Board.

That is what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said—I copied every bit of the House of Assembly’s report—and yet, in the debate, full well knowing what we had to present to the House—he in fact went along with the Bill when I presented it. I quote the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council again:

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the select committee appointed by the House for the wonderful work they have done.

That was when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should have said what was wrong. He could even have said something in the Ministers’ Council or the Standing Committee on Community Affairs, but he should not come afterwards and say this House is suffering because of my action. I want to quote again:

I know that reference was made to the Housing Development Board and to the word “interference”. One of the key principles in respect of having a common housing development board …

However, he said that I made a mistake by wanting a common board. I continue—

… such as the Community Development Board and the National Housing Commission—is that decision-making is depoliticised. This is an important fundamental principle contained in this Bill. We could have avoided this Bill and administered most of the provisions through present legislation, creating a special structure in our housing administration. However, what would have been the reaction? The official who was appointed by the hon the Minister performed the task. Somebody may have interfered with or influenced the official. If there is a completely autonomous board carrying out the administration of the provisions of this Bill, then nobody can be accused of political interference. Depoliticisation in respect of handling matters of this kinds, particularly land and housing matters, are important. I give the assurance that nobody can interfere with or influence any decisions of the board. However,

nobody is prevented from placing facts before the board.

He made many other comments, but these two indicate and confirm that he was in agreement with the Bill we piloted. You yourself, Mr Chairman, were a member of that committee. All the objections were retained. It was wrong to take out of context the words that I used. I again say that it is no use blaming anybody else. Using parliamentary privilege, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council attacks a man and then he is protected. There is no recourse. I felt this was an opportunity to bring this to hon members’ attention and to put the records straight.

In conclusion, I want to say that I believe that not only now, but also in the future, this House will go through a difficult time regarding its budget, because the economy of the country will not be able to withstand the pressures on it. Therefore I believe that one of the many issues that have to resolved is the question of welfare pensions. I know the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare has indicated that a committee has been appointed to look at the means test.

I do not know how we will be able to justify to the community that there is no pension increase this year. R60 as a bonus represents R5 per month. If the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare and the hon the Minister of the Budget had come with me to Phoenix the other day when I addressed an old-age function, they would have seen the faces of these old people, asking me what they are going to do with R5 per month, when inflation is something like 15% or 16%.

In terms of section 84(c) of the Constitution—I speak subject to correction—I believe that since the House of Representatives has already taken a lead in trying to have the pension increased, there is no way this House or its Ministers’ Council will be able to withstand the criticism and the pressure from the community. I do not think that the hon the State President meant that this section of the community should not get an increase. An increase in the old-age pensions must be realised and I believe we will have an opportunity to discuss this. This group within community will not survive, with rent and the cost of living escalating all the time, quite apart from the fact that some of them have heavy medical expenses. They will not be able to survive. We are talking about the Indian, Black, Coloured and White pensioners. I think this is an area which this House must look at immediately. We must try to get additional funds to resolve this problem. The undertaking given to this House that pensions will be equalised will not be brought about in this way and that is also why the House of Representatives has taken its stand.

Mr M S SHAH:

Mr Chairman, the Budget, as presented by the hon the Minister of the Budget, is in keeping with the Government’s theme of curbing State spending. Whilst criticism is levelled at the hon the Minister I believe it is only fair that the positive aspects of his speech ought to be complimented. Under the Vote of “Education and Culture” provision is made for the first time for the payment of a rand for rand subsidy for the maintenance of school facilities at primary and secondary schools. This is a positive aspect and it ought to be complimented.

I want to dwell on two aspects and the first is hospital services. The hon the Minister made mention of the taking over of the clinic in Lenasia which has facilities for about 200 persons a day. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare that when this hospital is taken over—I understand that this will happen shortly—the clinic should be kept open for other communities as well. It should not be confined to the Indian population alone because there are people of other race groups who live in the vicinity of the clinic.

Secondly, I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister of the Budget to negotiate with the hon the Minister of Finance to obtain permission to spend funds to aid in the opening of the Lenasia South Hospital. The Lenasia South Hospital has been lying idle for the past three years. It is a beautiful building and fully equipped but the equipment is still wrapped up in cellophane. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare can confirm this because we had an inspection in loco of this hospital. The Provincial Administration of Transvaal did not budget enough to cover the running costs of this hospital. They have said to us on many occasions that we must try to assist them by making provision for additional funds estimated at R3,3 million per annum to get the hospital operational.

It is difficult to understand why millions of rand are spent on the H F Verwoerd Hospital in Pretoria to convert it into an academic hospital, while we have a fully-equipped hospital that is ready to be utilised but where we do not have the funds for that. Perhaps that train of argument can be used to procure additional funds.

I now come to the question of local government affairs and the abolition of the development boards with particular reference to the abolishment of the Peri-urban Board. Enough has been said about discrimination—to such an extent that I believe it is pouring out of our ears—but when we take a serious look at discrimination we find the following situation in Lenasia. If a person on the one side of the street should die, the fee for a burial is R80 whereas it is R800 if a person on the opposite side of the street should die. That is discrimination of the highest order. [Interjections.] The reason is that one portion of Lenasia which is divided by an imaginary line fell under the control of the then Peri-urban Board.

What exactly was the Peri-urban Board? The Peri-urban Board consisted of 12 or 15 members who had retired from public life. When the board was abolished …

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether it is correct that the members of the Peri-urban Board were referred to as piranhas? [Interjections.]

Mr M S SHAH:

Yes, that term has been used.

When this board was abolished only the 12 or 15 members who had served on it were removed. The administrative structure of the board still exists to this day. Now we have the area of Lenasia South East which includes extensions 8, 9, 10 and 11 as well as Lenasia South which fall under the jurisdiction of the Peri-urban Board. Legally we do not have a local authority. Previously we had the board but now that it has been abolished we have no local authority.

We still have the administrative structure which is situated in Pretoria, and whatever decision is taken by the Local Affairs Committee of that area is not implemented because some of the officials in Pretoria decide at their whim and fancy that they are not going to implement such a resolution.

We have been trying over the years to incorporate this area into the jurisdiction of the municipality of the Johannesburg City Council. To date we have not had much joy. I know that the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture is in the process of negotiating such an incorporation but the Johannesburg City Council has made the prerequisite that that they are only prepared to incorporate a portion of the Lenasia South-East area.

They are excluding a portion called Lenasia South, commonly referred to as Dexina. Now, to my mind it will amount to the same thing, ie that we will still have an area without a local authority. It is my belief that this is a deliberate ploy on behalf of Government officials, and especially the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, to force the hand of the residents of Lenasia to opt for autonomy.

Autonomy is not acceptable—I have made this clear previously and I want to say it again— autonomy is totally unacceptable to the community that I represent. Until that community says that it will accept autonomy we are not prepared to pursue that.

I should therefore again like to appeal to the hon the Minister of the Budget possibly to make some kind of representation to the Johannesburg City Council because I believe there is a financial implication for their not wanting to incorporate the area. The area that they want to leave out is fully serviced and is not short of any reticulation and so forth. Everything is serviced in that area.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

What about the squatters?

Mr M S SHAH:

The squatter issue is another problem. We had a discussion on this in the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Transvaal and the Provincial Administration indicated that they are going to address that issue as of two weeks from now.

Therefore my plea to the hon the Minister of the Budget is, firstly, that we want more money for the Lenasia South Hospital to be operational and open to all races, because we cannot confine it. My fear is that if that hospital is taken over by this Administration it will become an own affairs hospital and then we may only open it to Indian people. That would be a shame.

The money must come from the central budget where the hon the Minister must make representations to ensure that we are given the money to make that hospital operational, and secondly, money must be given to the Johannesburg City Council to incorporate the other sections of Lenasia.

Dr D CADER:

Mr Chairman, let me say at the outset that there has only been one thing that has restored my confidence in this year’s budget and that is the bonuses that have been awarded to the pensioners in October of this year. Other than that there is not much to get excited about.

There is of course the amount of R50 million that has been made available to the farming community as a result of the flood disaster. This has been done before by way of aid for resettlement. Then of course, in Vote 5 we have improvements in conditions of service to overcome the disparity in salaries as well as a few occupational adjustments. Other than these there is, as I have said, nothing much to write home about.

There is nothing that this Administration can do about the budget at this stage. It was this hon Minister who said that his was not a happy lot. The hon the Minister has also said that South African resources are finite and our needs a bottomless pit. I agree with him.

However, there are certain salient points pertaining to one or two departments which I would like to highlight here and in doing so I shall try not to pre-empt any forthcoming policy speeches by the Ministers concerned.

If one looks at Education and Culture I have noticed from the speech of the hon the Minister of the Budget that provision has been made for the first time ever for the maintenance and updating of sports equipment and facilities on a rand for rand basis. This is good and I welcome it.

But, and this is a very big but, last year the hon the Minister of Education and Culture delivered a speech about the new sports policy. I pointed out then that he would experience some difficulty with this policy. The one major problem I can foresee is the sports councils for schools. In establishing these councils, the hon the Minister expected teachers, pupils and parents to form a component part. I know that the hon the Minister has had very little feedback from schools as far as these sports councils are concerned. He will therefore not be in a position to tell us anything about it. However, I have been talking to sports masters and principals and I know the difficulty these people experience in getting parents to participate. Moreover, even if they are willing to participate, we find that these people are not qualified or are inexperienced to act as coaches in the various forms of sport. I have found if people are inexperienced or unqualified, they do more harm than good.

Furthermore, the hon the Minister has mentioned that he is going to maintain and update existing facilities. However, he should not stop there. I suggest to the hon the Minister that he go one step further and introduce more, and new, equipment. One soccer field and one ball, one netball court and one netball are not good enough. Every school needs to offer several kinds of sport. Every school should have tennis, badminton, table tennis, soccer, football, netball, softball and cricket equipment. A particular child may not be talented at cricket or football but he may have great potential for either table tennis or swimming. That is all I have to say about this particular Vote.

The next point I wish to raise is with regard to health and welfare. As I have said before, the bonus to pension beneficiaries is welcome. To achieve parity, I realise, is absolutely impossible so we will not discuss this. Although there has been an increase of 7,6% in a number of benefits the necessity exists, according to the hon the Minister, on page 5 of his Budget Speech “to reduce the number of beneficiaries so as to conform to standards and norms”. That, I take it, means parity.

May I suggest to the hon the Minister that his department not discontinue existing pensions or grants but in future more strict and selective, particularly where medical examinations are concerned.

I know in the past it was common practice to grant pensions to all and sundry and then, after one or two years, to have a medical review and thereafter discontinue the grant. This is cruel and criminal. It prevents a good man from seeking employment and it spoils a lazy man further. Not only that but at the end of the period it is found that these people are unable to find work.

Lastly, I am a little perturbed—and I think most hon members in this House as well as taxpayers are—about the exact role and the exact responsibility of these so-called ministerial representatives that we see floating around. These gentlemen are collecting salaries of R91 000 a year plus a car and a living allowance. That is more than a Deputy Minister receives. Could any Minister in this House please tell me exactly what functions and responsibilities these office bearers have.

Mr P T POOVALINGAM:

Canvassing votes in elections for the NPP!

Dr D CADER:

I know they are supposed to represent the Minister or deputise for the Minister while he is in Cape Town, but why has it then been necessary for the Ministers in this House to leave this House to travel to Ladysmith, Durban and Johannesburg to do their work?

Mr Y I SEEDAT:

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to follow the hon member for Montford, more especially because he touched on the department’s sports policy, something that I was going to do. He saved me the time, since I do not see the need for me to reiterate what he said. I shall refer to that in detail when we discuss the hon the Minister’s Budget Vote …

An HON MEMBER:

In detail.

Mr Y I SEEDAT:

… in detail.

Complimentary remarks have been made about the speech by the hon member for Laudium here this afternoon, and I believe he was merely using the democratic process to articulate and express his grievances at this the highest forum available to us. I do not believe anything sinister should be read into his utterances. He made a good contribution, and I believe that we should acknowledge it as such.

My colleague the hon member for Isipingo was critical of our participation in the tricameral system. That is his opinion and he is entitled to it. I believe that every hon member seated here entered Parliament and this hon House because we had chosen the path of dialogue. I believe that by participating in this House we are attempting to facilitate the entrance into the political spectrum at this highest level of the disadvantaged community.

Members know and have conceded the fact that dialogue and not confrontation is the answer. We should not allow personal differences to occupy the bulk of our time, as has been the case in this Chamber. As South Africans, we have a role to play in this country of our birth. Let not anybody persuade us that we as a people are of no consequence in the struggle for a truly non-racial South Africa.

Our forefathers mattered. Had they not been important, it would have been unnecessary for them to come to this country. It was necessary for the prosperity of South Africa that their services were required, and they were enlisted to assist in the progress of this country. We are no intruders here. Through our forefathers, we were invited, and as such we belong here and have a meaningful role to play, a role that must be positive in ensuring that justice will at all times prevail.

I wish to place on record, as did the hon member for Laudium, the disappointments and frustrations of parents, teachers and students in the Transvaal. I refer to the Friday prayer issue. I want to reiterate what the hon member for Laudium said. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture, after meeting with members of Parliament from the Transvaal, issued a statement contained in a letter which was addressed to individual members of this House—this was confirmed by the hon the Minister’s utterances in this House—to the effect that he and his department would have no difficulty as regards the early closure of schools on Fridays to facilitate the attendance of congregational prayers by members or students of the Muslim faith.

All Transvaal MPs acknowledged with thanks this decision of the hon the Minister. However, we are disappointed, and I believe that many parents are even upset. Principals who are prepared to implement these new times and alter the timetable to comply with the statement issued in this House by the hon the Minister are disillusioned and disappointed that the hon the Minister and his department have not, as at this moment, issued a directive to principals in that regard.

I do not blame the principals. They are in the employ of the department and those principals who have not as yet implemented these times, are in the right. They, too, fear the loss of their jobs. They too are at the mercy of the department.

The hon the Minister stated earlier, while the hon member for Laudium was addressing this House, that there are channels through which these directives have to go. I want to put it to the hon the Minister that he and his department know that the community of the Transvaal is frustrated to the point where children left school last year in defiance of the principal’s request that they stay on until the bell rings.

All that was needed, after the hon the Minister made a statement in this House in which he confirmed what he wrote to us in those letters, was to inform his department’s officials in the Transvaal—that they could communicate telephonically with the principals advising them of the hon the Minister’s statement in this House. I believe that even at this stage—today or tomorrow—it is necessary for the hon the Minister to get the acting chief executive director to contact the inspectors in the Transvaal, and they could then contact the principals in the Transvaal telephonically so that these times could be implemented as from this coming Friday. The principals are merely waiting.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE:

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question? [Interjections.] After the department took over, parents in the Transvaal had been kind enough to be patient for 20 years. The hon member wanted to know if the department could not ring the principals. Did he consider whether the principals could not ring the department to clarify this matter and get on with the job?

Mr Y I SEEDAT:

Mr Chairman, let us not qualify it before we can see it. This is all that the hon the Minister is asking. Fair enough, we have waited for 20 years. However, that is no reason why the hon the Minister’s department could not have contacted the principals immediately after he had made a statement in this Chamber, the highest forum in the land. I do not believe it is the principal’s duty to contact the department to enquire about this.

An HON MEMBER:

The department must inform the principal.

Mr Y I SEEDAT:

Mr Chairman, we have this difficulty where certain schools allow the boys to go to prayers. However, it is an injunction on all Muslims to pray. We want those schools to close at 12h15 as the hon the Minister has stated. We are not asking for anything more, over and above what the hon the Minister has acknowledged. [Interjections.] I am merely requesting the hon the Minister in all humility as we, as MPs for the Transvaal, are the ones who are getting the flak. We are being told that the House of Delegates as a body is toothless. [Interjections.] I am getting all sorts of words and I agree with all of them: Toothless, useless. We are being told that we, together with the House of Delegates, are becoming insignificant.

In addition I believe it is necessary for me to clarify and set the record straight in respect of Actonville and the land issue surrounding Actonville.

On Friday, 22 May 1987 (Hansard: Delegates, col 190) the hon member for Actonville stated as follows, and I quote:

Recently the hon member Mr Seedat was saying one should forget Villa Lisa. Then he went to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers' Council and asked that he be given some credibility. Why did the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council get the Apex land so that the hon member could do something about tax deduction? Ask him to deny it! As if he thinks we do not know!

I refer to this matter because my attention was recently drawn to the speech and I was required to explain my actions. I would like to tell my colleague, the hon member for Actonville, that my submissions are and will always be that we identify and occupy as many areas as is possible for our community. In the past we have been denied the right to choose where to live. Yes, I would like to tell my hon colleague that I, together with the others, call for Apex to be proclaimed an Indian area because to me it is a natural extension to Actonville-Rynsoord. I believed this then, and I still do.

In this quotation from Hansard the hon member for Actonville talked about tax deduction. I would like to ask him what he was referring to, because I deny ever having approached the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council about any tax deduction. It is also necessary for me to refer to certain statements made during this session of Parliament. Unfortunately the Hansard is unavailable, so I cannot quote directly from it.

The Actonville Housing Committee was formed in Actonville at the chambers of the Actonville Management Committee after a meeting there, where individuals and representatives of religious and cultural bodies in Actonville had been invited. This meeting was initiated at the request of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It was attended by him and other hon members of Parliament. The Actonville Housing Committee was requested to investigate and report to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council on certain identified areas. I must add that it is true that certain individuals attended merely because housing was on the agenda. It is also true that their political outlook and affiliations differ from ours. The important point to me is that these individuals had agreed to attend a meeting convened by a statutory body and to being addressed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

A further point I wish to stress is that the Chairman of the Actonville Housing Committee recently appeared at two group areas hearings, representing the Actonville Housing Committee. He did not represent Solidarity. I can state without fear of contradiction that this chairman, Dr Carim, is neither supporter of Solidarity nor of the National People Party—not even of the PRP or the PFP. [Interjections.] Insofar as his acquisition of land to build a shopping complex in Actonville is concerned, I must place on record that provision has been made for a clinic and specialist consulting rooms in the complex, which I do believe will prove to be an asset for Actonville.

The land was tendered for and upon the recommendation of the Actonville Management Committee, it was sold to Dr Carim with the consent and acceptance of the Administrator of the Transvaal.

I clarify these matters because of the misunderstanding that seems to have resulted from certain utterances. I respectfully ask the hon member for Actonville to accept the clarification in the spirit in which it has been made. Let us not allow personalities to come into our stated and all-important objective of serving our community.

Reference has been made to pensions. I want to implore the hon the Minister of the Budget and the Ministers’ Council to see to it that some form of increase in social pensions is afforded our pensioner community. It does not mean that one has to look at R20, R25 or R17. All they ask for is the little that can be given from our allocation, even if it means—as the hon member for Cavendish said—that we have to take from Peter to pay Paul.

Mr A S RAZAK:

Mr Chairman, I have listened to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. He made a beautiful speech. I must admit that the actions are very contradictory to the beautiful speech that was made.

Having listened to the hon member for Lenasia Central in so far as the hospital issue is concerned in Lenasia, I wonder what type of communication does the Ministers’ Council have as far as the Transvaal province is concerned. Am I to accept that because the province has not budgeted for the running cost of that much needed hospital, it has had to remain unused for the past 2½ years? Am I to accept that the Ministers’ Council is not aware of this position?

Reference was made by my colleague, the hon member Mr Seedat, to housing in Actonville. I believe that the critical and chronic shortage of houses in that area has been highlighted for a number of years. I read with interest the remarks made by the hon the Minister of the Budget. He has the following to say on local government, and I quote:

Our community must be urged to avail themselves of the opportunity which local affairs committees present for more meaningful participation in civic affairs.

I now come to civic affairs. We have a local management committee in the area called Actonville. I want to agree that perhaps that is a forgotten part of the world. However, I want to take this opportunity to tell hon members of this House that Actonville has a population of approximately 30 000 people.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Actonville has definitely not been forgotten, neither in words, nor in deeds.

Mr A S RAZAK:

I am very pleased to hear that. When we talk of participation in civic affairs, I want to say to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that participation is a well-meaning thought.

With the community there having had to suffer, and still suffering, what type of participation are we looking for? One must accept that the housing situation in Actonville has been unnecessarily delayed for far too long. We have to go through the red tape of the group areas hearings which, I believe are still applicable in 1988. Having gone through those phases, I cannot understand why the entire situation has become bogged down between the group areas hearing and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I beg the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is Minister of Housing, to give us some explanation insofar as that is concerned.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

If I reply positively, you will take the credit!

Mr A S RAZAK:

I do not believe that I am standing here to take credit. I have come here to make representations on behalf of a community that desperately needs what it should have had a long time ago.

We have had three group areas hearings in Actonville. We have had the one for Villa Lisa. I do not know whether the findings of that committee are lying between Pretoria and Cape Town. We had the second one at the offices of the Benoni Municipality, namely the hearing for Apex, and a hearing for Windmill Park. I do not know where the findings relating to those hearings are.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether, in view of the fact that he is keen to find a solution to the problem, he would support the view that the area which, financially speaking, is the best for the end user is the one that should be chosen, irrespective of which area that is?

Mr A S RAZAK:

I support a community cause, Mr Chairman, and to the best of my knowledge it was at the insistence of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that a housing committee was formed in Actonville. I believe that if there is a question of cost structure, then it should be left to the community there to make the decision.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Two years later. [Interjections.]

Mr A S RAZAK:

It is already more than two years since the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made a promise to the people of Actonville that he would come back with an answer within three weeks.

I also recollect that at a meeting at a home in Rynsoord the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council actually stated in the presence of 200 people: “If we get the land today we will buy it tomorrow and provide the housing.” I want to tell hon members that our community in that area is still suffering after two and a half years.

Mr T PALAN:

You should have been in Parliament long ago. [Interjections.]

Mr A S RAZAK:

Under the circumstances the hon the Minister of the Budget has done the best he could. Emphasis has been placed upon the R60 bonus that is to be paid to pensioners. I want to appeal to him, if it is humanly possible, to attempt to appropriate more funds from elsewhere in order to make the pensioner’s life an easy one. [Interjections.]

I now turn to education and culture. Does the hon the Minister of Education and Culture realise that there are newspaper advertisements today in which our teaching fraternity is talking about forming a teachers’ union? This being so, I am positive that all is not well in that department. [Interjections.]

When one looks at the situation in the Transvaal and the placing of teachers there, one finds that a teacher who qualifies for a post at a school in an area where he or she lives, is posted 70 or 80 km to a school in a different area. It is ironic that a teacher living in an area where there is a vacancy is seconded to another school. I do not know whether the hon the Minister of Education and Culture is aware of this situation in the Transvaal. I am being told that my time is nearly up.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

The hon member can have my time.

Mr M RAJAB:

There is very little left of that.

Mr A S RAZAK:

I thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

The hon member Mr Seedat has highlighted the Friday prayer issue. The indecision that prevails in the Ministers’ Council now comes to the fore. It was decided that children should attend prayer meetings at 12h15 and now suddenly there is this indecision. This indicates to me that our education system is run on indecisions and I want to ask the hon the Minister of Education and Culture why this is happening. I agree with what the hon member Mr Seedat said and what he pleaded for is long overdue. I am also convinced that his pleadings will not find common ground, unless the problems facing the entire House of Delegates are eradicated so that we can start with a clean slate.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND AGRICULTURE:

Mr Chairman, under the circumstance, the hon the Minister of the Budget, has done his best. Hon members in this House must realise that what we are discussing today is merely an amount of money that was given by the Treasury to the Ministers’ Council for administering our own affairs departments. We are all subjected to certain rules and there is no way in which we could go outside the parameters of those rules. I want to repeat that under the present circumstances the hon the Minister has done the best that could be done. Even if hon members of the Official Opposition had sat in his chair, I am satisfied that they would not have been able to a better job. This is my honest opinion and must be taken as such. I am not taking issue with my colleague on the remark he made on page 3 of his speech that an investigation was under way into the plight of the Ladysmith community which was severely affected by the recent floods. He said the complete relocation of these people might be the only lasting solution.

I am not taking issue with him, but he has qualified his statement by saying that complete relocation may be the solution. However, the people of Ladysmith will probably not differentiate between the ‘may’ and the ‘shall’ and the ‘will’ and the ‘may’. They are rather taken aback by anybody who attempts to impose solutions on them.

The question of the problem of the flooding of Ladysmith is not a simplistic one. I have experienced this for decades and I know the problem. I will never say to the people of Ladysmith that the solution is that they must be relocated. I believe in the principle that solutions other than relocation must first be found. If these solutions are not found and if the financial requirements of an engineering solution cannot be met, I believe we must not follow the rule of the old Department of Community Development and impose solutions on people. I believe that…

Mr M RAJAB:

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he would care to inform the House what the feelings of the people of Ladysmith are concerning this particular matter.

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Mr Chairman, there are different groups of people living in Ladysmith in the areas that have been flooded. There are people who have sentimental attachments to their properties. There are retired people living in the area who own their properties and have free-hold rights there. These people are seeking a solution to the flooding of the river which will enable them to live their remaining years in the area to which they have sentimental attachments.

Then there are also tenants who are being exploited by unscrupulous landlords who will not even fix a windowpane, let alone pave the yard, which is required after the floods. Those people would therefore welcome relocation and in fact we are attempting to do that.

Then there are business people. Kandar Avenue is the only Indian business area. It is the only natural extension of the central business district. If those people—more or less 30 business people—are uprooted and relocated somewhere in the bundu, far away from passing traffic, they will not survive. They have said to me that they do not favour the idea of relocation.

An attempt is often made to say that the flooding of the low-lying areas of Ladysmith only affects the Indian residential area. This is not so. During the two disasters we have had, the 57 shops in the plaza were flooded completely. The OK Bazaars complex, worth millions of rands, was flooded completely. The Checkers complex, also worth millions of rands, was flooded completely. A church, three blocks of flats, the Windsor High School, the M L Sultan School and numerous business houses in Murchison Street were flooded. The cost of relocating all these businesses, residences, churches and schools would be astronomical. I therefore appeal to everybody.

An enquiry is under way at the moment. The Department of Water Affairs has finalised its report. This will go to the McHenry Technical Committee which will look into this. Then, finally, when the cost of relocation is weighed against the possible engineering solutions, we must decide. For the time being I want to appeal to everybody not to make suggestions that relocation is the only solution. This is my appeal, and I know and understand the feelings of the people.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

It may be one of the solutions.

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes, it may be one of the solutions but at the present moment let us not say that it is the only way that we can go. I live in that area and I have my own views on the matter. At this stage I am not prepared to move from there. I am not prepared to create debts at this stage, and there are many like me.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

You must stay with Ganga Maatha.

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes, I will stay with Ganga Maatha. Ganga Maatha has not done me any harm over all these years.

It was a disaster that struck me. I have lived there for 30 years and I was first affected last September. There have been numerous floods in the past but my home has never been flooded. Now, because we were hit by a flood, everybody uses the disaster as an excuse. It is not only used as an excuse in an attempt to move us but the insurance companies have cancelled our policies as a result of the disaster. These insurance companies have derived revenue from us over all these years—we have paid flood coverage for decades. Now we were hit by one disaster which we will hopefully not see again in our lifetime but on the other hand we may see it again next month. After taking our contributions over all these years the insurance companies have suddenly decided that they will offer no more flood coverage. [Interjections.]

I welcome the fact that the Ministers’ Council has decided to provide for the maintenance of sport facilities. Sitting here in this Chamber I would like to feel free and tell the House a few things about my constituency but I have to restrain myself and be a bit guarded. [Interjections.]

It is all very well to give a rand-for-rand maintenance subsidy to a limited number of schools but I want to say that I come from an area where some of the schools have no sporting facilities whatsoever. I attended a sports function at the Nottingham Road School and I want to tell hon members that the teachers at the finishing point had to catch the children taking part in the races to prevent them from running straight into the fence, all because of a lack of sporting facilities. In such cases where schools have no sporting facilities we must find the money to provide these sporting facilities. This is not being done for all the schools but I know that my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture is aware of this problem and something will be done about it.

On page 4 of his memorandum my hon colleague referred to local government elections. A great deal has been said about this. The hon member for Stanger remarked that the Budget does not address itself to the promotion of reform. I believe he said that we support the devolution of power but this is not the case. It is not possible for us to report on all the negotiations that take place behind closed doors. I do not believe that the Ministers’ Council is a push-over in so far as standing up for the rights of our people is concerned. All I want to say about the local government elections is that the community must know that these elections on 26 October will be of the utmost importance to the community at large— not only to the Indian community, but to the community at large. Whoever will be elected on 26 October will hold office for five long years.

The future of this most important tier of Government is going to be dependent on the calibre of people who are elected. I believe that throughout the country our people must see to it that they are on the voters’ roll so that we can get people who have the interests of the community at heart and who will be elected not necessarily on a partypolitical basis but on the basis that we need people of merit to stand up and speak for our people.

The local Government structures at the moment are not ideal. We have been holding out for direct participation. There is no doubt about the fact that this is what we desire and we are ad idem that the only way that there will peace at the local Government level is when all the people within the boundaries of a town sit together around a table and run the affairs of that town. Unfortunately there are constraints and that ideal is not possible at the moment. That does not mean to say …

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

When will that be possible?

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

That question the hon member for Stanger can well answer as he is also an architect—and if he is not an architect he is a carpenter—who fashioned some of the structures that we are saddled with. [Interjections.] He says he is not an architect but the hon member for Stanger must admit that he held the tools at a certain stage in the development of the regional services council and local government. There is no point in denying that he was a part of the negotiations that took place. As he started off the negotiations we are now taking over from him and we are negotiating to reach our goal.

This is a long road that we have to walk before we can get to the ideal. I would like to see myself as a truly free man in the land of my birth before I die. I have often said this. I might be sitting here as a deputy Minister but in fact I am not a free man in the land of my birth. This is something that is of concern. I do not take it lightly and it does not mean to say that because I have opted to serve within the structures of the State that I have overlooked the deficiencies in the system. We have all accepted that we have to work within the system.

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

When you resigned from the LAC you said you would not stand again.

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I did not say I would not stand again. The hon member for Stanger does not know the history of Ladysmith, so the less he says about Ladysmith the better. [Interjections.] I appeal to him to confine himself to Stanger because Stanger is the place where, when there were problems, the whole province went lock stock and barrel to resolve them. I do not want to take issue with the hon member. I have a long standing working relationship with him but I know the problems of Ladysmith very well.

The hon member for Springfield probably has a mind that does not work. [Interjections.] Sometimes it is abnormal. I am talking about local government. There is one problem that we picked up during a recent visit.

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

But we did a lot of work on the Natal Association.

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes we did. The two of us have come a long way and we have a long way to go.

One of the problems that is affecting our people at the moment is not an easy problem to resolve.

During a recent tour with my colleagues the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare and the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture we picked up a very serious problem where municipal charges are up to R65 per month and the rent is only R8,50. These municipal charges exclude charges for consumer services. Therefore if one takes the consumer services which add up to about R50, and adds them to the R65 for the municipal charges it means that over R115 is paid for municipal and consumer charges as against the R8,50 paid for rent.

This, therefore, is a matter beyond our control, but nonetheless representations are being made so that this …

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question? The hon the Deputy Minister indeed highlighted a very serious matter last year on the question of the anomalies in the rate paid on account of the different values as a result of the Group Areas Act. I think he indicated that at some stage we should meet the Minister to discuss the issue.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! Will the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition please ask his question.

The ACTING LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION:

The question is, when will the hon the Deputy Minister be able to pursue the issue so that we can have this meeting with the Ministers?

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I must thank the hon member for asking that question. I have been pursuing this matter ever since that debate took place in the House but unfortunately that hon Deputy Minister is going to be leaving us. However, I want to talk to the hon member, and we should take this to the hon the Minister himself because this is still a sore point with us.

The other matter I want to come to is mentioned on page 4 of my hon colleague’s speech. He said: “A roof of one’s own is the best possible stake in the future. If housing is good, almost all other problems become manageable.”

With all the will in the world, housing cannot be provided without land and this is where we are stymied. When land is identified for possible acquisition by our department, the whole machinery of the Group Areas Act grinds ever so slowly and it is years before there is a proclamation so that the land is finally available to us.

Another matter I want to mention is with regard to what the hon the Minister said about the servicing of land. I think this is being done. The policy of the Ministers’ Council, of course, is that land is serviced according to the needs of the people. Land is not simply serviced left, right and centre when it is not known what the serviced land is going to be used for. There is no point in servicing land, I believe, for occupation for the subeconomic group when the service costs are high. I believe the starting point of any development is in fact the socio-economic survey which then guides us to the end product, that is, housing.

My hon colleague also discussed health services on page 4. He says: “It is the policy of this administration to put basic health services at the disposal of communities to enhance the overall quality of life.” I agree with that sentiment, but unfortunately we do not control the provincial hospitals. There are numerous shortcomings with regard to provincial hospitals in my area. I have received numerous complaints about the Ladysmith, Greytown and Escort hospitals. I will discuss this at greater length when the provincial budget is debated in this House. I really want to oppose the provincial budget…

Mr J V IYMAN:

I shall support you.

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

… because we are not getting the kind of service we deserve. That, however, is a subject I shall raise at the appropriate time.

I now want to turn to education. Education has always been at the forefront of our thinking and has always featured very strongly in debates in this House. My own hon colleague has said that productivity is influenced by several factors among which attitudes, responsibility and the socio-economic environment are paramount. However, I believe in education and that we have to see to it that the pupil-teacher ratio is reduced to manageable proportions. This ratio is felt more keenly in the rural areas where we have overcrowded classrooms, but I believe my colleague is mindful of this and is not without sympathy for this problem.

There is one thing of which we should be proud. Recently two Coloured children were deprived of education at one of our schools.

However, it was not because of the policy of our department. Our policy welcomed these children when the new term started. However, by virtue of a directive from the Department of Education in the House of Representatives these children were asked to leave school. It was very sad. I took up the matter on their behalf and thankfully, as reported in the newspapers over the weekend, the Brookes child and one other were allowed to go back to school. I wish to place on record my appreciation of the understanding shown by my department, by the Director of Education and the hon the Minister of Education, as well as the hon the Minister of Education in the House of Representatives, the Rev Allan Hendrickse.

On page 7 my hon colleague makes a statement that I should like to take issue with, but I would not want him to see it in that light. In the last paragraph of page 7 he states:

It is the policy of this Ministers’ Council, and mine as Minister of the Budget, to contain spending as regards 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 in this House wish to spend more on this service, then members should realise that it will have to be financed by savings elsewhere in our budget. We cannot, like Oliver Twist, ask for more.

However, I want to say to my hon colleague that if the need arises we must, in fact, ask for more. I will stand by his side when this need arises and he needs our support in approaching the hon the Minister of Finance.

We must consider history when we talk about education for our people. I have walked throughout the length and breadth of Northern Natal collecting money for State-aided schools and it is this one community, more than any other, that requires assistance by the central exchequer of this country as far as education is concerned.

I wish to say to my hon colleagues: If, for the sake of education for our children and our grandchildren, we have to ask for more, then indeed we must do so. I do not believe that we will come short if we do so.

An HON MEMBER:

There is no harm in asking.

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

In real terms I believe that we have taken a knock in terms of this Budget, although there has been an increase of some R47 000 million … [Interjections.] I beg your pardon, R47 million. Had it been R47 000 million we would have been in the pound seats! In real terms, R47 million, taking inflation into account, means that we have gone backwards. However, we are mindful of the fact …

Mr P I DEVAN:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister what the response of the Ministers’ Council as a whole has been to the Budget for the coming year.

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

The Ministers’ Council as a whole has not been happy with the Budget. They have made intense representations and it is unfortunate that we cannot divulge what has happened behind closed doors. I can assure the hon member that it is not from want of trying that we have what we have.

Everything possible has been done. For that reason I have indicated to my hon colleague that in the event of us requiring more money for educational purposes during the course of the year, we will have to make the necessary efforts to knock on doors—which we will indeed be doing—as we have done in the past.

Mr Chairman, at the bottom of page 10 of my hon colleague’s speech, there is an amount of R128 million which is the estimated balance carried over from the previous year. This does not look very well on paper and it is disquieting. However, there are valid reasons for this and my hon colleague will explain it adequately in his reply. We are subjected to municipalities who apply for funds at the beginning of the year, money. We set aside money for housing. Because of planning, and other reasons, they do not use this money. I raise this aspect for one reason, and that is that I want to make an appeal to my colleague that, because we have a sense of responsibility towards our community, we must do everything possible—not that we are not doing it—to use money allocated to us. We have concern for our community. We know they are deprived. They have been deprived over the years by not receiving a fair share of the cake. Since we are now in charge of the affairs of our community, we must ensure that balances are not shown such as the one I have referred to; even though there is a valid explanation for this. We must plan in such a way that whatever money is available must be used at the end of the financial year. After we have used the money allocated to us, we must go to the hon the Minister of Finance and ask for more money as we owe this to the people that we are serving.

The hon member for Springfield made an analysis of the pro rata amounts that are available to us. I too want to put on record my feelings in this regard. The House of Delegates are receiving an amount of R841 million; the House of Representatives R2 341 million and the House of Assembly an amount of R5 436 million. I believe that this is an imbalance which the Ministers’ Council will address. I share the concern of the hon member for Springfield.

Mr P C NADASEN:

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to the remarks made by the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, and I quote: “This Minister’s Council is no pushover.” Sir, I am particularly worried about this and I hope that the Ministers’ Council does not push over any Minister to the other side. [Interjections.]

Sir, at the outset I want to make reference to a TV debate that took place in 1984 which featured both the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council …

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member why he only makes reference from this side to the other side. What about the opposite side?

An HON MEMBER:

They do not have the quality.

Mr P C NADASEN:

I want to make reference to a TV debate which featured the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon member for Reservoir Hills. The words “I choose the company I keep” uttered on that occasion, are clearly etched in my mind. They were uttered by the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

On the Ides of March this year the same hon member lost sight of his principles, flouted conventions and sat on the other side of the House with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

I am not happy with the allocation of funds to the House of Delegates as it is evident that there are tremendous disparities, which either means that there is open discrimination by the hon the Minister of Finance or that the hon the Minister of the Budget has not motivated our case sufficiently. There is a crying need for more money for education, because an educated mass is a liberated mass and to deny teachers a salary increase is a shame. Have they not produced teachers; academics; economists; attorneys, some of whom are here; and even parliamentarians? According to surveys by the HSRC the remuneration of a teacher is slightly better than that of a policeman. I now refer to an announcement made by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare regarding pensions. I will quote one paragraph:

The Government is aware of the financial circumstances of these citizens and would have liked to have allocated more funds for social pensions. I am however convinced that the beneficiaries will understand why, as a result of the financial position of the country, no monthly increases can be awarded this year. The bonus will be paid during October 1988.

Every newspaper in this country carried headlines to the effect that Indians and Coloureds were getting pension increases. This has misled our Indian community, many of whom were overjoyed that such a thing had come about. They are now sadly disillusioned. In conjunction with this it is rather odd that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare has not addressed himself to the question of the means test. At the moment the figure for the Indian community is R28 000, and for the Whites it is R42 000. I cannot see why it is taking us so long or is the Minister procrastinating in equating our means test to R42 000? Imagine how these poor pensioners, who barely manage to exist, will now feel. Is there not a feeling of betrayal after merely being granted a bonus of R60? How many of them would have understood that this is a bonus of R60 and not a monthly increase of R60? If more money had been asked for, this situation would not have arisen. What about the poor Blacks? This Government has hoodwinked our hon Ministers. The hon the State President’s speech has offered little hope or expectation of any change of pace towards reform. The fact which stares us in the face is that the country’s money is being used for military options, displacing diplomatic and political options. Not even the most sanguine of observers would think that this Government would translate its fading reformist rhetoric into significant movement away from discrimination. This is quite evident from the allocation of money, without even consultating the Blacks.

South Africa flaunts a prodigious exception—the exclusion of a majority by a minority. The time has come for this House to make a painful reassessment and face many difficult challenges and problems because of the inequitable distribution in order to emerge from this impasse. To restore this legitimacy there should be a new way of thinking, acting and communicating. We will have to start all over again. There must be no half measures when negotiating the Budget.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH SERVICES AND WELFARE:

Mr Chairman, perhaps I should start off by replying to the hon member for Allandale. He raised a question about social pensions which appeared in the newspapers. I thought I made the position perfectly clear with regard to Press speculations. Unfortunately the hon member was not present when I did so. However, I will be releasing a statement tomorrow to give clarity on the question of pensions which many other hon members have spoken about.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Will they carry it?

The MINISTER:

The statement will be issued in this House, yes.

With regard to the question of the means test, I think the hon member for Allandale and all other colleagues who served on the study group are perfectly aware of the positive steps that have been taken to try and eliminate this. I think all of us are very concerned about this.

Mr J V IYMAN:

[Inaudible.]

An HON MEMBER:

When will it come?

The MINISTER:

I wish I had the answer, but I think the hon member for Allandale is aware of the difficulties. He serves on the study group where I had, in fact, played open cards with the members who served on that committee. I told them exactly in percentage terms about the problems and differences between pensions and the mean tests. I think they are also aware that as far as that is concerned, this cannot be changed by an own affairs Minister. Unfortunately this is the task of the Health Ministers’ Council and more specifically, the new Minister which will be the present hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. That meeting will only come about some time during the next month.

The hon member for Lenasia Central also raised a point regarding the Lenasia South Hospital. As far as the hospital is concerned, it is completely out of our hands. It is for the provincial administration to decide on this issue. The Administration cannot budget for something which is not under their control. The hon member is aware of this, because we have had several meetings until very recently.

The same point was also raised by the hon member Mr Razak. The various other issues that were raised will be discussed at a later stage during our own Budget. Allow me to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister of the Budget for the Budget that was prepared.

It is not all that easy for us to just ask for figures when we already know it is impossible to get. The hon the Minister had served on this committee and he did everything in his power to get as much as he could. One should not think that this was not asked for. Unfortunately, however, there are certain restrictions.

During the ensuing debate of my particular Budget, I will highlight some of the achievements of my department over the years. Despite some difficult times, these were attained through the total dedication on the part of the personnel of my department. However, I would like to touch on factors which are still preventing my department from reaching its goal of delivering an optimum service to the community in respect of health and welfare. I do this not to criticise or complain, but to inform all hon members of the constraints under which we have to operate. I think I should as far as possible try and clear up a number of points that were raised by hon members. I would then like them to appreciate the problems that we are confronted with.

Health and welfare services are of such importance that in general they are regarded as an own affair in most parts of the world. The World Health Organisation lays great stress on the need to promote community development in the management of health and welfare matters and population development. The Administration: House of Delegates, as is the case with other administrations, must be seen to be meeting the expectations of the community. This, of course, has been achieved to some extent. However, the restrictions on funding during the period of development of the administration’s functions is proving to be extremely detrimental to the evolutionary concept of the Government. The lack of sufficient personnel within the infrastructure of the department to cope with the challenges of the community, is proving to be an increasing embarrassment to the Administration: House of Delegates and my department in particular.

The new Constitution has made it possible for my department to identify the backlog in health and welfare services to the community, some of which I shall spell out shortly. In order to rectify these shortcomings it is essential that funds be provided for the necessary manpower requirements in order that the problems may be addressed. Representations by my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, to the hon the Minister of Finance during 1987 to obtain an allocation spread over two years to allow for a proper infrastructure to provide the essential services to the community did not meet with any success. It would appear that it is not generally appreciated that a backlog exists in this regard. To curtail the development of a service before it has been established is to cater for disaster, as without funds the Administration: House of Delegates cannot provide its community with services in accordance with its needs. The concept and credibility of the Administration: House of Delegates depends unequivocally upon the achievements of this administration.

I should also like to point out that amongst the recommendations of the Cabinet Finance Priority Committee it is stated, inter alia, that primary health care funding should be given priority and that the population development programme is of vital importance. It is ironic that funds cannot be allocated to this administration to execute these important programmes. Notwithstanding the lack of funds and essential infrastructures my department has, as previously stated, developed a ten-year plan geared to eradicate the existing backlog and to ensure that the community receives the benefit of a proper health and welfare service in those areas which are the responsibility of our administration.

Health education is vital to the needs of any community but especially to a community that is in need of upliftment. Many members of the Indian community, especially in Natal, are underprivileged and need these services.

Primary health care is the most important service-rendering level as it is at this stage that 70% of all health problems can be addressed. Community nursing services include school nursing services, geriatric clinics, immunisation services, genetic services, nutritional services and environmental services. In all these spheres my department has commenced the appointment of suitably qualified personnel, that is to say school nurses, genetic nurses, nutritionists etc. However, these need to be extended in order for a satisfactory service to be provided.

Fixed and mobile peripheral clinics need to be established with their base being a community health centre. It is considered that the community health centre is of vital importance in the delivery of primary health care as such centres will cater for family planning; the combating of tuberculosis, venereal disease etc; care of the aged; child care; and health guidance, together with a full range of curative services.

To meet the optimum needs of the Indian community it has been established that there is a need in the Republic for 37 peripheral clinics—30 in Natal, four in the Transvaal and three in the Cape. Fifteen small community health centres of the local authority type are required—13 in Natal, and one each in the Cape and the Transvaal. Five large community health centres of the provincial type are required, such as those in Phoenix and Laudium in the Transvaal.

Together with community nursing services the abovementioned clinics and centres will ensure that a continuity of cost-effective care will prevail in that a patient will be referred from community nursing services to peripheral clinics, to community centres, and lastly to hospitals.

According to a Cabinet decision taken on 24 June 1986 the Administration: House of Delegates was to have taken over the following institutions, namely the R K Khan Hospital, the Northdale Hospital and the Phoenix clinic in Natal, as well as the Laudium Hospital, the Lenasia clinic and the Lenasia South Hospital in the Transvaal. At present, however, only the takeover of the Phoenix clinic has been finalised. The takeover of the Lenasia clinic is in the process of being arranged with the Transvaal Provincial Administration. Regarding the takeover of hospitals, I can report that the Administration: House of Delegates have taken over none.

The hospitals just mentioned should not be seen in isolation. They will always be regarded, with primary health care services, as part of a comprehensive health care system which also includes general practitioners, district surgeon services, local authorities and other health care organizations. It must be clearly understood that when all the mentioned institutions fall under the control of this administration, it will liable to public criticism should adequate financial provision not be made for them to function as a unit. To this end the viewpoint of the administration is that unless finances can be guaranteed, it will not be party to such a takeover. I emphatically stress that it is unacceptable that this administration, and consequently my department, should be responsible for previous State departments and Provincial Administrations, which were not only insensitive to the needs of the community, but also failed in providing a fair distribution of resources. I would like to add that it is not the intention of my department to develop a highly technological and professional health service for First World disease.

Mr P I DEVAN:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister why hon members in this House could not confine themselves to the remarks, allegations and criticisms made in a particular debate and instead presenting addresses such as the one we are hearing now?

The MINISTER:

Sir, perhaps the hon member for Cavendish will be interested to know that this is not my budget speech. I think after I have completed my speech the hon member will appreciate most of the answers given to points raised here because I am giving hon members a very practical and positive approach to the various problems confronting us. Large sections of our community are still susceptible to the morbidity and mortality conditions prevailing in the Third World, namely measles, tuberculosis, gastro-enteritis and ante-natal problems. It is considered therefore, that emphasis must be on primary health care and in particular, promotive, preventative and curative services, which will be in accordance with the national plan and norms for health services facilities.

As far as the Directorate of Welfare is concerned, the situation is equally critical. The backlog which exists in social work services has built up over the years, in fact, since the takeover of this field of service by the previous Department of Indian Affairs on 1 April 1967. It was argued at that time that the Indian community was generally very stable, owing largely to the extended family systems in consequence of which alcoholism, drug dependancy, marital problems, juvenile delinquency, the plight of the aged person etc did not constitute a problem. However, already in 1964 research indicated that the traditional extended family system was in the process of breaking down. In spite of this the professional welfare section was restricted considerably in providing the necessary services.

Existing data shows that an alarming number of youths of all population groups appear in courts on charges of being in possession of dependence producing substances and/or abuse of such substances. For the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985, 2 586 children between the ages of 7 to 17 years old of all population groups were prosecuted, while 2 329 were found guilty. In respect of the age group 18 to 20 years, 6 791 were prosecuted during the same year and 6 176 were found guilty. With regard to persons over 21 years of age, 30 158 were charged and 27 245 were found guilty.

The previous relatively low divorce rate among Indians is now on the increase. In 1980 the divorce rate was 3,4 per 1 000 married couples, while in 1984 the figure had risen to 4,8 per 1 000 married couples. Applications for divorce through legal aid in respect of Indians in the Durban area during 1981-82 was 193. This has increased in the year 1984-85 to 311. Hundreds of children suffer the consequences. The above-mentioned incidence of divorce is a rather conservative rate. One should take into account that because of the high cost of obtaining a divorce, it is common practice for married couples with children to merely live apart and aggravate their social circumstances even further.

Poverty, which inevitably results in personality, family and community disorganisation, has increased considerably in the last two years as a result of increased unemployment and other factors. The necessity for mothers to accept gainful employment has resulted in large numbers of children being left without adequate care and control. Stemming from this situation more and more children in their formative years are falling prey to various social vices. This is one of the factors which accounts for the large number of cases of incontrollability reported for social intervention.

For the past number of years there has been an increasing demand by the community for social work services with regard to complex problems that exist at the different levels of intensity. The Administration has lagged in such professional service delivery and hence there is urgent need for the situation to be remedied in the interests and welfare of the community. The fact is stressed that this Administration is publicly heavily criticised for its almost total lack of professional services despite the dedication of existing staff. This is solely attributed to the fact that the allocation of posts is totally inadequate when viewed against the demand.

It is a poor reflection that the community at large is not receiving the benefits of a comprehensive and wholesome social work service from this Administration. This is not the case in other own affairs departments of welfare to the same degree.

Nothing has been achieved at this stage in the field of prevention and development. This requires tackling the situation at grass-roots level. In order to accomplish this objective, Community Development (Population Development Programme) and the introduction of social work in schools urgently need to be implemented. Presently the House of Representatives has 30 school social workers serving 58 schools. This department has none. Adequate professional manpower is therefore imperative. The other own affairs administrations have already embarked on population development programmes and this Administration is therefore lagging. This is an embarrassment.

In recent years the welfare division has created a limited number of posts for social workers at psychiatric hospitals and clinics. With the division of health services planning for the creation of a large number of psychiatric clinics on a basis of decentralisation, the welfare division will likewise have to create additional social work posts in order to ensure that the patients receive the benefits of a service based on a multi-disciplinary approach.

In order to ensure effective social work service delivery countrywide, it is imperative to decentralise social work services to the different regional and sub-regional offices that exist and to those that are being planned. Due to inadequate numbers of staff this is however not possible. The existing backlog is therefore multiplied at different points. Consequently a serious reflection is cast on this Administration.

Furthermore, when the new subsidy scheme takes effect on 1 April 1989 departmental staff will be expected to conduct inspections of all welfare organisations on an annual basis with the view to evaluating their projects. The purpose of this exercise will be to establish that the subsidies are utilised for the intended welfare objectives.

In order to overcome the increased backlog and to ensure effective rendering of statutory, therapeutic, preventive and developmental services, additional posts are urgently required. The current restriction on funding and the subsequent instructions of the Commission for Administration regarding the creation of posts are having a detrimental effect on the services my department considers so necessary in the field of welfare.

These are the facts, Mr Chairman. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world. We can only strive to improve the situation when more favourable circumstances prevail in our economy.

Mr A E LAMBAT:

Mr Chairman, the success or failure of the tricameral system of Parliament in the Indian community will depend entirely on what tangible results the House of Delegates can show and what goods it can deliver. [Interjections.] I know that the people of Natal believe that there are no Indians in the Transvaal but in the Transvaal, apart from small items here and there such as 50 homes in Nigel or 100 homes in Witbank, no substantial or positive schemes for the Indians have emerged since the inception of the tricameral parliamentary system. The completed schemes are the results of the initiative and planning of the then Department of Community Development and were executed by the House of Delegates.

I understand that a massive piece of land is available in Phoenix. Approximately 8 500 houses can be erected here. I feel that there should be no further procrastination and that the House of Delegates must get on with the job to build up some credibility.

I have a great deal of communication with the Coloured community and I hear many things from the ordinary people.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member if he is aware of the fact that we are planning 12 000 housing units next to Phoenix and that we are really moving ahead in that regard?

Mr A E LAMBAT:

No, I was not aware of that. As I said, I have a great measure of communication with the Coloured community. Since the inception of the tricameral parliamentary system the House of Representatives has tackled and brought to fruition several major projects. I may mention Rabie Ridge as an example. It was formerly known as Allanridge and subsequently renamed as a result of the transformation of the area owing to the efforts of Mr Jac Rabie, the MP for Reigerpark. This was an unattractive piece of land, overgrown with unsightly grass and weeds, and filled with stones. Within ten months 700 homes plus a completed school and other facilities sprung up as if a magic wand had been waved. Where nothing existed before, 700 families could now take occupation of completed houses within ten months. The issue of proclamation was also rapidly overcome in an easy way. The hon the Minister of Housing, Mr David Curry, wasted no time in assisting Mr Jac Rabie to bring about the transformation in a jiffy. The land adjoining Rabie Ridge was purchased by the House of Representatives from the same person who also owned the Villa Lisa land. That also happened very quickly.

I may also mention Ennerdale in the Transvaal which also saw rapid progress and speedy transformation. Then there is also Blue Downs in the Cape which is a real eye opener. My hon colleagues in this House who spend weekends in the Cape should take a drive there. It is only about 20 minutes’ drive from here and I can tell hon members that they will have difficulty in believing their eyes. These are some excellent examples and the community is talking about them. Schemes such as these give credibility to hon members and the House of Representatives as such.

After two and a half years of identification of land in my constituency no progress has yet been made with regard to the acquisition or the development of land. I understand that some finality appears to be in sight but the community will have to wait patiently until the end of the tunnel is reached.

Although feelings of frustration are mounting in Actonville, its community of more than 30 000 people has no community halls. Even our schools lack multi-purpose halls, which are essential and which could be used by the schools concerned and also by the community at large.

I must thank the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare who came out last year and had a look at our requirements for community health services. He started the ball rolling. However, once again procrastination is taking its course. The hon the Minister makes an allowance of R1 million but his department, run by a White medical doctor, draws up plans for R150 000. Now he has to replan. This is what happens when a White man has to do the planning for the Indian community. It wastes time and in the meantime the community suffers because they have nothing. However, I think this is in the good hands of the hon the Minister and I think he will attend to it. I ask that it be speeded up.

A technical college presently used by the Whites in Benoni is about to be vacated by the Whites who are moving to new premises. This is a ready-made school which can be taken over by the Indian community. This matter has been discussed and investigated for a long time but no finality has been reached. Why must we lose such opportunities which are most advantageous to the community?

The closing of the teachers’ training college in the Transvaal is something that has caused resentment amongst the Transvaal Indian community and I think it is unfair that this college has been closed.

An HON MEMBER:

It has not been closed.

An HON MEMBER:

Now he is closing his speech! [Interjections.]

Mr A E LAMBAT:

No, I shall carry on.

For the last three years I have been making efforts for the mineral baths spa at Warmbaths to be returned to us. They were wrongfully taken away from the Indian community and this still hangs in limbo.

When the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare was in charge of the health services in the SAIC he took up this matter on my behalf at that stage. We are still negotiating. I have now received the latest letter informing me that they have identified land in Warmbaths that they are going to develop, but last year the then Deputy Chairman of Environment Affairs, Mr Naicker, wrote me a letter in which he stated that an amount had already been allocated. Now I understand that land has just been identified and that they will now proceed. I do not know whether it will be available for the use of the Indian community within the next 10 years.

This is a right that has been taken away from us. It was something that we had been using all along and I do not know why it should not be returned to us. This is not something new we are asking for. It is something that was taken away from us unlawfully; it was snatched away from us.

Mr J V IYMAN:

Take them to court!

Mr A E LAMBAT:

Unfortunately the courts are in the hands of the White people.

The Department of Health Services and Welfare rightfully wants to establish a regional board in the Transvaal but this is being hampered by the Department of Education and Culture because the department is hesitant to allow teachers to serve on the board.

Mr Chairman, I ask you, who can be better welfare people than the teachers? Why should they be struggling? There are some teachers who have asked for this who have not been given permission. The Health Department is not getting clarification.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH SERVICES AND WELFARE:

Mr Chairman, may I state, just for the benefit of the hon member for Actonville, that approval has been obtained through my hon colleague’s office and that appointments have already been announced.

Mr A E LAMBAT:

I am very pleased to hear that. Once one leaves things in the good hands of the hon the Minister, matters are finalised.

I must also join my other colleagues in dealing with the particular issue of the closing of schools at 12h15 in the Transvaal. I have heard that Natal wants to do the same thing but I must point out that in the Transvaal we had the right to do so, and the schools were closing at 12h15. This was done away with as soon as education was taken over by Indian Affairs in the South African Indian Council. Before that, under the Transvaal Education Department the schools closed at 12h15. Now, every weekend that I go home I receive telephone calls from principals, and I have religious teachers coming to me, and they ask me what is happening. I tell them that the hon the Minister has already made an announcement in the House of Delegates and I show them the letter that I have, but the principals do not want to close their schools at 12h15. They say they do not have a directive.

An HON MEMBER:

We do not blame them.

Mr A E LAMBAT:

We do not blame the principals but the point is, what should we do here? I am told that if the principals do not want to do so, they should be reported to the department. That is not our job. Why does the department not issue a positive directive and let the principals take their instructions from them?

After more than three years of residential occupation by the Indian community in the Godforsaken area in which I reside, Palmridge, no provision has been made for any facilities or amenities.

Mr H RAMPERSADH:

Not even shops.

Mr A E LAMBAT:

Nothing! These things were promised faithfully all along by the authorities concerned, that a shopping area would be developed simultaneously with the residential removal. However, today the situation is that the residents of Palmridge have to travel at least eight to ten kilometres to do their daily shopping and acquire their daily necessities.

The transport system in Palmridge is bad. My colleague the hon member for Central Rand will bear me out in this regard. The transport system is so bad that those who do not have vehicles sometimes have to go hungry because there is no way for them to get to a shop to do their shopping.

After a number of years a simple cemetery issue has not been resolved and the people of Palmridge cannot even die in peace.

With regard to Actonville and natural extensions I would like to set the record straight. I agree with the hon member Mr Seedat that we should try to obtain as much land as possible for our people. At the same time, however, I want to say that we should not get scraps or rejected land. We should not get the land the Whites do not want and which they want to foist on us. We should not get that land. Why do we not go for the good land? We should obtain land that is good for our people and not accept the rejected land of the Whites.

The Apex area that has been advertised is not a natural extension to Actonville. The natural extension to the Actonville area is the Leachville and Larrendale area, which the Whites do not want to give up. The hon the Deputy Minister has stated this to me in no uncertain terms in a letter. He said: “This area is now closed. Please do not negotiate any longer about it.” That is the Apex land we want for the Indian community but they will not give it to us. The Apex land they want to give us is the land that is surrounded by slimes dumps and there are mining title impediments there. That is the land they want to give us. Where do we stand in a situation such as this?

Just as a matter of clarity, it is true that certain land was sold to Dr Carim. It was sold with the approval of the Administrator. However, it is recorded, and it is common knowledge—everybody knows this—that that land was sold to Dr Carim at a much smaller price than the upset price. What is more, Dr Carim had an undue advantage as regards that land. We all know this; there is no secret about it.

I want to say that although Dr Carim may take offense at this, he is a person who opposes the tricameral system; he is never in the forefront. However, when someone comes up with a suggestion, he is always there to see to it that things break up. That is his idea. At the time of UDF he will become a member of the UDF; at election time, he will be there; when the NPP comes, he will join them; if Solidarity comes he will join them instead. There are members who are like that, too. [Interjections.]

Unless this House directs its attention fully to the needs of the people, and alleviates the undue sufferings and hardship of the community, and unless this is attended to immediately, urgently and forcefully, I am afraid communication with the community will break down to such an extent that this House will have no credibility. Let this be avoided.

Mr A G HURBANS:

Mr Chairman, when one rises to speak at this time of the afternoon in a debate that has been carrying on for over four hours, much of the ground has been covered, and my time is limited.

However, I should like to state at the outset that we condemn own affairs, and we look forward to the day when no own affairs or general affairs, but only South African affairs, come up for discussion.

We cannot deny the fact that own affairs exist today. Those that participate, did tell our people that we would upgrade their lifestyle politically, economically and socially. Therefore we have to face the reality of own affairs, irrespective of our political aims and objectives, as well as our ideals. As members of the ruling party we are responsible people. Unlike the hon members of the Opposition, who in the course of the day stand up and vehemently criticise own affairs, because they know that at the end of the day they are not accountable to anybody, we are accountable to the people that have elected us. Our people depend largely on us to make representations on their behalf in regard to housing, welfare and educational matters. It is a function of every MP to bring matters up in Parliament for their benefit. If we do not do it, who is there to do it for them?

Mr J V IYMAN:

[Inaudible.]

Mr A G HURBANS:

If the hon members of the Opposition are really honest about their view of own affairs, which is that they believe they have nothing to do with own affairs, then they must abstain totally from negotiating with our Ministers. The constituencies that they represent must not receive anything from the own affairs departments.

Mr K MOODLEY:

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

Mr A G HURBANS:

No, Mr Chairman, I do not have the time. [Interjections.]

The fact is that the hon members of the Opposition can ill afford to do this. All the wild statements that they make in this House are merely for the sake of publicity, political propaganda and the media. [Interjections.] After all, if the vote is approved, all the hon members of the Opposition will approach the hon the Ministers—and they have the right to do so. If they do not, and they want their constituencies to suffer, then they have no right to be here.

Mr A K PILLAY:

You do not know your Minister very well.

Mr A G HURBANS:

It is not I who does not know the hon the Minister. In this House there is an hon member—unfortunately he is not present—who shocked me because although he had been in this House for many years, he did not even realise which portfolio the hon Minister Mr Naicker held. [Interjections.] I would make the plea that members of the Opposition get to know the Ministers, because we have good Ministers; they are good and friendly people.

I am sure with their co-operation they will be able to deliver the goods that they have promised their constituencies. [Interjections.] My colleague the hon member Mr Seedat mentioned in his speech that a lot of time has been wasted on in-fighting. I have also noticed this.

Mr P I DEVAN:

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

Mr A G HURBANS:

Mr Chairman, my time is limited. I will talk about my constituency’s requirements when the different Votes are put. At this stage I would like to plead with the hon members to stop their in-fighting at the expense of the community as a whole. Let us get together and make representations for our people, so that their standard of life may be improved tomorrow.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Mr Chairman, I think we have had a healthy debate. We will cover the various departments and ministries again in a committee stage when there will be in-depth discussions. At that stage the various hon Ministers will present what has been programmed in their departments and they will project the development that is to take place in the next financial year.

Mr J V IYMAN:

There will be pie in the sky!

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Nobody can deny the improved development in our areas since 20 August 1984.

Mr J V IYMAN:

I deny it! I openly deny it.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

If there is not much development in the constituency of the hon member for Camperdown, then I think he should learn the Latin term rerum cognoscere—let us learn the cause of all problems. The cause of the hon member’s problems does not lie with our administration nor with our ministries. [Interjections.] In a previous debate I indicated that if the municipalities do not take the initiatives and if the local government bodies do not take the initiative, the central Government department cannot instruct local authorities what to do. [Interjections.] Of course there have been occasions where the hon member for Camperdown showered praise upon ministries. He did this in public. I do not want to take issue with him today. During a particular debate the hon member for Camperdown reserves the right to highlight the problems of his constituency and he will be given an excellent hearing. However, I can assure the hon members of this House that irrespective of whatever political party they belong to, nobody can accuse any colleague of mine in the Ministers’ Council of having neglected areas. Nobody can do that.

Mr P I DEVAN:

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council indicate to this House whether issues such as the non-co-operation of local authorities and other such impediments to progress are actually taken up vigorously enough by the Ministers’ Council? We have our hon own affairs Ministers here and yet Cabinet Ministers have to come here and make these kind of reports. It really saddens us.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

Mr Chairman, what saddens us is the inability of the hon member for Cavendish to comprehend that I, in my capacity as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, am highlighting the problems with which we are confronted as a result of hon members highlighting these problems in the debate this afternoon. One classic example of this is the issue of Palmridge.

Mr P I DEVAN:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think my question has been misunderstood.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE:

Order! The hon member must please resume his seat. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may continue.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

The hon member for Camperdown asked whether we were not taking this matter up in the Ministers’ Council. We reserve the right to explain to an hon member who raises this in public. If the Housing Development Board accepts a decision in principle and the Administration: House of Delegates agrees to allocate certain funds but the municipality does not submit plans, can the Administration: House of Delegates be blamed for that? [Interjections.]

I received a deputation from the Germiston Municipality and we reiterated our decision that they had the money for the cemetery.

Mr P I DEVAN:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he would indicate which local authority has defaulted?

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

That hon member has asked me to explain which municipality has defaulted. Did the hon member not hear me mention Germiston but two minutes ago? Two minutes ago I mentioned Germiston and Palmridge. [Interjections.] If the hon member is engaging in deep somnolence, it is not my fault. Every hon member of this House will confirm that I mentioned Germiston.

We have gone out of our way to make funds available.

Mr P I DEVAN:

You have been unsuccessful.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

But the blame is not ours. The blame lies squarely at the door of other structures. I want to place on record that one cannot instruct municipalities as to what they must do insofar as local authority functions are concerned. [Interjections.] One has no authority to instruct them. In certain fields they are autonomous. However, I want to assure the hon member for Actonville that as far as Palmridge is concerned we held a meeting. I received representations from two MPs. The problem, however, lies at the door of the municipality.

Even in respect of the provision of shopping facilities we cleared everything with the municipality and it is now up to the municipality to ensure that those sites are developed. However, I can give hon members the assurance that further to the existing arrangements, I have also held discussions with the chairman of the Housing Development Board in an effort to assist, wherever possible, in the resettlement of displaced traders. We have them in Germiston and we have them in Boksburg, Witbank and Durban.

I want to take this opportunity to compliment my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget on an excellent report. I also want to appeal to hon members to read his Budget Speech very carefully. Our total allocation in respect of what we have available to spend is not R841 509 000. My hon colleague indicated in his Budget Speech that the amount available for us to utilise in the next financial year is approximately R1,1 billion.

Let us look at the situation with regard to our housing. We approach the Treasury for a small amount but what we have in our reserves at the present time as a result of returns from local authorities and other institutions is sufficient to cater for our housing needs.

We need more. We will need more when we have the ability, the infrastructure and the necessary clearances from the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, by way of the identification and acquisition of land. Then we will be able to spend more. If all our allocations are not used—and every financial year all the money allocated for housing is not used—one cannot blame the Minister or the department. Look at the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly. Look at housing over the past 20 years. At the end of every financial year all the money allocated for housing is not spent. I want to give the people of Actonville an undertaking that the problems, as promised, are being sorted out. On a confidential basis, hon members of this House who have the right to know, know the details and will not disagree with the statement I have made in the House this afternoon. I can assure hon members that our planners are already planning the housing scheme and this will be started as soon as the group areas proclamation is published. We are looking, in all areas, at the benefit to the end-user. That is of paramount importance to us.

Mr J V IYMAN:

I do not believe that.

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

The people who will purchase the land and occupy the homes are of paramount importance to us. We are aware of the problems. We share the expressions of grief of hon members in this House over the past two and a half years. We share the despair of the people of Actonville. It was because of avarice, political attitudes and the ideological attitude on the part of a neighbouring municipality that the people of Actonville who are living in terrible overcrowded conditions were denied the right to have shelter. I want to say that I found the attitude of the Benoni municipality very positive. They were even prepared, right up till now, to incorporate the area which is available, but which is under the jurisdiction of a neighbouring municipality.

Our Administration and our Ministry have been accused of spending too much time in the Transvaal. I do not think our land identification problem in Natal is so problematic as that in the Transvaal. We are looking at the major regions in the Transvaal. We are looking at Pretoria. I must thank my colleague, the hon member for Laudium, for the fact that we rearranged our thinking there. We are going to develop land which belongs to the Housing Development Board and we are making progress in Pretoria. We are making progress in the major centres in the Transvaal. Our problem is a result of our visits to the North Western and the Eastern Transvaal towns.

Mr J V IYMAN:

[Inaudible.]

The CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS’ COUNCIL:

We saw the real problems of our people in the platteland areas. I want to give hon members of all the provinces the assurance that we are attending to the housing problems of our people in whichever areas of South Africa they reside. In fact, early this morning I was talking to certain important officials about injecting life into a certain area. If I name the area, my colleague, the hon member for Camperdown will be very pleased. It is Cato Ridge. I agree with the hon member for Camperdown that something must be done in Cato Ridge. The hon member for Camperdown is aware that our planners and consultants are working on projects, but he is unlike other hon members of this House, who keep a regular line of communication with our department. They are persistent, and as a result of that, they can see that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

In accordance with the Resolution adopted by the House on 22 March, the House adjourned at 18h45.