Mr Chairman, we have practically come to the end of this own affairs appropriation debate, and I think we owe two Government spokesmen in particular a reaction to their speeches. The first of these is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I understand that he cannot be present here this afternoon. I can well understand that he has to be in Randfontein. Nevertheless, it is a pity that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is also the Leader of this House, cannot be present here when appropriations of this House are discussed. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I have just said that I can well understand his dilemma in Randfontein. [Interjections.]

It is not going to help him or the NP very much anyway! [Interjections.]

Be that as it may, Sir, I believe that we should still make a few remarks about what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said in his speech here yesterday. Ever since the disappointments—he chooses not to call them defeats—of the polemic in Rapport, the television debate, and the by-elections in Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has projected an image of disaffection and pettiness here in this House which, in terms of stature, has made him look the least likely to be the next chief leader of the NP. [Interjections.] It has made him look even less like a leader of this nation, Sir. [Interjections.] In his speech he asked us how low we had sunk in the process of dividing the Afrikaner people. I ask who the real dividers of the Afrikaner people are. [Interjections.] When a party which once called itself the popular front of the Afrikaner abandons the ideals and the highest aspirations of that people and another party is supported by the majority of that people, who is responsible for the disunity? [Interjections.] Surely it is they who have become disloyal to the highest aspirations of the people to which they belong. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council accused us of intimidation and boycotts. Look who is talking. In which Cabinet was there a Minister who openly intimidated young farmers with State aid? That did not happen on this side of the House, but on that side. The then Minister served in the Cabinet of the party on that side of the House. [Interjections.]

Who attempted to intimidate the management board of a school in Pretoria on the question of mixed sport? The people who did so are sitting on the opposite side of the House. [Interjections.] Who intimidates teachers and denounces them on account of their standpoints and their actions outside the school context and away from the school premises? Those hon members who are doing this are sitting on the opposite side of the House. This methodology is more in line with that of the UDF, Cosatu and the ANC. When the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council points a finger at us he should remember that three are pointing back at himself. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council says the policy of the CP is a recipe for revolution, that it is a dagger in the heart of the White man. I want to know under which Government a revolution is, in fact, taking place at present. There is also the revolutionary behaviour which is taking place in our country at the moment precisely as a result of the climate and the circumstances which the present Government has helped to create. [Interjections.]

After all, when one creates a unitary state with various peoples and cultures as components of that state, one creates a climate, a milieu of a political power struggle with a view to seizing political power. That is, in fact, precisely what is happening now. When a policy of separate development was maintained by a Government in this country there was, by and large, peace and quiet in South Africa.

The party on this side of the House stands for the freedom and the rights of a particular people, and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his party will not stop us. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture stood up in the House of Assembly yesterday afternoon and made this statement:

Which society? It is an integrated society, the unitary state society.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether yesterday was not the occasion on which to announce it. Why only a week later? Is he waiting until after the Randfontein by-election, because he is only prepared to announce a new integrationist policy in regard to culture and sport in just over a week’s time?

Are you afraid of the result in Randfontein? [Interjections.]

The new constitutional dispensation is only in its third year of existence, and it is very clear that very little has come of the great expectations and of the great emphasis that has been placed on the so-called own affairs concept.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the White own affairs component does not even deem it important to be here this afternoon. That own affairs component which was to have created the illusion among White voters of full self determination in regard to local government, education and agriculture—those are the aspects which affect them most closely in their everyday lives—is in the process of crumbling and fading away. The extent of this disenchantment may be measured against the results of the by-elections in Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke, where the majorities obtained by this side of the House trebled and quadrupled. Next week there is the by-election in Randfontein—it is just around the corner. The NP would do well to consult the score board on the following day; they will see that the writing is on the wall for them.

It is interesting to look at the results of the so-called brainstorming sessions that were held from Cabinet level down to that of the ordinary letter writer in the newspapers of the NP. Consider, for example, one of last week’s editions of Beeld-, I think it was 18 March. There were nine letters of a political nature in the letters column, six of which were very severely critical of Government policy, and some of them were, in fact, even openly anti-Government. We have never seen this in Beeld before. A columnist wrote the following in that issue with reference to the Government:

That is precisely the dilemma of the Government. Some say: “Reform more quickly!”; others say: “Reform more slowly!” The Government is between the devil and the deep blue sea. [Interjections.]

What do you people say?

As it happens, I should like to illustrate my point by way of something which the hon member for Innesdal said in relation to a debate which took place this week. He said the following with regard to citizenship of the TBVC countries:

When the hon member for Bethal said by way of interjection: “Such as the franchise!” the hon member for Innesdal answered as follows:

Then I asked him across the floor of the House to admit to me, if that was a consequence of the standpoint he supported, that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had been correct when he had said two years ago that one day there would be a Black State President here. [Interjections.]

When the hon member looked up he looked straight into the eyes of hon the State President, whereupon he merely shrugged and remained silent. [Interjections.] He went on to say that he wished he could reply to the hon member’s question during that discussion. However, he could reply to it now; the hon the State President is not here today. [Interjections.] After all, we know what his standpoint is. He is also a member of the Club 22, which agrees with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Interjections.]

No, he is far to the left of them.

He is indeed even further to the left.

Just look at what happened on the following day, 22 March. Another debate was in progress when an hon member on the right-wing of that side of the House, namely the hon member for Sasolburg, made the following statement. This is an hon member on the radical right-wing side of the NP:

He even threatened Anglo American and their subsidiaries and said they would come off second best if they were to try anything in this regard. That illustrates the dilemma that is taking place in the governing party.

Let us take a look for a moment at the latest reform strategy of the Government, namely its economic reform. This was heralded by a great fanfare and by a discussion at which businessmen simply had to ascertain what was going to happen by way of a briefing. The man in the street hears about privatisation, rationalisation and the curtailment of State expenditure by means of a freeze in the salaries of public servants, and as far as this appropriation is concerned, teachers. He also hears about pensions, which are to remain constant. Now John Citizen is being asked to tighten his belt whilst the inflation rate is running at 14,2%—and this is now inclining towards 15%—and whilst there is no relief in terms of individual taxation and the financial benefits to the man in the street.

Let us look at social pensions. I want to give a review of a three year period. Two years ago pensions were increased by 8,6% at a time when the inflation rate was 20,8%. Last year there was a 10% increase when the inflation rate was just under 20%, whilst pensions paid to the other population groups were increased by 15% and 21%. This year the pensioner is effectively receiving R5 per month, and then only in October.

This represents an increase of 2,3%, and we have an inflation rate of 14%. On Tuesday morning we heard the hon the Minister of Welfare of another House announce monthly pension increases over the radio for pensioners falling under the administration of that House. Then there was a great scurry; this was apparently an incorrect statement and it was withdrawn. As matters stand at the moment, however, it has been bruited abroad that Coloured pensioners’ monthly pensions are to be increased and that it is envisaged that parity should be attained in the course of the coming year. Would the hon the Minister tell us what has happened about that?

When one looks at the extent of Government spending, one sees that there is an increase of 37,1% over the previous financial year in respect of assistance to self-governing states. Bus subsidies for commuters have been increased by 46,9%. Then there are the full page advertisements in both weekend and daily newspapers which serve to advertise this economic reform and which cost thousands of rands.

The man in the street still sees the most luxurious and most expensive German motor cars driving into the parking area here every day. Notwithstanding this, the Government is telling the taxpayer to tighten his belt. [Interjections.] No, the voters of South Africa are fed up with a Government that cares so little, particularly about its aged. [Interjections.]

I quote what the Press reported the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare to have said on 15 October at the congress in Durban:

Consequently there is to be no increase.

So what!

“So what!” says that hon member ….

That is callous.

Do hon members know that the pensioners of South Africa receive R218 per month? I made some enquiries about what it presently costs an institution to care for such people; that is simply a roof over their heads, water, lights and food. It costs at least an amount of R638. How is the average White person to get by on R218 if that is the cost of living at present and there is no prospect of relief?

No, we on this side of the House say the Government is impoverishing and neglecting the Whites on a shocking scale and the NP will pay the price for this at the polls.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg referred to pensions, and I think my hon colleague will reply to him in that regard. I just want to tell the hon member that he is propagating the typical strategy of the CP, which is to create confusion, to arouse emotion, and to ride on the crest of that wave.

No, it is the truth.

All I can tell the Official Opposition is that this wave of political prosperity on which they are riding at present, will be short-lived. It will be short-lived. [Interjections.] The voters will see through the CP sooner or later.

The hon member spoke about disunity in the Afrikaner ranks. Every day the CP establishes a new cultural organisation. None of the cultural organisations that have developed over the years are good enough for them any longer; they are trying to take over everything.

I detect a fair amount of nervousness among the CP. They are attempting to undermine White own affairs. If they persist in undermining White own affairs, it will be the beginning of the end for CP policy. It will be a nail in the CP’s coffin if the Government continues to expand own affairs as it is doing at present.

The own affairs appropriation has the potential for growth.

[Inaudible.]

In his speech the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare made it very clear that as a result of certain steps that were being taken with regard to the formula, the own affairs appropriation would become a great deal more financially independent from next year onwards and that we would consequently witness some growth in that area. It is easy to draw a comparison now between the growth of 9% in the own affairs budget and the growth of 12% in the Main Budget. There are specific reasons for this. I should like to explain one of those reasons to hon members.

Agriculture is the second largest Vote that has to be catered for by the own affairs appropriation. Due to the fact that agriculture has a character of its own, one has to do with ad hoc financing. There are certain non-recurrent allocations such as, inter alia, the R400 million. That is a nonrecurrent allocation that does not have a carry over effect. When the programme has run its course there will be a decrease in the appropriation. There are various programmes like this. There is the land conversion scheme which will extend for a period of eight years. This will cost R280 million. It will increase progressively, but later on it will progressively decrease. Ultimately, therefore, agriculture is going to have quite a considerable effect on the fluctuation experienced in the own affairs appropriation.

I say the CP is attempting to create confusion, and that applies to this appropriation as well. When one looks at the appropriation for agriculture and one looks only at the operational programmes—that is to say, those programmes which must be constantly active in the development of agriculture—such as research, information and training, for example, one sees that there is an increase. It is not a dramatic increase, but there is an increase of 7,2%. It may not be a real increase, but one cannot always evaluate an appropriation on the basis of the amount of money that is spent. Steps are also being taken to implement rationalisation and savings, and I wish to thank my department for this. We have made great progress with this campaign during the past year. That does not mean to say that the services have deteriorated.

Let us look at the other programme, excluding the non-recurrent allocation of R400 million. Let us look, for example, at the programme pertaining to production loans. Here there is an increase of 45,2%. We have given an amount of R120 million to 2 700 farmers. That is a dramatic increase.

In mentioning these programmes, I am speaking about the programmes serving 40% of the 59 000 farmers in South Africa. Those are the continuous aid programmes. There is an increase of 184% under the programme pertaining to the consolidation of debt. Therefore one cannot simply evaluate an appropriation at face value. I think the hon member for Lichtenburg knows that. I do not know why he is acting in this fashion. He apparently has other motives for his actions.

I say the CP is attempting to create suspicion. I am going to read to hon members what the hon member for Lichtenburg said yesterday:

He is referring to the R400 million system.

He then went on to say:

I want to tell hon members that that is an untruth. First of all let us just take a look at how the R400 million scheme originated. [Interjections.] The hon member will recall that since last year we held one discussion after another with his cooperative, as well as with other co-operatives in the grain areas, in order to ascertain how many farmers in the summer grain regions were experiencing financial problems. That survey was made and the figure that was given to us was that of 3 500 farmers.

Was it correct?

The hon member must not ask me whether that figure is correct. That figure was determined, inter alia, by organised agriculture and the co-operatives.

Therefore it was correct.

We shall see whether it was correct.

What were the results of this survey? According to the survey 1 500 of these 3 500 farmers will be sequestrated. We shall not be able to save them. However, there are a further 2 000 fanners who are indeed in a precarious position but who can be saved by way of a specific scheme. Investigations which the Jacobs Committee carried out in conjunction with organised agriculture were submitted. This R400 million was to have been used in conjunction with other settlement proposals in terms of section 22. We were to have used the agricultural credit legislation as the instrument through which to do this. The asset-liability ratio, the ability of the farmer to farm successfully and make his payments, were to have formed the basis that would have been used.

The hon member said that decisive action was not taken, that no administrative provision was made. I want to say that that is yet another flagrant untruth. [Interjections.] A special agricultural reconstruction committee was established. Eight meetings were held, at which hundreds of farmers were present, to explain the scheme. Media statements were issued, emergency measures were taken in this regard, and I can mention a few of them. Firstly, national servicemen were trained at the University of Pretoria so that they would be available for the processing of applications. Additional vehicles were made available. We purchased computers especially for this scheme. The establishment of the directorate was expanded. We requested the agricultural credit committees to give precedence to this. I made arrangements with my colleague, the hon the Minister of Justice, to request magistrates to give priority to this. They were assisted by officials from other departments. This aid scheme could not be successfully implemented, however, because the farmers chose certain other schemes which were better than this one. Hon members of the Official Opposition are arguing as if this were the only scheme.

I want to ask the hon member where these 2 000 farmers are.

They are still there.

Precisely, they are still there. They are still there without this scheme. Why are they there? [Interjections.] They are there because they chose an alternative solution to their problem. It is therefore a far better scheme. Why should they opt for a scheme to save themselves from sequestration, with all the disadvantages and the stigma attached to it? [Interjections.] It would appear that the hon member wants to force 2 000 farmers into a scheme …

Order! Too many interjections are constantly being made. The hon member for Lichtenburg must contain himself. The hon the Minister must be given an opportunity to make his speech.

The hon member for Lichtenburg wanted to force these 2 000 farmers into a scheme in which they were not interested. They did not want to do so for a variety of reasons. I could mention those reasons to hon members. The reaction from the fanners is disappointing; settlements are regarded as the last resort; all other sources of aid are being tried once again; the real danger inherent in the settlement is that it could fail and that the farmer would then lose everything anyway; and the optimism of the farmers that things will go better in the future, for example the belief that the series of droughts will come to an end. That is one of the chief reasons. We have received early summer rains. The South African farmer is an optimist through and through and instead of accepting this settlement scheme he approached the Agricultural Credit Board for production credit. He said that the co-operative no longer wished to help him, that he did not have the security, and that the banks did not want to help him either. We helped them; 2 700 of them. I think that is a wonderful achievement. As to the R400 million that was not used, the hon member apparently thought that we would lose it.

I have told the hon member on a previous occasion that we regard it as a dormant reserve, that we shall reschedule it and use it to the benefit of the farmers of South Africa. What is the hon member implying by way of his statements? He is implying that I, as Minister, acted fraudulently towards my fellow farmers. That is what he is saying.

You bluffed them.

Whether that hon member says that I bluffed them or whatever, he is implying that I acted fraudulently towards my fellow farmers whom I know well and among whom I live. I came through the drought with them and I was also in the hon member’s constituency. That hon member should just go and tell his own farmers that this Minister designed schemes to mislead them.

They are fully aware of it.

I want to tell that hon member that they would not believe him. I also want to tell the hon member that if that is the level of debate to which he is sinking, I am afraid that one will not be able to conduct a decent debate with him on agricultural matters. [Interjections.] If that is the case, then one cannot conduct a debate with him. He is known for creating suspicion with regard to hon members on this side of the House and hon Ministers of this House in particular. I want to tell him that I dare him to say outside this House that I am deceiving the farmers of South Africa. I dare him to do that.

I have been saying so for a long time.

I dare him to do it.

I said it last year.

In other words, that hon member stated outside this House last year that I was deceiving the farmers of South Africa?

Last year I said outside this House that the scheme was designed to fail. [Interjections.]

We are not talking about the scheme now; the hon member must not try to change his words. Yesterday evening the hon member for Witbank came in entirely innocently afterwards and said that the object of the scheme had been for the Minister to mislead the farmers. He said it had been done with the intention of misleading the farmers.

It was a ploy.

No, it was not a ploy.

I shall say so again.

No, it was not a ploy. The hon member may feel free to say so again, but I am telling him that it was not a ploy.

I said so last year.

Order! If the hon member for Lichtenburg makes one more interjection, I shall order him to withdraw from the Chamber. The hon the Minister may proceed.

We shall discuss this matter at greater length when my Vote comes up for discussion on Monday. I have not finished with the hon member for Lichtenburg. I shall be keeping a close watch on him with regard to his stories about politics. He is implementing some clever plans to politicise directorates and agricultural credit committees. I am aware of that. I am going to keep an eye on that hon member and if he thinks he will be able to politicise agricultural credit committees then I must tell him, as the hon member for Fauresmith said: That will be the day!

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to follow the hon the Minister. I enter this debate as the PFP spokesman on justice to raise a specific issue of moment.

Earlier this week the hon the State President, acting in terms of section 103 ter of the Defence Act, ordered the issue of a certificate setting aside the trial for murder of six members of the SA Defence Force arising out of the death of a certain Immanuel Shifidi which occurred at a public meeting in Katatura township near Windhoek on 30 November 1986. The hon the State President is entitled to issue such a certificate if he is of the opinion that the proceedings were instituted by reason of an act advised, commanded, ordered or directed or done in good faith by the State President, the Minister of Defence or a member of the Defence Force for the purpose of, or in connection with, the prevention of terrorism in an operational area, and that it is in the national interest that the proceedings should not be continued with. In terms of those criteria the hon the State President issued the certificate which put a stop to the trial of the people accused of murdering Mr Shifidi.

In respect of this matter an inquest was held. The basic findings of the inquest were firstly that the deceased person was present at a lawful public political meeting in Katatura township; and secondly that he died as a result of unlawful actions by a group of persons whose activities were directed at breaking up that lawful meeting.

The inquest findings were studied by the Attorney-General who, after considering all the evidence given by more than 50 witnesses, decided to institute a prosecution against six members of the Defence Force.

The charge sheet prepared by the Attorney-General includes charges of public violence against them and alleges that orders were given for about 50 members of 101 Batalion to be brought to Windhoek in civilian clothes and armed with traditional weapons such as pangas, assagais, kieries, knives and bows and arrows with the purpose of breaking up that meeting. It also alleges that in the course of carrying out these instructions Mr Shifidi met his death by stabbing.

I should like to read to hon members the two main charges as contained in the charge sheet:

Deurdat op of omtrent 30 November 1986 en te of naby Windhoek in die distrik Windhoek, die beskuldigdes gesamentlik en/of afsonderlik en ter uitvoering van ’n gemeenskaplike doel, wederregtelik handelinge van ’n ernstige aard verrig het met die opset om die openbare rus en vrede te versteur …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to know your ruling on whether a matter may be raised here which relates to justice and to South West Africa and which has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

Order! The hon member for Sandton runs the risk, of course, that the hon the Minister will not reply to him, because this matter does not fall under the hon the Ministers; but it has been the practice for the past two years to allow hon members to cover a broad spectrum. However, the hon member may still relate what he is talking about to own affairs, so I am not going to stop him.

Thank you, Sir, I quote further—

The second and main charge was one of murder. The charge reads as follows:

These are very serious charges. They are not charges which any Attorney-General appointed by the hon the Minister of Justice would bring lightly against any members of the public, let alone members of the Defence Force. The charges do not relate to the fighting of terrorism but surely to plain and simple criminal murder.

It has been noted that an inquest took place and I have read to hon members the charges which have not as yet been answered which were formulated by the Attorney-General in South West Africa. In other words, due legal process was in fact being followed. The proper administration of justice was taking its ordinary course. In a trial before the Supreme Court, the accused persons would have had the fullest opportunity to establish their innocence, that is until the certificate was issued.

I believe that certain questions must be asked of the hon the State President. Firstly, is the hon the State President of the opinion that the officers of the Defence Force gave such orders at all? This is one of the criteria which has to be satisfied in granting such a certificate. Is he genuinely and seriously of the opinion that the officers of the Defence Force did not give such orders?

Secondly, in the light of the inquest finding, is he of the opinion that a killing of this nature can in fact in any circumstances be in good faith? Can a killing of this nature by means of a stab wound by people who are charged with coming to a meeting with the intention of breaking up that meeting and attacking citizens, be in good faith?

Thirdly, is the hon the State President seriously of the opinion that Katatura Township, which is adjacent to Windhoek, is by any logical or factual definition part of the operational area? Is the hon the State President of the opinion that Windhoek is now the operational area?

Fourthly, is the hon the State President seriously of the opinion that this attack on a crowd of people holding a political meeting was calculated to suppress terrorism? Is an attack on a crowd holding a public meeting an attack calculated to suppress terrorism?

Finally, is it truly in the national interest, and does the hon the State President possibly even incredulously believe this, that unlawful actions of members of the Defence Force resulting in someone’s death should be allowed to occur without redress? Is this the way that the Defence Force is expected to win the hearts and minds of the people of South West Africa?

The answer to all these questions must surely be “no”! I believe that the effect of the State President’s action is the following: Firstly, the normal course of justice has been ruthlessly interfered with. This is ironic, for only last week the hon the State President refused to grant clemency to the Sharpeville Six, stating as one of his reasons that he did not wish to interfere with the judicial processes. How cynical can one be when only a few days later one acts directly contradictory to the actions of the previous week?

A second effect of the issuing of this certificate is that persons who are possibly guilty of murder will go unpunished, and these charges will go unanswered.

Thirdly the confidence in and respect for our judiciary has once again been undermined, not by members of the opposition, which they are often accused of doing, but by the executive of this country itself.

That is absolutely correct! It is scandalous!

Fourthly, by the act of issuing this certificate, the Defence Force is effectively put above the ordinary law of the country.

Fifthly, the Government has ceased to rely on clear law and it relies instead on the opinions of the executive, because the actions of the State President are guided, not by clear law, but by his subjective opinion. In other words, we have no law! What we have as a result of this decision is not law, but just the jungle; that is what we are descending into.

The sixth effect of the hon the State President’s action is that the law is being brought into disrepute in the eyes of the South West African public. We are therefore moving further and further away from clarity on the rights of the individual and the citizen, and we are moving into an era where it is the executive that decides what is a crime and what is not, regardless of the common law.

Mr Chairman, this House and this party are united in fighting terrorism. We are united in opposing Swapo. The whole House is united in trying to guard South Africa’s true national interest. If we allow these methods to be used, however, we are falling prey to the very evils we so strongly abhor. There cannot be one law for members of the Defence Force and another law for opponents of the Government. The law should be the law for everybody.

In the interests of our country, in the interests of our system of justice and in the interests of the integrity of the Government I appeal to the hon the State President to withdraw this certificate and to allow the law to take its ordinary and normal course.

Mr Chairman, I associate myself fully with the remarks made by the hon member for Sandton as far as the certificate is concerned. It is a scandal that our State President can now become the saboteur of our legal system. [Interjections.] It is a scandal that through actions such as this our entire judicial system is being undermined. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Durban Central entitled to say that the hon the State President is the saboteur of our legal system?

Order! I think that is outrageous. The hon member for Durban Central must withdraw that allegation immediately.

And apologise at the same time! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

†It is a disgrace that the hon the State President can undermine our legal system by …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Durban Central entitled to say that the hon the State President is undermining our legal system? [Interjections.]

Order! I must point out to the hon member for Durban Central that hon members of this House as well as the hon the State President have taken an oath of loyalty to the country and to the laws of the land. Each of us takes that oath. When the hon member contends that anyone has, by implication knowingly, undermined the laws to which he has sworn loyalty under oath, it is an exceptionally serious charge. The hon member simply must withdraw that immediately.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If I were to be permitted to react to the point of order of the hon member for False Bay … '

Order! No! The hon member will either withdraw his allegation or not withdraw it. That is all.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I say that it is a scandal that the effect of the action of the hon the State President is to undermine our country’s legal system. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Justice is sitting here opposite me. He will have to defend this action of the hon the State President. He will have to defend it against our judges. [Interjections.] He will have to defend it against those who attempt … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: You have listened attentively, Sir, to what the hon member has just said. I should like to know from you whether that is in order.

Order! I think that this is a borderline case. The hon member did not say that the hon the State President was deliberately undermining our legal system. The hon member for Durban Central may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Justice will have to go and explain this to our judges and to those who tried to uphold our legal system. It is indefensible. It is a symptom …

Mr Chairman, does the hon member agree that the hon the State President, in the case to which the hon member referred, exercised his powers and discretion in terms of an Act passed by this Parliament which is now applicable to the legal system in South West Africa?

Mr Chairman, when Mr Robert Mugabe came to power in Zimbabwe, one of his Cabinet Ministers cold-bloodedly shot and killed a White farmer—murdered him. On that occasion, too, they fell back on a law passed during the regime of Mr Ian Smith. That law was advanced as a defence and in terms of that measure the Cabinet Minister could lawfully be exonerated, purely and simply as the result of the existence of that Act. Therefore the hon the Minister of Justice is right in the sense that there is authorisation for the State President to do such a thing. However that flies in the face of our legal system. It flies in the face of the position of our Supreme Court. When the Administrator General of South West Africa states that the hon the State President acted within the law …

Mr Chairman, will the hon member answer a further question?

No, Sir, I do not have the time. When the Administrator General of South West Africa states that the hon the State President is competent to do that, the assumption of the hon the Minister of Justice is technically correct. Adolf the Great, in the Third German Reich, also had many powers in terms of which he was technically able to do such a thing. However, we cannot allow anything of the kind, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

I now want to come back to a point raised by the hon member for Pietersburg. He very ably tried to indicate that the pensions received by elderly people—an amount of R218 per month—were inadequate and that one could not expect them to eke out a decent existence on such a small amount of money in 1988.

What was the reaction to that charge against the Government? One of the hon Deputy Ministers of Economic Affairs and Technology said: “So what!” In 1981 a then Minister said that those who drew old-age pensions would have to live on R20 per month; it was possible. In 1988 that hon Deputy Minister says about R218 per month— “so what!”. Those people will simply have to accept it. [Interjections.]

This is the attitude of a Government that is totally out of touch with the voter and apparently has no idea of the problems faced by the pensioners. If anyone indicates that one can get by on R218 per month and says “So what!” when a better pension is requested, that is an indication of a kind of arrogance that has taken root in the Government which one thus far seems to have underestimated.

Yesterday the hon the Minister of Education and Culture came up with what was apparently a new educational dispensation as far as sport is concerned. If it is true that in future it will be easier for children from various population groups to learn to know one another, that is to be welcomed.

“But” …

That positive step is being taken against the background of a climate in which the Government is doing precisely the opposite at the national level. It is banning political organisations operating outside Parliament. It is banning the leaders. [Interjections.] It is confronting the churches and trying to intimidate them. It is seeking to cut off money entering the country from outside for the purpose of upliftment work. [Interjections.] People are being banned, meetings are being prohibited, and then the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says—he said this last week in KwaNobuhle at Uitenhage—that we are creating a climate for negotiation.

Is one to take the hon the Minister seriously when, against this background, he maintains that a climate for negotiation is now being created by the Government? Surely we are doing precisely the opposite.

I wish the hon the Minister of Education and Culture every success with his policy at school level, but surely that is not going to help in handling our far greater political problems if at the national level polarisation is being furthered by Government measures in terms of laws applied by the State security part of our bureaucracy. Surely that will not help to improve our race relations.

The Whites in South Africa—be they Prog, CP or NP supporters—are uncertain about their future. It is for two reasons in particular that they are uncertain. Firstly it is because there is no indication on the part of the Government of where they are heading, and secondly, because the average White person regards the Black masses in general—one could say those on the other side of the fence—as one dangerous Black group, specifically as a result of the Government’s propaganda that all those people form part of a total onslaught.

We now have the situation that many thousands—it is probably millions—of people who are not represented in Parliament want a democratic system and stability, and want to work in this country together with Whites, Indians and the other population groups, but all of them are now being lumped together by the Government’s propaganda and by the kind of steps that the Government has been taking during the past months as being part of the revolution. What is happening as a result is that Black politics as a whole and White politics—or the system we find ourselves in—are very rapidly drifting apart. Nevertheless the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning maintains that there is a climate for negotiation. There is not the slightest chance of conducting negotiations with anyone on the Government side at this moment. There is no such climate at all; the Government is deliberately going out of its way to counteract such a climate.

The only way that one could in future begin a process of bringing South Africans closer together would be to break out of these confines the Government has imposed on White politics and to tell Whites and Blacks that they must break through those barriers, because we must find one another in order to be able to co-operate in future. The NDM is taking that road.

As the hon member for Umhlatuzana said, the NDM does not draw a distinction between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary politics. He is correct, because both systems will jointly decide the political future of our country, and we do not intend being active in one of those systems only. We intend being active in the totality of politics.

We are going to draw people into a debate and tell them that strategies are needed that will be capable of handling our problems in a pragmatic way, and it will not matter who they are. They may be trade unions, the ANC as well as rightwing groups—in other words, everyone who has a role to play in South African politics of the future. We are going to try to bring these people into a debate in order to adopt a joint approach to our future, rather than going about it as the Government does, that is trying to cut out and switch off everyone, so that we have an even greater polarisation which will of necessity lead to a situation in which force and bloodshed will have to be the solution if nothing is done about it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: During the course of his speech you ruled that the hon member for Durban Central should withdraw words to the effect that the hon the State President had undermined justice in this country. Over a number of years we in the PFP have been accused of, for instance, undermining the security of this country. I wish to ask you whether in fact your ruling means that hon members on the Government side will no longer be allowed, in terms of the rules of this House, to say that we are undermining this, that or the other, or to use words of similar import, such as “soft on”.

Order! Each and every ruling depends on the circumstances prevailing, the climate of the debate and whether such words refer to a specific person or to a party in general. I am not at present giving a ruling as regards the word “undermining” which will apply in future cases as well. I consider my ruling to be applicable particularly to the circumstances prevailing in this House at the particular time when that remark was made.

Mr Chairman, in these particular circumstances, of course, the words you ruled on related to the hon the State President, not to hon members of this House. May I enquire as to whether that is one of the special circumstances which made you decide on this ruling?

No, not really.

Mr Chairman, we have now come to the end of this debate. I should like to thank all hon members who tried to make a positive and constructive contribution to the debate. Various contributions were from the nature of things directed towards hon Ministers of the departments of the Administration: House of Assembly, and these can also be discussed further under the various Votes.

I should like to thank my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council who have had the opportunity to reply for the replies that they gave. Obviously time was limited, and all hon Ministers could not be given the opportunity to reply to questions and arguments of the Opposition here, but I am convinced that my hon colleagues have taken note of valid points and that these will be raised again for discussion at a later stage.

I should like to thank those hon members, particularly hon members of the NP, who dealt the Official Opposition and also other hon members on the opposition side such telling blows. I am referring here to the hon members for Klip River, Fauresmith, Umhlatuzana, Sundays River, Bloemfontein East, Springs and Umhlanga, and the hon member Mr Aucamp. From the nature of the case it will not be possible for me because of the limited time available to me to reply to all hon members. Furthermore many of the contributions were not addressed to me but covered points of view of the opposition parties and, if I may say so, dealt with them very effectively.

I should also like to thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who unfortunately can not be here today, for the clear standpoints he adopted in regard to own affairs. He made an authoritative speech. I believe that everyone who had the opportunity of listening to him will realize that truly fundamental progress is being made with own affairs. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had recourse to the facts, and that is the great difference.

This is the great contrast between debating by hon members on this side of the House and hon members of the Official Opposition. They do not base their arguments on facts. They have recourse to allegations, speculations and all kinds of nonsense, and I hope in the course of my speech to be able to deal with some of these vague allegations and absurdities.

Take for instance the hon member for Lichtenburg who is not here now. The hon member for Pietersburg had a lot to say because the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council could not be here today, but there are only five hon members over there. Less than 20% of the Official Opposition is therefore present. Is this then the importance that they attach to own affairs, they, who have so much to say about own affairs? [Interjections.] Those hon members who consider themselves to be the spokesmen for the Whites in this House are not represented by more than 20% of their number here. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg and the hon member for Potgietersrus went on with the game yesterday evening. They criticised the Budget because there had ostensibly been an inadequate increase in the Budget and said that this indicated that own affairs was a failure.

The norm for a good budget now simply becomes a question of whether a person spends more than in the previous year. The increased spending has to determine whether it is a good or a weak budget. What sort of an approach is this in regard to State finance?

Those hon members did not deal with specific expenditure. They did not address the services rendered by the Administration: House of Assembly so as to debate whether the services rendered were adequate and of a good standard.

There are after all various reasons why a budget can be smaller or why State expenditure does not grow at the same rate as in a previous year. It is possible to curtail expenditure and effect savings without the important services that are rendered being affected. Services can be continued at the same level and even extended even though the expenditure involved is curtailed by the rationalisation of services, the more efficient utilisation of staff and funds, the promotion of productivity, the rearrangement of priorities and by the levying of realistic service fees.

Departments of the Administration: House of Assembly have curtailed their expenditure in this way by various means without affecting the quality of their services. Let me give one example. In pursuance of the Cabinet’s decision regarding the staff standstill in the Public Service, the Administration: House of Assembly decided to abolish the following number of vacant posts in the administration. These are vacant posts and nobody has lost his employment as a result, although the staff budget is accordingly considerably smaller. There were 1 334 vacant posts on the establishment of the Administration: House of Assembly as at 31 December 1987. Of these vacant posts 409 have been abolished. This represents 30,7%, which has resulted in a significant saving.

The approach of the hon members for Lichtenburg and Potgietersrus and others who tried to show by means of a numbers game that own affairs was no longer so important, is wrong. What is worse, however, is that their figures were also wrong. The hon member for Lichtenburg argued that the Budget of the Administration: House of Assembly had decreased consistently over the past three years. However, the hon member for Lichtenburg is only considering the amount appropriated by the hon the Minister of Finance for the Administration: House of Assembly. He contends that as a percentage of the main Budget it has fallen from 12% to 9,97%.

But what are the facts? The amount indicated in the Budget of the hon the Minister of Finance for the Administration: House of Assembly is that amount that is estimated after deduction of the supplementary amount from the Revenue Account of the House of Assembly. In other words, it does not give the full picture. Other revenue still has to be added. What happens in practice is that the amount budgeted for by the hon the Minister of Finance, plus the amount by which it is supplemented from own funds, whether those own funds are from own revenue or are surplus funds from previous years, must be taken in toto as the annual amount available for expenditure by the White administration.

If we take the budgeted amounts voted over the past three years, there is no reduction as the hon member for Lichtenburg alleged but in fact an increase of 20,8%. So the hon member’s figures are also wrong.

Is that in real terms?

That is the total increase.

Is that the percentage increase?

Yes, the hon member is correct; it is not in real terms; it is the percentage increase. There is not a reduction but an increase of 20,8%.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member must do his sums. He produced the same ridiculous sums here yesterday evening.

Let me help him with his calculations. The fact is that the Budget this year has shown a considerable increase. An amount of R19,8 million is mentioned but the following amounts have not been requested in the present Budget. I have already referred to the one-off amount of R400 million voted for financial assistance to agriculture which is not again being requested this year. Then there is the amount of R152,4 million for general salary adjustments and the R17,6 million for the “Ou Raadsaal” and the housing fund. That gives us an amount of R570 million which was reflected in the previous Budget and which for good reasons was not again required to be voted in the present Budget of the hon the Minister of Finance.

The R400 million was a one-off amount that was voted for financial assistance to the farmers. Of this amount R30 million has been spent and an amount of R370 million was put in suspension; that is to say, that amount of R370 million must be deducted from the Budget of last year. It was not spent. Therefore, if the actual budgeted expenditure for last year is compared with the budgeted expenditure for the financial year 1988-89, the Budget shows an increase of 9,6%.

This increase is largely in conformity with the tendency in all departments. Savings measures have been applied throughout the economy of the public sector and, in conformity with the economic strategy of the Government, efforts have been made to curtail the growth in State expenditure. The own affairs departments are no worse off than other departments. Therefore, the hon member is not correct.

The hon member for Lichtenburg who is apparently the chief spokesman on finance in regard to the Administration: House of Assembly, and who has not graced us with his presence here today, argues that the power levy taxes must be an own affair. At the base of this reasoning lies the wild dream that the South African economy can be separated into White and Black components. There is the so-called White money to which the Whites alone can lay claim. [Interjections.] That is a point of view that cannot be defended on any reasonable or logical grounds. I contend—this is my own view—that this is an immoral attitude. It is an attitude that boils down to the fact that one should set the table for White people only and that the rest of the South African population must simply be satisfied with the crumbs.

I want to remind those hon members of the words of Dr Rupert who said: If my neighbour has no food to eat, I cannot sleep.

The fact is, however, that the South African economy is an indivisible unit. The products of this economy are the results of the labour of White and Black. The achievements and the wealth of the economy are made possible by the contributions of all the population groups. The maize produced by the hon member for Lichtenburg is the result of the inputs by Black people, not only when it comes to planting and harvesting but also by Black people working in those factories manufacturing the tractors, ploughs and fertilizers used by that hon member in his production process. Black and Brown people are involved in the production and distribution processes, commerce and also in consumer spending. Black consumer spending, just this single category, is already greater than White consumer spending.

The economy is a unit. This economy can grow, progress and become stronger as a unit or it can deteriorate and collapse as a result of trying to fragment it for racialistic reasons. With all due respect, this argument of White and Black money is usually advanced by people whose contribution to the economy, particularly their contribution to the State Revenue Account, is not very large. [Interjections.]

I believe that in his excellent speech yesterday the hon member for Sundays River torpedoed this question of White and Black money. His was a well-considered speech, and it will do the hon members of the Official Opposition good to reread that speech and the arguments it contains carefully.

Various speakers referred to pensions and the R60 bonus that is to be paid to pensioners this year. The hon members for Pietersburg, Durban North, Potgietersrus and various other hon members discussed this question. The fact is that the hon the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget Speech that he was making an amount of R110 million available in order to give social pensioners a measure of relief. He announced that this amount would be disbursed during October of this year. In pursuance of representations made by the Ministers of the Budget of all three administrations to the hon the Minister of Finance it is my pleasure to announce that it will in fact be possible to pay the bonus earlier. We now hope to be able to pay it as early as the end of May.

The CP’s pressure worked!

Oh, Sir, that hon member there had not even opened his mouth when the Ministers of the administrations had already approached the hon the Minister of Finance in regard to this matter. [Interjections.]

There are, however, a few points of view that I should like to sketch briefly in regard to this pension question. I want to make it very clear that the Government has great understanding and sympathy for the difficult living conditions in which many of our aged and our social pensioners find themselves. It is extremely difficult … [Interjections.] Just give me a chance; then the hon member can react again.

It is extremely difficult to afford even the necessities of life on the existing pension. The fact is that the State is doing everything in its power to try to alleviate the situation. Large amounts are being disbursed on welfare services. Any increase or bonus, even this small bonus, as hon members have pointed out—a bonus of R60 per pensioner per month—amounts to a large sum of money. This bonus of R60 amounts in toto to R110 million.

R5 per month.

Cannot the hon member appreciate the broad perspective? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Pietersburg must contain himself. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The biggest enemy of our aged, of our pensioners, is inflation. The hon member for Rosettenville referred to this matter in a very good speech and also highlighted the necessity for inflation to be contained. The hon member for Witbank also referred to inflation and the problems that it caused our pensioners. The destructive effect of inflation is hitting our social pensioners and the aged particularly hard. It is precisely in order to tackle this problem that all experts agree that the South African economy has to be placed on a sound footing.

An essential part of that strategy is to place increases in State expenditure on a tight rein. This strategy is necessary in order to place the economy on a sound basis and to provide scope for the private sector, for private enterprise and investment; in order eventually to make it possible for taxes to be further reduced; to reduce the rate of that great enemy, inflation; and to create job opportunities for people. By so doing, we will be able to increase the size of the cake from which we make allocations to those groups and bodies in need of assistance. In the short term, this is a painful practice. The restriction of State expenditure affects everyone in this country. The Government would like to deal positively with the request for justified salary increases. The Government would like to introduce further tax relief. We would like to spend more on health services, welfare and on our social pensioners. However, our national economy has a limited capacity which we have to take into account.

Within its affordable means the State has always fulfilled its obligation towards social pensioners. This obligation has increased dramatically over the past years. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned certain figures here yesterday and I wish to associate myself briefly with them. This situation is illustrated, inter alia, by the following. On 31 March 1977, White pensions cost R9,6 million per month. On 31 March 1987, ten years later, they cost R28,6 million per month. Over that 10 year period the number of pensioners increased by 6,3% while the expenditure on pensions increased by 198%. Even in the recent past the number of beneficiaries has continued to increase. From January 1987 to November 1987—this is a period of 10 months—the number of beneficiaries increased by 3 585. This fact brings with it considerably increased financial obligations. The Government has a duty towards those in need of assistance.

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

Unfortunately my time is limited. If the hon member will just listen, all his sensible questions will be answered. [Interjections.]

The Government has a duty towards those in need of assistance in the community. However, I also want to say that society expects everyone who is able to do so to make provision for his old age during his active lifetime. We have understanding for the fact that many people have not had that opportunity and eventually, in their old age, they are completely dependent upon the contribution which the State can make to relieve their need. I think it is also necessary for us once again to express a word of appreciation towards many pensioners who are also feeling the pinch today for the contribution that they made over the years in paying off their homes and putting aside the small amount they were able to save in order to be assured of a pension. They are also under pressure under the present circumstances. We must also express a word of gratitude towards those people. It is our view that as far as possible, everyone should provide for himself for his old age during his active lifetime. This pension is therefore not intended to meet all the requirements of the recipient but can be regarded as supplementing what the pensioner has provided for himself.

The report of the President’s Council to which the hon member for Witbank referred yesterday draws the conclusion that a national contributory pension scheme should be instituted as a matter of urgency in order to alleviate the increasing pressure on the Treasury in respect of the payment of social pensions. I should have liked to quote from the report but time does not permit. In this way we will be able in the long run to lighten the impossible and growing burden which the State has to bear in respect of welfare services and pensions.

A committee of pension experts under the chairmanship of the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, Dr Marais, is at present investigating the introduction of such a national contributory pension scheme.

The care of the aged and welfare services in general are not the responsibility of the Government alone. Society also has an important role to play in this regard. In fact, the Government is a partner of society, and we are doing more than our share in that partnership.

I want to refer further to statistics quoted yesterday by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. These show that the subsidization of welfare projects has increased by 750% over the past five years. Subsidies to White homes for the aged have increased by 269% over the past six years. The expenditure in respect of the subsidy to homes for the aged, particularly the infirm aged, has risen by 25,8% since last year.

These figures together with many others that I could mention show that the Government is doing its share to place the care of the White aged on a sound basis. Notwithstanding all our requests and the great need that exists to spend more on our aged it was not possible this year to provide more than R110 million within the present Budget.

†I would like to thank the hon member for Yeoville who cannot be here this afternoon for his kind words of congratulation. I realise that the new responsibilities are interesting and exciting but equally difficult, and I trust that the hon member for Yeoville who has made many contributions to debates on the budgets of own affairs will also find it possible to join in the debate when we discuss privatisation and make equally valuable contributions in that regard.

*The hon member for Klip River replied effectively to the CP. I have also already referred to the hon member for Rosettenville. The hon member for Fauresmith in his typically neat way and with his sound reasoning once again gave the CP the true picture in yesterday’s debate. [Interjections.]

The NP truth!

I just want that hon member to listen. The CP so much want the electorate to have an image of them that creates the impression that their policy is not so strange at all and, in fact, has already succeeded in many parts of the world. For example, this policy has succeeded in Israel and it was the hon member for Fauresmith who pointed out yesterday that if they have to chose Israel as an example they have just to keep it in mind …

Have you read this book?

I shall come back to that hon member in a moment. He ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself. He is a person who lays claim to the fact that he has an academic background and was even a so-called professor, but he makes a statement here that is devoid of all truth.

I am still going to deal with that.

Then the hon member must reply. The fact is that every Arab over the age of 21 has the vote in Israel and there are five of them in the Knesset.

Have you read this book?

That is the example that the CP gives us.

Order! The hon member for Losberg must contain himself. He will have an opportunity to speak later.

I am afraid it is embarrassment that causes the hon member to react in that way. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Pinelands asked me a number of questions with which I shall deal briefly. He asked me what caused the increase in the number of personnel in the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works. The filling of vacant posts caused the increase in staff. The approved establishment remains unchanged at 651 posts. He asked the same question regarding the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services. The increase there is due mainly to the transfer from the provinces of posts such as those for security personnel, data processors and workstudy personnel. He also asked for what purpose the old “Raadsaal” is being used and how many personnel are accommodated there. In spite of the fact that the old “Raadsaal” has been declared a national monument it is at present being used for office accommodation for 140 officials of the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services. The restoration costs amounted to approximately R6,8 million.

The hon member for Parktown referred to the question of smoking. The department of the hon the Minister of Health Services is constantly monitoring that problem and I am sure that he will deal with it. We are gradually making progress. I am trying to convince many of my friends that they should stop smoking, and we are gradually making progress. I am sure the hon member can continue that debate under the Vote of my hon colleague.

*The hon member for Sasolburg asked me a question about the AWB. It is noticeable that when the AWB is referred to, the hon members of the Official Opposition grin. I think it is a great embarrassment to them! Perhaps it is also a great fear that is building up. The fact is that those hon members have not yet replied properly to any of the valid questions put to them about the AWB.

They cannot!

I want to tell the hon members of the CP that the AWB is as much a cultural organisation as the Nazi Party was a cultural organisation. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir! I want to give the hon members of the Official Opposition a friendly warning that it is not going to be long before young people who are walking around with guns on their hips and listening to this kind of inflammatory talk at AWB meetings, are going to act irresponsibly. It is not going to be long before these young people are going to start doing irresponsible things because of that climate, because of that inflammatory and agitatory climate. When the blood starts rushing to the brain, the emotions take over. I see it coming, Sir! These people are living in a dangerously emotional atmosphere, they are going to do things that are perilous in the extreme and, when they have to account for their actions, I want to tell hon members of the CP that they must not then come along and wash their hands and say that they never approved of such actions. These people are playing with fire and the CP are encouraging them.

I just want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg, who was the last speaker this afternoon, that I do not apologize for the fact that the NP favours parity. I do not apologize for that fact. If that hon member is not in favour of it, then he stands for the permanent favouring of the Whites just because they are White, and that is naked racism!

What about parity in voting? [Interjections.]

My hon colleague, the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, also referred in his speech here this afternoon to the fact that there is a noticeable attempt by the Official Opposition to denigrate the own affairs concept. It has been my privilege over the past 12 to 15 months to listen to many debates on budgetary matters of the Administration: House of Assembly. During this period I have noticed that when the own affairs concept is discussed the opposition parties not only condemn it but they also try to do so in a deprecatory and belittling fashion. The hon members of the Official Opposition try to make own affairs out to be ridiculous and nonsensical.

But that is exactly what it is! Ridiculous!

There have been various examples of this in this debate. It is not simply opposition because they reject the political dispensation, but they do it in such a way as to ridicule and belittle the whole concept of own affairs. I want now to address certain remarks to the hon members of the Official Opposition and also to hon members of the PFP which I hope will put the situation into perspective so that we will be able to debate these matters more constructively with one another from now on.

I want firstly to address a remark to the CP. The Administration: House of Assembly does after all deal with matters of great importance for the White population group, matters which affect the daily lives of these people. Why are the CP so negative and condemnatory in respect of own affairs when they not only realise but also themselves make it clear that they will continue rendering services to the Whites on an own basis? [Interjections.]

Your own affairs is not self-determination!

It is in fact true that hon members of the Official Opposition want to go further. They want all matters to be placed on an own basis for the various population groups. Why then all this bitterness when we discuss own affairs in this way? After all, the CP want to continue providing education on an own affairs basis, is that not so? They want to continue providing health services on an own affairs basis and, of course, agricultural and welfare services as well. Is there then no point of contact which will enable us to debate these matters meaningfully with each other?

Secondly, I want to address a word to the PFP. I want to tell those hon members that they must remember that the Administration: House of Assembly came into being as a result of an attempt to broaden democracy. The hon member for Yeoville should also listen to this; it will be to his advantage as well. The own administration came into being as a result of an attempt to broaden democracy. They can criticise this concept as much as they want to but it was the concept of own affairs that made it possible to bring Brown people and Asians into Parliament. After all, they were not here before, Sir. The hon member opposite shakes his head. Those people were not here before. He knows that that is so. Those people had no share in the decisions affecting their lives. In fact, they did not even have a share in the decisions that affected them exclusively. [Interjections.] They were on the outside. However, it was the adoption of the present Constitution, with the concept of own affairs, that made it possible to bring them into Parliament. [Interjections.]

As a result of the concept of own affairs, Coloureds and Indians obtained direct representation in Parliament. I am sure we can agree on that point. The hon members of the PFP hold the view that democracy can be broadened by giving all groups direct representation in Parliament. That is their view. However, the fact remains—I believe that hon members of the PFP must appreciate this point—-that it was the acceptance of the own affairs concept that brought people of colour into Parliament. It was the own affairs concept which made it possible to take the first important but tentative steps along the road towards the broadening of democracy in South Africa.

Neither is this the end of the road. After all, constitutional reform is a long process. The political rights of Black people and their participation in the democratic processes have to be dealt with. The Government is currently doing just that. The Government has never adopted the standpoint that own affairs administrations offer the complete answer to the constitutional problems of South Africa. Our standpoint is nevertheless that this forms an important part of the answer because this concept makes it possible to protect and safeguard group interests. This concept makes it possible to give people a say in regard to those matters which are of great importance from a group perspective.

I believe too that this remark brings us to the fundamental problem in South Africa. What is the real, the fundamental problem which the political debate is all about?

†The real issue in South Africa today is not apartheid, as many of our critics, and even hon members of the opposition parties and our enemies, profess. The Government, with the backing of the majority of its electorate, has unequivocally decided that the era of White domination and discrimination is over. The policy of apartheid has become—in the words of the hon the State President—outdated and is rejected. [Interjections.] Will hon members please give me an opportunity, Sir?

The real issue is also not the question of whether Blacks should have the right to vote, to participate at all levels in the decision-making process and to do so as citizens of South Africa.

The Government has declared that there shall be one South African citizenship for all and that population groups of colour shall have the right to vote and be represented at the highest level of decision-making. The Government has declared that Whites will share with all others the power of decision-making they now possess. On this basis we have committed ourselves to negotiate with anyone who is interested in peaceful solutions to these matters. We have committed ourselves to a road that is to be a continuing process of reform, evolutionary in its pace but aimed unequivocally at the goal of expanding South Africa’s democracy and distributing the benefits of its economy among all the peoples in the country.

What then is the real issue in South Africa? The real issue concerns the question of how to protect the rights of minorities, how to protect the rights of minority groups in a deeply divided South Africa such as ours. That is the real issue. We are a divided society. That is a fact. The division of our society into a multiplicity of greatly diverse ethnic groups or minorities is a reality that not one of us can deny. In such a society majority rule does not protect the rights of minorities; on the contrary, majoritarianism in any deeply divided society will inevitably lead to the violation of the rights of minorities, both Black and White. It will lead to ethnic strife and racial polarisation, and even to civil war and/or a dictatorship. That is why South Africans, certainly the overwhelming majority of South Africans, who are acutely aware of the divisions in this country and the historical record of dictatorships and anti-democratic, one-party states elsewhere in Africa reject any policy that will ultimately lead to majority rule or majoritarianism. That is why they reject the policies of the PFP and of all the newly-formed parties, some of which have no policy at all, but only a vision. Inevitably, however, their vision will also lead to majoritarianism.

It is interesting to note that this very central question to which I have referred and with which we do battle also occupied the minds of the framers of the American Constitution, as it has indeed also been the core concern of every democratic society, particularly one consisting of several population groups and minorities. James Madison, one of the founding fathers of the American Constitution, identified this question in the Tenth Federalist Paper. His concern was how to protect individual and minority rights against the power of factions. He focused particularly on the dangers of an unchecked majority. Regarding the dangers of majoritarianism, Madison revealed a great insight when he wrote as follows:

As Madison wrote this, the framers installed mechanisms to guard against what they called in their own words “the superior force of the overbearing majority”? Is it not very significant, Sir, that even in a country that we would describe as being largely homogeneous, the framers of the constitution showed anxiety and apprehension at the thought of, in their words “the superior force of an overbearing majority”.

Even with all the safeguards in the American Constitution, which was ratified in 1789, the USA did not adopt a system of one man, one vote until the courts ordered it as recently as the 1960s.

They do not have it today!

The hon member’s remark is correct. They do not even have it fully today, and that in a predominantly homogeneous country where the Black minority comprises a fractional 11% of the population. How much more should White South Africans not be apprehensive and even frightened at the thought of majority rule in a country as complex and with as diversely composed a population as ours?

We have witnessed the tendency in Africa to move from newly installed democracies to the oppression of the individual and minority rights, and ultimately to dictatorship. Paul Johnson noted the following in his book The History of the Modern World:

All across Africa parliamentary democracy in the Western sense, including the essential right to remove a government by electoral process, disappeared within a few years of independence, being replaced by a Leninist one-party system.

Why would South Africa be different under majority rule?

The cause of this tendency is to be found in the fundamental reality that where a society is composed of a diversity of groups, tribes or minorities, the majority will eventually impose their own interests at the expense of other citizens or the common interest of the whole. In Africa, this division into tribes, ethnic groups and factions has had a disastrous effect. Everywhere in Africa, coups, insurrections and political violence have been endemic as ethnic groups have struggled for supremacy. Majority rule on our continent nearly always means that the largest ethnic group governs through a one-party regime or a military dictatorship rather than through democratic patterns. Why would majority rule be any different in South Africa?

Whom are you trying to convince?

I am coming to the PFP; the hon member will just have to wait a moment. [Interjections.]

Professor Candowrie, professor of politics at the London School of Economics, has made a number of very valid observations regarding the concept of majority rule. He notes that this concept has significance only when the majority in one parliamentary election can be the minority in some other election. However—this is the important point—when majority and minority become largely fixed or perpetual because of the division of society into groups, government becomes an instrument of continued oppression of the minority by the majority. This is what has happened when a parliamentary government on the basis of majoritarianism has been instituted in what are known as plural societies. Professor Candowrie concludes as follows:

Now I come to the PFP. [Interjections.] I am going to address my next remarks to the PFP. It is on this crucial point that the policies of the PFP fail.

Why?

I will explain why. [Interjections.] I am referring to the PFP and all the parties to their left and immediate right, although I do not know quite where to place all the factions operating in that field. [Interjections.] All the parties on that side fail to present a policy that provides protection for the rights of minority groups.

You have not read the constitution …

I am going to come to the PFP constitution. Will the hon member for Yeoville just give me a few moments? These assurances and safeguards are essential in a deeply divided country such as ours, and I believe the PFP has failed to provide them.

Let us briefly examine the policy of the PFP and the safeguards they propose for minority groups such as the Whites. I turned to their election manifesto for guidance. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is only a year old; I hope it is still in use.

What about the cultural councils.

Please give me a chance! Paragraph 3 of the manifesto states the following:

Do you agree?

I agree, it is a very laudable pronouncement. It is also a signal for the kind of assurances we seek for groups. If one reads the rest of the paragraph, however, one discovers that it is riddled with ambiguity. It is riddled with ambiguity because eventually …

Perhaps you do not understand it?

Well, then perhaps the hon member can assist me! I read there:

Will that happen on a group basis or as individuals? This very manifesto states that they will be in Parliament as “equal citizens without discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or religion”. Will they be here representing groups, or will they be here as individuals?

May I ask you a question?

Mr Chairman, unfortunately my time is limited. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Yeoville must kindly give the hon the Minister a reasonable opportunity to make his speech.

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

My time is limited. The moment the hon member gets into a corner, he tries to disturb the debate. [Interjections.] I have read the election manifesto and it states clearly that Blacks will have to be in Parliament.

But you agree with that!

They also state that they do not regard these people as representing groups. They should be regarded as equal citizens without discrimination on the ground of race and colour and religion.

You said that yourselves!

One then has majority rule. [Interjections.] There can be no mistake. The policies of the PFP will inevitably lead to majoritarianism. [Interjections.] In that process they are prepared to sacrifice the safeguards required by minority groups in a plural society. The PFP fails to provide satisfactory answers to the core issue concerning the broadening of democracy in a deeply divided society such as ours, namely, how to protect the rights of minorities. [Interjections.] With all due respect, the PFP proposes a non-racial Parliament elected on the basis of proportional participation …

Is that not good?

… but not proportional on a group basis.

Political, not race!

Political parties. [Interjections.] Yes, parties! It must be obvious to any student or intelligent observer of the politics of power in Africa that political parties in a divided society will merely reflect the diversity of ethnic groups, tribes or minorities.

What are you afraid of? [Interjections.]

But this reality has been practically substantiated by the experience of the PFP. I want to quote from the Rand Daily Mail, 13 September 1984, under the heading “PFP is open to all races”. The article reads:

Nine months later there was an article in the Argus of 19 June 1985 which read—

[Interjections.] He talked about an open party and a recruitment campaign for members of all races. Why would they be interested in members of all races? Because—

we stand for are shared and supported by the vast majority of the people in South Africa.

That campaign has been a miserable failure! How many Black members do they have after three years of campaigning? [Interjections.]

Order! Some hon members may think it is a good question and others may not. Be that as it may, the hon the Minister may continue.

The fact is that political parties in a divided society will to a large extent merely reflect the diversity of ethnic groups, tribes and minorities. Political alliances may be formed in the shorter term, perhaps because of some single overriding issue such as the desire to overthrow the present Government. However, in the longer term—if there is to be a longer term for such a democracy—these alliances will not survive. [Interjections.] The position of minority groups, such as the Whites, becomes even more untenable. When one considers the proposals of the PFP, one realises that the NP which currently represents the majority of the White electorate will continue to do so indefinitely! [Interjections.]

The majority party of the White electorate will not even get 10% of the seats in their parliament. What is more, the Prime Minister, who will be elected by a majority vote, will appoint members to his Cabinet on the strength of the various political parties in the federal assembly. Only parties with a minimum of 10% or 15% of the seats should be entitled to representation in the Cabinet. In other words, that would disqualify the NP.

So the majority party of the Whites in this country cannot even have a claim to one member in the Cabinet.

But you don’t even do that!

When it comes to the veto proposed by the PFP—I see they still hold onto the veto—a minimum of 10% of the seats is again required for a party to be able to exercise the veto. Again the majority party of the White electorate will not even qualify for a veto. [Interjections.]

The fact remains that the policies of the PFP provide no realistic answers to the real issues at stake in South Africa.

You are a racist!

It is not a question of being a racist or not. These are the realities of plural societies, namely how a minority can be protected effectively from the tyranny of a majority. The policies of the PFP will inevitably lead to a form of majoritarianism which, as Professor Candowrie puts it—

The challenge we face in South Africa is how to create an effective representative democracy, without one group dominating the other. [Interjections.]

The constitutional road that seems best suited for South Africa to travel is to broaden democracy through a formula of power-sharing that will enable all groups and communities in the country to participate in the process of decision-making. The Government is committed to negotiate a system of power-sharing, of representative democracies, with guarantees …

Tell us how you are going to do it!

One can do it if it is based on a group representation, but not if that group is demolished in favour of the party. [Interjections.] That is the only road ahead. That is the only way of protecting minorities and still sharing power within the same country. To oppose or reject power-sharing on this basis is to reduce the political future of South Africa to a choice between the status quo and a revolutionary alliance.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—95: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Golden, S G A; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, E v d M; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schutte, D P A; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

Tellers: Jordaan, A L; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Maree, M D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

NOES—29: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Cronjé, P C; Dalling, D J; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Olivier, N J J; Pienaar, D S; Schwarz, HH; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H. Question affirmed and amendments dropped. Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, it is with pleasure that we on this side of the House support this Bill, and I am glad to see that the hon member for Primrose is also present here this afternoon. He recently made the comment that we on this side of the House—he referred particularly to me—do not contribute to the debate. Perhaps if he listened instead of immersing himself in his own self-importance he would find that we are in fact making quite a constructive contribution to the debates in this House. [Interjections.]

Regretfully, the CSIR has suffered great damage to its image, both locally and overseas, as a result of what I describe as the clumsy handling of the retrenchment of senior personnel who were retrenched as a result of rationalisation and not— this should be stressed time and again—as a result of the inefficiency of the, in many cases, senior personnel who were the unfortunate victims of the rationalisation programme. We support this programme but we feel it could have been handled much more tactfully than it was.

We support this Bill which will lead to the modernisation of legislation in regard to the CSIR. It will also lead to a great improvement in one of the main activities of the CSIR, namely the CSIR’s own efforts in the field of research development and information technology and the transfer of knowledge to the various markets in the private and public sectors. The Bill also makes provision for the separation of the offices of the chairman of the council and that of the president, which is a good thing. It is aimed at easing the management responsibilities of the president and we agree that this is most necessary. It will also lead to a greater measure of management freedom with regard to personnel matters in accordance with the CSIR’s needs within the system of framework autonomy.

A high percentage of the funds of the CSIR is at this stage still granted by the Government and proper parliamentary control should be and is ensured in clause 7(7), which stipulates that the Minister may from time to time reserve any matter provided for in this Bill, as a matter in respect of which a decision of the board shall be subject to the consent of the Minister. The same principle applies to financial matters. Clause 7(5) of the Bill states:

I have expressed the wish that the hon the Deputy Minister will see fit to include someone with personnel management expertise and I am sure this will lead to an elimination of incidents like the retrenchment of staff because of rationalisation.

I have a problem with clause 11(4) which reads:

The Bill also states that membership of the board could vary between five and nine people. A quorum will then be half of the members, which results in five members being a quorum of whom three people out of a board with ten members will be able to make decisions.

It can then even be as low as four which means that two people, including one person who will be presiding at the meeting, will have a casting vote. This will result in two people out of ten actually being able to take decisions on behalf of the board, and I think that possibly this is not the real intention of the legislation and I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to have another look at that.

As far as the conditions of service in clause 12 are concerned, I assume that they are in conformity with the conditions of service for State officials. If they are not, I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to advise in what respect they differ.

Clause 13, which concerns discoveries, inventions and improvements by employees of the CSIR, actually ensures that—

except, obviously, where the research is being conducted for persons outside the RSA. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to consider giving us an assurance that a clause will be added to the Bill or an amendment inserted to stipulate that the discoveries which are initiated in the RSA for the benefit of the RSA, should actually be developed and produced in the RSA, and that the rights to the use of these improvements, patents and inventions should not leave the RSA.

As far as the employees themselves are concerned, I do not know whether this will apply to employees who, although they are employees of the CSIR, develop something after hours. Will that invention then remain in their possession or will it in fact be retained by the board?

I am also concerned about clause 19 in view of the problem I have with the quorum, and I ask the hon the Deputy Minister to clarify that point.

Finally, as far as clause 21 is concerned, I do not quite understand how, if we do not control South West Africa, we can actually force this legislation onto South West Africa. Every time I have tried to put a question to any hon Minister in this House regarding matters in South West Africa, I get the answer back that South West Africa is an independent state and we have no right to this information, unless we communicate directly with them. If that is so, Sir, then I have difficulty in understanding how this legislation will be applied to South West Africa.

I would like to close with an appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister that he give attention to a matter which causes me great concern—and I am sure it is causing a lot of other people a great concern—namely that there is no clause contained in this Bill regarding the equal treatment of our country’s two official languages. I am concerned that the same could happen within the CSIR that has already happened in the standing committees—I can only talk about the ones on which I serve—and that is that the Afrikaans language is being relegated to a secondary language in the Parliament of South Africa in order to accommodate a small number of people, not even a specific people but a group within one of the Houses. I make an earnest appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to give this matter his urgent attention.

Hear, hear!

Let me close, Sir, by saying that we are pleased to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be speaking after the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, and I thank him for his support on behalf of the Official Opposition for the legislation under discussion.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis raised a number of technical problems with the measure concerned. I find it a pity that with the exception of one question on the clause in connection with South West Africa, the CP put no questions at all on the standing committee. They were simply not interested. Now they air their objections to the hon the Deputy Minister in the House.

In order to be able to evaluate the Scientific Research Council Bill, of which the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis explained the contents, it is necessary to test the legislation against the initial goal that gave rise to the establishment of the CSIR. According to the Act that brought the CSIR into existence, the CSIR strives to realise the following main objectives. The first objective is to develop, transfer and apply, by means of interaction, improved or adapted scientific and technological expertise to strengthen the country’s industry, trade and supporting infrastructure and also to protect the environment. The second main objective is to initiate and undertake purposeful, fundamental scientific research and to develop new technologies with a large potential market value. The third objective is to provide comprehensive and purposeful national scientific and technical information services, and the fourth main objective is to support and supplement the advanced training as well as the research and investigative work of scientists and engineers. An enormous task indeed in a rapidly changing technological world! This is a task that demands a particular strategic approach, especially when seen against the background of the growing hostility towards our country, as well as our own unique population structure and the demands that these quantified factors make on us.

In its latest annual report the CSIR states that in order to attain these objectives it is striving towards being a market-orientated organisation. It is also striving to support South African industry in order to help our industrial sector earn its optimal share in world trade, make decisions with regard to suitable contributions in the research field, maintain the highest level of scientific and professional integrity in all its transactions and ensure that the result of the expertise of the CSIR is applied in our markets. Furthermore, the CSIR is constantly striving to maintain and renew its resources in order to meet the needs of the market, as well as to make its facilities and people available to the public as well as the private sector as the need arises.

In order to meet these requirements, the CSIR is required to adapt continually to changing circumstances. The president of the CSIR, Dr Garbers—I see he is sitting in the official’s bay— expresses it as follows in his annual review:

Dr Garbers continues as follows:

It is clear from the preceding quotation that the CSIR had to adopt a new market-orientated approach. This required the Scientific Research Council Act, No 82 of 1984, to be revised in order to ensure that the CSIR enjoyed the greatest measure of freedom and independence, together with the necessary parliamentary control of public funds allocated to the organisation.

The Bill before the House includes the following: Firstly, a clear distinction between the CSIR Council as decision-making body and the CSIR as a business organisation; secondly, the separation of the offices of chairman of the CSIR Council and president of the CSIR, which, at present, are held by one person; and thirdly, much greater autonomy in business matters. The CSIR Council will, for example, be able to decide about matters such as relations with educational organisations, the training and remuneration of personnel, the purchase of property, the borrowing and investment of funds and the exploitation of technical innovations.

However, in terms of the Bill the Minister retains certain functions which enable him to exercise control. For example, clause 7 (7) (a) provides as follows:

I want to emphasise the word “any”—

Similarly, clause 7 (7) (b) provides for the Minister in concurrence with the Minister of Finance to have similar powers with regard to financial affairs.

Fourthly, the Bill makes provision for the authorisation of the CSIR to buy shares in private companies which are involved in the development or the exploitation of technology. With regard to this matter, the situation can indeed arise in which the CSIR enters into a partnership with a private firm, which could jeopardise the effective access of other competitive enterprises to the CSIR. However, it is not possible to regulate such a situation—if it were to arise—by means of legislation since the way it is dealt with will differ from case to case and a rigid approach could defeat the whole object of the legislation. Therefore, satisfactory regulations in this regard rest with the CSIR itself, and I believe that the Council as decision-making body will enter the market-place with great circumspection and responsibility and will manage this matter in a similar manner.

I should like to repeat that it is indeed one of the CSIR’s aims to maintain the highest degree of scientific and professional integrity in all its transactions. This aim was confirmed in evidence given before the standing committee. The CSIR has now almost completed its restructuring phase, and I should like to wish the Council, and especially Dr Garbers as the president, and his personnel, everything of the best with the new course that the CSIR has embarked upon.

It is a pleasure for me to support this legislation on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to support this Bill on behalf of the PFP. The CSIR has an absolutely vital role to play in the developing economy of South Africa. It stands at the cutting edge of technological development in this country, and in that context deserves the full support of this Parliament.

It is perhaps appropriate on an occasion like this—it is very seldom that Parliament has the opportunity to focus on the CSIR as such—to consider the importance of technology in our society in the future. In his book The World and South Africa in the 1990s, Clem Sunter very eloquently describes the elements which will make up a winning nation in the years approaching the turn of the century.

He identifies six elements which make up a winning nation. Two of these worth mentioning in this context are education and, allied to education, high technology capability in a society and the striving to be a global player. In those two respects, the CSIR has an absolutely vital role to play in South Africa.

Mr Sunter also identifies the activity on the technological front at the moment as being in one of its most innovative and exciting periods. I quote from his book:

We have to take account of that. In his book Mr Sunter identifies four particular technological areas which are going to be critical in the world economy at the turn of the century. He identifies the microelectronic field, specifically the computer and transistor, which he puts on a par with the discoveries of the printing press, steam engine, car, jet and television.

He identifies biotechnology too. I want to quote just one interesting illustration of the biotechnological field:

They may be able to produce an enzyme that converts starch into ethanol and do away with the reliance on non-renewable sources like coal and oil.

He also talks in this vein about photonics and ceramics and ends by saying:

It is against that background that we must value the role of the CSIR in our society and give it every support, including welcoming the developments which are now before us to make the CSIR more market oriented, better funded and better able to acquire the services of top rate scientists.

This Bill represents a change in direction, as identified by the hon the Minister when he introduced it. It has always been the function of the CSIR to fund and stimulate research and to transfer knowledge to the private sector to enable that research to be commercially exploited. This Bill focuses particularly on the second aspect.

This Bill will allow the CSIR to become more market oriented in its functioning and also to become self-financing to a greater degree; enable it to do more contract research and undertake contract services in its field; to obtain and hold shares in private companies and corporations; and to invest its reserve funds at its discretion. On the one hand, this is an important new direction, recognising realities in this field. At the same time it holds certain dangers. It is a matter of concern to me what the relationship with the private sector is going to be when the CSIR plays a more private, commercial role.

The question of equity in its relationships with firms in the private sector is a matter of concern— striking the right balance between doing things on its own account and doing things on behalf of the private sector; striking the right balance between doing things for a particular firm and not disadvantaging other firms in the same field at the same time.

I have every confidence in the bona fides of the CSIR in this respect, but it is something of a minefield when technology can make or break a company and when access to the very latest in technology can make a world of difference to the fortunes of a particular company. The CSIR will have a particular responsibility to sort out its mechanisms and its relationship with the private sector in the future in terms of these new provisions. We must encourage partnership between the CSIR and the private sector but not competition.

In this context I would like to highlight just one particular example. I do not do so in a spirit of criticism to introduce a false note into this debate, but I do it merely to illustrate the great difficulty which can arise between the CSIR and the private sector, now that it is moving in this new direction. This is an example of which I believe the directorate of the CSIR is aware. The National Research Institute of Oceanology, which is a sub-branch of the CSIR, as I understand it, is doing commercial surveys and competing for commercial projects against commercial firms and, allegedly, is by implication doing these commercial surveys by using taxpayers’ money and equipment and facilities in direct and fierce competition with, and to the detriment of, particular private firms also seeking that work. This is alleged to be unfair competition in the particular instance to which I am referring. Let me be specific and give the example; it makes it easier to understand the situation.

Mosref, which is a Soekor subsidiary, has just awarded the NRIO an underwater survey in Mossel Bay which is allegedly of a purely commercial nature. The aggrieved gentleman who raised this with me indicates that the NRIO works in a protected environment and has undercut commercial prices by using equipment bought with taxpayers’ money. This contract allegedly involves no research at all and is a purely straightforward mapping contract which can be carried out by any one of several commercial survey companies. The Mosref contract was apparently awarded without any formal tender processes being conducted and, after the contract had been awarded to the NRIO, the NRIO approached commercial companies to quote on doing parts of the contract for which they do not have the facilities to carry them out; in other words, in spite of being awarded a contract, they could in fact allegedly carry out only parts of the work.

Obviously, if these allegations are correct, we have the situation where the NRIO as a nonprofit company is competing with the private sector on the basis of its being subsidised by the taxpayer. Commercial companies, on the other hand, which spend a great deal of money to be viable, taking on small, difficult and unrewarding contracts to stay in business, find that they are up against very heavy and unfair competition if they have to compete against the CSIR’s facilities from time to time when a profitable commercial contract becomes available.

That illustrates the minefield. I can only express the hope that instances like this will be handled with due sensitivity to the problems involved, and that as we progress, regulations and principles will be laid down to avoid the problem of falling into this minefield and to develop to a maximum degree a positive partnership relationship with the private sector.

We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Constantia most sincerely for supporting this Bill. He spoke at length about what he considers to be a minefield. I just want to tell him that I do not think it is quite so critical because we have a Competition Board which could certainly deal effectively with any possible conflicts that could arise. I think we share the same viewpoint when I tell him that I do not think it is essential that we settle these things by way of legislation.

It has been stated here that the legislation before the House at present serves to effect a change in direction and is aimed at modernising the CSIR. It will probably not be the first time that a change in direction is being effected in Pretoria which will be to the benefit of South Africa, nor will it probably be the last change in direction to be effected in Pretoria to the benefit of this country and people.

According to the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister, one of the main activities of the CSIR is to convey its own capability in the sphere of research, development and information technology, and the knowledge thereof, to the various markets in the private and public sectors. The private sector is therefore going to benefit from this new CSIR. I think it would therefore be wrong to regard the CSIR as competition. This service should rather be seen as a step forward which can assist in securing the future of the RSA and its inhabitants in what is often a turbulent world. The more market-oriented functioning means financial relief for the taxpayer because the CSIR will, to a greater extent, finance itself by way of contract research and services. I trust that the CSIR will make use of the power being granted to it by this legislation, viz to take up shares in the private companies and corporations. This greater involvement, which we know will take place with circumspection, will assist in meeting the technological challenges of the future with confidence.

The fact is that South Africa is becoming increasingly involved in a situation of increased isolation in the world context. This causes markets to shrink and results in essential technological exchanges which would normally occur, not taking place, or taking place in a diminishing world market. By contrast South Africa offers excellent opportunities. Our country has a well-developed infrastructure. We have the ability to deal with and tackle large and complex development projects.

Order! The noise level in the House is too high again. The hon member may proceed.

The RSA has the most advanced research and technologically-based institutions in Africa. There is an abundance of raw materials in our country. There is a potentially large African market right on our doorstep. If all these plus factors are taken into account, one almost feels excited about the change in direction that has now taken place in the CSIR. I want to express the hope that this amendment will contribute to the stimulation of industrial growth on our subcontinent.

My best wishes accompany the staff and the president of the CSIR, Dr Garbers, in the task that lies ahead of them, which will specifically be to the benefit of the younger generation in this country. It is a wonderful privilege for me to support this positive Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr Chairman, any person who has visited the CSIR building in Pretoria, who has met and spoken to the staff and scientists and who has been privileged to take part in some of their meetings and debates, cannot but, first of all, be impressed by what they are doing and secondly, support this Bill.

It was my privilege to attend such a meeting and to provide a small input. I expressed concern about the problems we had in the medical field with the medical equipment, medical instruments and medical needs that were so vital for the continuation of good medical practice in South Africa.

The hon member Mr Aucamp has mentioned the threat of sanctions and the fact that some of these materials may not be available to South Africa in future. I was amazed at the response I received from numerous organisations and private companies in the form of suggestions, ideas and the facilities with which to contribute to meeting many of these vital needs. Therefore, I thought of the problem we have in that there does not seem to be co-operation between the CSIR and private groups. If there is no kind of co-ordination, how can this be done? Let me give hon members an example. If we in South Africa had to provide our own prosthetic heart valves, I believe we would have the technology, ability and the manpower to prepare and make these valves. A stream of people came to me talking about metals and plastics, but nobody could co-ordinate this project and nobody knew where to look for the money.

I therefore believe that this Bill we are debating today is very important. The CSIR, which is a funding organisation, a research co-ordination body and in its own right a research group, has now been given the opportunity to deal with private organisations. It can now also create its own capital to provide the money for future research. I hope they will be able not only to manufacture these goods themselves—this will not be very easy—but to manufacture them in association and partnership with private groups and individuals. In this I see a great future, because it is of vital importance that this need be looked at in view not only of the threat of sanctions, but also of expense. We import 80% to 90% of these instruments and materials from America and they are becoming so dollar-expensive that we in South Africa must make timely provision to manufacture them ourselves.

I therefore suggest that the CSIR assist us by forming a co-ordinating committee, with a primary function to identify vital needs. As a second function it should identify what can be made in South Africa cost-effectively and what cannot be made in South Africa because it is too expensive. The committee should also find out in their co-operation with overseas countries if there is a way in which they can get licences from those countries to manufacture some of these materials.

We in South Africa are fortunate enough to have university medical schools with magnificent bioengineering departments. We can make artificial limbs, gibs, joints and valves. Up to now we have had a co-ordination and identification problem. We have also not had the financial grouping to be able to prepare a solution.

With the proper development of the CSIR as a leading force, we will be able to make provision to supply many of our own products in the medical field. This would not only be because they might not be made available to this country, but because it would be cost-effective to manufacture them here. In that way we will help the people of South Africa. I am therefore very happy and honoured to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank hon members for their support of this Bill. Dr Garbers is with us today in the officials’ bay. The hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture informed me just before he left that Dr Garbers was his chemistry professor at the University of Stellenbosch. My wife was also a student of Professor Garbers. He was a member of a department at Stellenbosch that has produced men of tremendous importance for the country. To mention only two, there are the President of the CSIR and the Vice Rector of the University of Stellenbosch. There are other important men who were also students at that department at that time.

Since its establishment in 1943 the CSIR has come a long way and after the publication of the White Paper on future industrial development in South Africa the CSIR itself carried out an investigation because in the White Paper specific tasks relating to technology and the transfer of technology were entrusted to the CSIR. With the help of consultants the CSIR instituted a process of self-examination—it was undoubtedly a painful process—as to how it should structure itself in order to carry out this task that the Government had entrusted to it. As set out in the 1987 annual report with which we have been provided, the CSIR was previously geared to the research process as such, and therefore input-oriented. In future the CSIR is to focus on the development and application of research. They therefore wish to be output-oriented. The CSIR transformed its 21 national research institutes into 11 divisions after in-depth studies had been undertaken and surveys carried out of the country’s technological and scientific needs for the future.

The objects of the CSIR are set out in clause 3 of the Bill and I think it is important to quote them here:

I stress the word “research”—

The CSIR therefore regard itself as an instrument of the Government in the development of the country through research. The word “research” is specified among the definitions in clause 1 as:

Briefly, then, this means that the self-imposed task of the CSIR is summarised in these definitions. I wish to emphasise that the CSIR carried out the investigation and took the decisions itself and that this was not imposed by the Government. The Government merely granted its approval to the restructuring of the CSIR when it had been finalised—I was present at the time.

It is a pleasure and a privilege to say a few words about the CSIR on this important occasion. I regard the CSIR as a very important organisation in this country. Personally, I also feel close to it because many of my voters and friends are employees of the CSIR and I myself was also trained as a natural scientist.

†I want to refer to the speeches of hon members. Firstly I want to thank the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis for his contribution. He raised quite a number of points to which I shall return.

*In the first place he referred to the discharging of senior staff and advanced certain objections to the way this had been done. This is a private CSIR matter and I am not going to comment on it. The CSIR is run by a very able board. If hon members examine the annual report they will note the quality of people serving on the board, and I should like to mention them by name. The members are Messrs Eugene van As, P J van Rooy and R A Plumbridge and Drs J A Stegmann, C van der Poll, Bill Venter, H B Dyer and Leon Knoll, and Dr Garbers himself.

Of course a change in a major organisation is always a painful process and I am sure that it was not easy for the CSIR, its board and its top management to take decisions that would jeopardise the position of several senior members of staff. However, I am also aware that Dr Garbers has consistently received co-operation at top management level and also at the ordinary management level for the introduction of the new system. I have been informed that all members of staff have consented to the structural changes, in the knowledge that the posts of some of them would be jeopardised.

This is very important. They were therefore part of the decision-making process and part of the decision that some of them would be phased out as far as certain posts were concerned. Therefore I think that the approach of the CSIR is the most acceptable and sensitive approach one could adopt in a case of this nature.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis referred to the composition of the board of the CSIR, and asked that experts in the field of staff management be appointed to the board of the CSIR. I just wish to say that top people in this country who are at the head of large organisations are already members of the council of the SCIR and we really regard them as experts in this field. Therefore I do not think we can give further consideration to that proposal by the hon member.

The hon member also referred to clauses 11 (3) and 11 (4). Clause 11 (3) provides that:

Clause 11 (4), in turn, provides that a decision of the board can be taken by a resolution of the majority of the members who were present at a meeting of the board. The council members at a meeting may therefore, if one takes clause 7 (2) into account, vary between certain numbers he mentioned. His objection is that a small number of members present could in fact take a major decision on behalf of the CSIR. I spoke to Dr Garbers about this. In all the years he has been president a vote has never been taken at a CSIR meeting. That is important. Therefore these matters are exhaustively considered until consensus is reached. Secondly, in all the years he has been president of the CSIR, meetings have at all times—except when people have been overseas or ill—been attended by virtually all members. These meetings are convened at the beginning of the year—actually at the end of the previous year—and are booked in advance in these people’s diaries, because these are important and busy people. The people do their best to be present. Therefore there is no real question of large-scale absences. One cannot draw a major conclusion from a small sample, Sir, but I take it that the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis did not attend 50% of the meetings of the standing committee on this matter. That is indeed a small sample—one out of two. I take it, however, that he attends the meetings regularly.

The hon member also referred to clause 13, which relates to the rights vesting in the CSIR. In terms of clause 13 (1) the rights in all discoveries and inventions by employees of the CSIR in the course of their employment as employees of the CSIR, shall vest in the CSIR. That is normal procedure. If the research has to do with one’s employment, and one works in the evening or at home during weekends and discovers something, the rights to that will vest in one’s employer. That is the case with all our organisations. I see that the hon member agrees with that. One has achieved that level of skill and insight because one one works for the organisation and makes use of its facilities. It is therefore only right that those rights should vest in the organisation. Of course, if one pursues a different activity that has nothing to do with the normal activities of the CSIR and one makes a discovery in that field in one’s backyard or study, which is in no way related to one’s work at the CSIR, the CSIR will certainly not claim any rights to that discovery.

The hon member asked that the benefits of such discoveries be developed strictly for the benefit of the country, and he asked that this be done in South Africa. I wish to say that normal business principles have to apply here. The CSIR and the country must also earn money by way of this work. Just as we import technology, we export technology, and in this way one can earn royalties in that one places the technology in the hands of other people who develop it. We want to stimulate the market orientation, and the people who finance the research must be able to derive maximum benefit from it. In this way the country, too, will derive the maximum benefit. I think this is the principle that should apply here.

The hon member also referred to clause 19 and said that he had difficulties with the transfer of activities with reference to his problem in connection with a quorum. I have dealt with the problem of the quorum. The hon member is nodding his head. He appears to be satisfied with my explanation.

The hon member went on to refer to clause 21. It contains the provision that this legislation also applies in South Africa. It is of course owing to a proclamation in South West Africa that the laws of South Africa apply there, except when they themselves have passed other legislation to replace certain specific South African laws. In fact this applies with reference to all South African laws except when it is specifically provided that a certain law does not apply in South West Africa. That, then, is why it is expressly stated in this way in this Bill.

The hon member also mentioned the issue of equal treatment of the two official languages by the CSIR. I have experience of our meetings of how CSIR are held. Minutes of the meetings are kept alternately in English and Afrikaans. In terms of the old system of research institutes— this system still applies until the end of this month—all the managerial meetings are held alternately in Afrikaans and English. The annual reports are printed in both English and Afrikaans. All notices are distributed in English and in Afrikaans, and Dr Garbers assures me that full language equality is officially maintained, while every member of the CSIR has the right to use the language he prefers.

Then, too, I should like to thank the hon member Mr Hattingh for his support. His speech ranged so widely and he spoke so ably that I just wish to say that I agree with everything he said. The hon member for Constantia referred to the important role that the CSIR will play in the development of the country. He spoke of the importance of biotechnology, and specifically raised the point of co-operation between the CSIR and the private sector. I want to tell him that when a private enterprise makes a request of the CSIR and finances it to perform certain work for it, the ordinary relationship of entrepreneur and client applies. The ordinary situation of confidentiality applies. When the client pays for certain developments or inventions, naturally he retains the normal rights in that regard. The hon member referred to a grey area—this is a difficult sphere, I concede—namely the area in which a Government institution or an institution which, like the CSIR, obtains money from Parliament, ought not to compete with bodies in the private sector. I wholeheartedly agree that the CSIR must be very careful and should not compete with research institutions that receive no money by way of parliamentary appropriation. I have discussed this with Dr Garbers. They are very sensitive about this. He tells me that they handle approximately 2 500 contracts per annum, only about 15 of which are of this nature. With reference to those contracts—about 15 of them per annum— Dr Garbers states that they are particularly sensitive.

The hon member referred to surveys at Mossel Bay. I do not have the details of that specific contract available to me at this point. We shall inform the hon member in that regard in writing. I hope that will satisfy him.

The hon member for Pretoria Central referred to the change in course which will be to the benefit of the country and the greater involvement of the CSIR in the private sector. He also spoke about the remarkable capacity of the South African community to initiate and complete projects. In this regard I really want to agree with the hon member. Time and again we have seen the astonishment of overseas countries at South Africa’s ability to tackle projects such as Sasol, Mosgas and so on.

I also wish to extend my thanks to the hon member for Parktown for his support of this measure. He referred to the importance of being self-sufficient with reference to the biomedical world. He also referred to the need for a coordinator in regard to the manufacture of special equipment such as heart valves, and the preparation of certain chemicals needed for heart operations and so on. The hon member is a specialist in his field and has extensive expertise. He is also a man of considerable stature. I think that we can raise this specific matter with the CSIR. I shall also request Dr Garbers to write to the hon member on our behalf as regards the possibility of the CSIR playing this co-ordinating role. I think he has raised a very valid point and I wish to thank him for it.

Unfortunately my time has expired. Once again I wish to say that it was a pleasure to deal with this legislation. I associate myself with hon members in wishing the CSIR everything of the best and every success for the next 43 years. I hope that when they look back over 43 years they will be satisfied with the success they have achieved.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I do not think the motion requires any discussion. The standing committee was unable to reach consensus. I just want to mention that we on this side were not in favour of this Bill being passed, and we shall debate the matter in due course if the Bill comes before the House.

Mr Chairman, the report is going to make it possible for this Bill to come before the House again to be discussed properly. As the hon member for Barberton has said, it is not necessary to discuss its merits now. It will in fact be possible for this House to consider it in depth at a later stage. I therefore support the report, which will in fact make it possible to go ahead with this important Bill.

Mr Chairman, we are opposed to the adoption of this report as we do not believe that this Bill should be proceeded with in its present form. We opposed the Bill in the standing committee for four main reasons.

Firstly, we were concerned about the nature of the institution to which, in terms of the Bill, loans would be made. Allow me to refer to clause 2, which states the following:

We have considerable difficulty with that because we realise that large sums of money will be involved. We believe the Bill is not sufficiently specific in describing the institution which would be responsible for handling this money as “any financing institution”. One assumes this could include a private limited company or some other such institution, which would not have the necessary controls and financial restrictions normally expected of a financial institution as such.

Our second problem relates to the purpose of loans. The Bill specifies that they should be used for farming or agricultural purposes. We would like to be satisfied that that would, in fact, be the case, and that money would be lent only to bona fide Black fanners who need this assistance.

In the third place, we would want a monitoring mechanism to exist in order to ensure, once the loan is made, that the money is used for the purpose for which it was lent, and not for any other purpose.

We are not opposed to the concept of money being loaned to deserving farmers who require financial assistance, but our fourth word of caution in respect of the Bill as it stands relates to the question of priorities. We do not believe that this has been sufficiently well addressed. Obviously funds are limited and there are many demands on those funds for agricultural purposes, but nowhere is provision made for the actual determination of priorities, for instance between farmers in independent Black homelands …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I submit, with all due respect to the hon member for Pinelands, that he is in fact out of order. All that is being debated at this stage is whether the report should be adopted or not. The hon member is now discussing the contents of the legislation. I respectfully submit, Sir, that that will only become relevant if the report is adopted by the House. Therefore the debate on that will take place in the second phase and not in this phase. My submission to you, therefore, is that the hon member is out of order in the argument he is advancing at the moment.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this point of order? The report recommends that the Bill should be proceeded with. In the standing committee, not only we, but also members from one or possibly both of the other Houses, objected. We are objecting to the fact that this Bill should be proceeded with in this House. In order to explain why we believe the House should not proceed with this Bill, it is necessary to discuss the contents of the Bill to a degree in order to give our reasons for wanting to oppose the reading of the Bill. There is no other way in which this debate can conducted.

Order! I think the hon member for Yeoville might like to put it differently.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to put it differently, but may I, with respect, add something? I want to know what one can actually discuss if one cannot discuss this.

There is a report which recommends that this Bill should be proceeded with. One can say either that it should be proceeded with or that it should not. In order to decide whether or not to proceed with it, one has to know what it is! One has to decide why one wants to proceed with it or why one does not. So far, nobody on the Government’s side has given a single reason as to why it should be proceeded with. We are now giving reasons why it should not be proceeded with. If this is not in order, then nothing is ever in order, because then one cannot allow any discussion here at all. In fact, the hon members should not be sitting here. We should all be going home.

That is not a bad idea.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, the only issue in this debate at the moment is whether the standing committee’s report should be adopted or not. [Interjections.]

That is the whole idea!

Exactly, Mr Chairman: that is the point. The debating issue is not the contents of the Bill. That matter is introduced in the second phase. If this report is adopted, then, and only then, the contents of the Bill will be discussed by this House. Say, for example, the impossible happens and this House decides not to adopt the report, then the entire contents of the Bill will be irrelevant. With all due respect to the hon member, there should be no discussion on the contents of the Bill at this stage. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member, if he says one cannot discuss what we say one can discuss, what he allows us to discuss?

Order! It seems to me that everybody has had his say. Perhaps we should now come to a decision. The situation is this: The hon member for Pinelands should indicate reasons why this report should or should not be adopted. How he does it is his prerogative, but he should certainly at least couple his arguments to the question of whether it should be adopted or not. The hon member for Pinelands may proceed.

Well, Mr Chairman, I have almost concluded what I wish to say, but I want to reiterate that my very first statement was that we were opposed to the adoption of this report. I then went on to spell out the reasons why we were opposed to it, particularly as the recommendation of the report was that the Bill be proceeded with. In opposing the adoption, I merely wished to justify why I was opposed to it.

For the reasons I have given, we believe that the Bill should be redrafted to take account of the points I have mentioned. As I indicated, we are therefore not prepared to accept the report.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinelands put the reasons why this report should not be adopted very adequately and effectively.

In view of the attitude of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, for whom I have a great love, but who sometimes gets a little confused, I want to put some other facts before the House.

Firstly, the committee dealt with this matter over a long period of time. This committee repeatedly asked for information in relation to matters pertaining to this Bill in order to enable it to decide what should be done, and every opportunity was given to the Land Bank to produce that information. Today all the information has not been given to us; material information has not been given to us at all. [Interjections.] I want to say to the chairman of the standing committee that he should get up himself and say that he does not want this report to be adopted, because that is not the way in which somebody who wants legislation passed should treat a committee.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware of the fact that the initial allegation that the information had not been made available to one member of our committee has been proved incorrect and that the hon member has admitted that in all likelihood, it was simply a mistake that was made, and that he did receive that evidence within a few days of having asked for it?

It was the hon member himself who made a mistake in that committee, as he may well remember. [Interjections.] He should cast his mind back to his own action. I am talking not about his faux pas, but about other people’s request for information, and I think he knows that.

I shall go one step further. I ask the hon member who has just asked me a question—I also ask this of the chairman, the hon member of Vasco— whether at any stage during the time when the evidence was presented to us and questions were asked, we were ever given information in regard to the role that the Development Bank had played in respect of matters of this kind, and in regard to the requests of the Development Bank. I discovered the true facts only today, and they were never even put before the committee. The thing is an utter disaster, because every time something in respect of the Land Bank comes before us, we cannot get to the bottom of what is really happening. [Interjections.]

One needs to say here and now that one of the reasons why this legislation could not be dealt with is the very problem which relates to everything that pertains to the Land Bank. The Land Bank is an institution that should serve the farmers of South Africa. It should make money available to the farmers of South Africa. In its action and its administration, however, the Land Bank does not fulfil that function adequately. That was demonstrated during this particular committee hearing, as well as on previous occasions. I do not want to raise the matter of the flat in the Twin Towers and that debacle again, but there is a whole history of debacles in relation to the Land Bank and the way in which it treats this Parliament and its committees, and it is time that somebody called a halt to it. [Interjections.] We had not intended to raise this until the hon member decided to query our right to challenge the adoption of this report.

I must tell hon members why the House of Representatives would not accept it. They would not pass it for a very simple reason, namely that they feel that they as citizens of South Africa are not getting a fair deal from the Land Bank. They asked for the information, which they eventually received at the last minute, as hon members might remember. That was when the document was given to me at the meeting, after we had waited months for it. The hon members of the House of Representatives as South Africans felt that they were not getting a square deal from the Land Bank. [Interjections.] That hon member says he is also not getting a deal from them. That may be so. He should vote with us. [Interjections.]

In those circumstances I think hon members will understand that even though this Bill may be proceeded with because the majority will outvote us in this House, the reality is that if something is not done about the way in which the affairs of the Land Bank are conducted in South Africa, all the farmers of South Africa are going to suffer as a result.

Mr Chairman, I think that was quite an unfair attack on the Land Bank. I know that the hon member for Yeoville does not often come out of Yeoville to go and see what the Land Bank does for the farmers in the rural areas. I really do think that was a little unfair.

I think that for a long time the hon members of the PFP have been preventing the commercial farmers in the national states from obtaining assistance. The Blacks are being prevented from getting what the Whites and the Coloureds in a White area get. I am making it very clear. They are always the first to fight for the Blacks, but today they are already preventing commercial farmers in the national states from obtaining the same service as the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians in White South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether the reality is not that the Black commercial farmers in those states are at present receiving the same assistance from the Development Bank? Is that not a fact?

The hon member is correct. The Development Bank was assisting the national states, but problems have arisen. To a certain extent the bank felt that it did not suit it, since the Land Bank, which deals with agricultural problems, really possesses all the knowledge. This matter was investigated. It was not the Land Bank that decided; the matter was investigated by a committee which submitted a report. The hon member for Yeoville knows that. The committee recommended that the Land Bank intervene in this matter. The hon member is also aware that the Land Bank cannot intervene across borders. That is why this Bill is before us, to make it possible for the Land Bank also to give assistance to the commercial farmers by way of the financial institutions in the national states …

It is not correct to say financial institutions. That does not appear in the legislation. That is one of the things we asked for.

Let us take another look at the principle of the matter. Criticism has been voiced; I know the hon member for Pinelands also mentioned it here. Thus far the Development Bank has been working through Trekkor in the Transkei, Agribank in Bophuthatswana, Agriven in Venda and the Ciskei Agricultural Bank in Ciskei. They have therefore been working through existing financial institutions.

The hon member for Yeoville and I served together on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The hon member will recall that when we heard the evidence of Foreign Affairs, he asked what assistance to the national states was doing under Foreign Affairs. They are not geared for that. I remember it well. We can look it up one day. That is how it came about that those activities were transferred to the Development Bank. The same principle applies here. Just as certain development activities did not belong with Foreign Affairs and were transferred to the Development Bank, we want to transfer certain activities regarding commercial agriculture which do not belong with the Development Bank to the Land Bank. [Interjections.]

The hon member also said that information about the assistance to Coloured and Indian farmers was provided later. Out of the applications which commercial Coloured farmers—I want to reite rate—commercial farmers handed in to the Land Bank, 80% were approved. I think in the case of commercial Indian farmers 83% of their applications were approved. I think the Land Bank is fulfilling its function of assisting commercial farmers of all races in South Africa. During sittings of the standing committee I heard arguments about the allocation of land to Coloured farmers. I do not think that is relevant here. What is relevant here—I want to conclude with this because we shall probably debate this Bill at length in due course—is that this Bill is being introduced to make it possible for the Land Bank to assist in financing the commercial farmers in the national states.

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

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I am happy to announce that the LP has defeated the confused party in the by-election. [Interjections.]

Where are they?

They are still trying to find their way. [Interjections.]

†We express our appreciation for and confidence in the hon the Minister of the Budget for having done his utmost in trying to bring about general improvements, not only within the various departments of the Administration: House of Representatives, but in the quality of life of our community in general. His concern for the community is expressed by his continued presence in the flood-stricken areas of his constituency. His efforts to press for the necessary increases in financial contributions for our various departments prove his concern for the upliftment of and an improved lifestyle for our community.

However, we also wish to express our disappointment—which I do not think we can lay at his doorstep—about the increases which our various departments have received. The increases are still not enough. They are but a mere drop in the ocean when we compare our allocations to those of the departments of the Administration: House of Assembly.

We in this party do not believe in untruths and sensationalism. What we want is power—power to do things and so shape the future of a people who, in the past, have been trodden upon and exploited by Whites, especially those pink liberals who have used not only us, but Blacks as well for their own selfish ends. Our dignity as a people has been stripped from us, leaving us naked. Our rights as citizens have been ignored and millions of rands cannot compensate for that or buy us off.

Other groups want to exploit the policy of our party, the Labour Party of South Africa, and eventually take control of our areas. Why do the paternalistic White liberals not open their private properties to those who are forced to squat? We are sick and tired of continually giving. The time has now arrived when we will use all legal ways and means in order to get what we want for our community.

We will only negotiate with those who are in power in order to gain power for ourselves. In this day and age there is no place in our community for opposition bodies, because they are not only creating confusion but are also mere obstacles in our path towards the goal of freedom. Typical is the so-called opposition whose members are a bunch of disillusioned and wayward politicians such as those in the Freedom Party and in the UDP. They are not worth even a packet of peanuts. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Silvertown refers to the Freedom Party and I would like to put it on record that the FP took the LP to court for corruption …

Order! The hon member for Tafelberg must please assist me so that I can help her. A point of order does not have anything to do with the contents of a speech and it only concerns a Standing Order. When I call the hon member to order, she cannot keep on talking but must listen to what I have to say. The hon member for Silvertown may proceed.

I recently opened the latest edition of Who's Who in South African Politics and under the various political parties one finds their national executive, leaders, chairmen, etc. The FP, however, has only one executive member who is the leader, the secretary, the treasury, the whole bang lot. The FP is the lady sitting over there, Sir. [Interjections.]

We shall see what happens at the next election.

I should now like to refer to the other confused party. They recently held an inaugural conference in Durban. I do not know who is their national chairman, leader or whatever, but I want to read from their programme. It mentions the opening devotion, the welcoming of delegates and the introduction by their national chairman, Mr Morris Fynn. [Interjections.] Then we get to the opening remarks by their national chairman, Mr Peter Marais. I do not know who is the chairman of that party. [Interjections.] In order to gain popularity, they sent out invitations to Inkatha, to an affiliate youth body of the UDF, to Professor Viljoen and also to Mr Pat Poovalingam.

To which party are you referring? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is not referring to the Freedom Party.

Mr Frank Mdlosi, the Minister of Health of KwaZulu was asked to address them. He read the speech of Chief Gatsha Buthelezi who tore this confused party to pieces. He said he would have nothing to do with any political organisation which is associated with the tricameral system. Further on in this programme one finds the vote of thanks by Mr Charles Redcliffe and then that of Mr Jac Rabie. Mr Poovalingam, the leader of the PRP, was one of the guest speakers. Instead of praising the party that invited him to their conference, he praised the LP. Mr Kippen spoke about the National Council Bill, but he did not know what he was talking about.

This conference was scheduled to start at 9 o’clock and end at 6 o’clock. They had lunch at the hotel and after the conference there was a disco, with the result that the conference ended at 12.24 am. They had to elect officials and could not do that. Some young members of the UDF had also been invited and they turned up. They had replied by way of a pamphlet, and I shall read to hon members what they had to say in regard to the UDP’s acceptance of the Freedom Charter. This is what they said:

They then turn to the UDP’s acceptance of the Freedom Charter. I quote their reply:

That clearly shows, Sir, that the UDP does not know which way it is going. That is why it suffered such a heavy defeat.

With regard to the hon the Minister’s budget speech, it is encouraging that despite the antiincrease stand taken by the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Finance, our various departments have received increases, especially the Department of Education and Culture. The people can see where we stand and they can see that we are carrying out our promises to grant monthly increases to our pensioners and our disabled—despite what the hon the Minister of Finance has said.

We should also like to express our disappointment, however, at the fact that the personnel of the various departments have been forgotten. It should be remembered that these officials have been given the responsibility for clearing the mess which occurred during the period subsequent to the abolition of the CRC. Whether we like it or not, and contradictory as it may seem, since our entry into the tricameral system—which we have still not fully accepted—we have used the system to our own ends and have been responsible for bringing about the numerous changes and improvements for our community. Had we remained outside the system it would have been a loss not only to our community but to the whole of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I have another announcement to make. It is that the hon member for Rietvlei, Mr Harold Ross, was involved in an accident this morning. His car is a write-off and he is in a serious condition in Tygerberg Hospital.

Mr Chairman, the Ministers in the Ministers’ Council do not normally participate in the budget debate of an hon colleague in the Ministers’ Council. I do, however, have the permission of the relevant hon Minister to make a brief contribution to this debate today.

Firstly I just want to make an announcement. With reference to the announcement last week that a one-off bonus of R60 is to be paid to social pensioners of all races during October 1988, the hon the Ministers entrusted with the welfare of the other population groups and I made representations to the hon the Minister of Finance to have the bonus paid out at an earlier date. It is a pleasure for me to announce that the hon the Minister of Finance has agreed to make the funds available so that bonuses can now be paid out during May 1988.

Sir, on 10 June 1985 the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said that the Labour Party had committed itself to the overall improvement of the living conditions of our people and that with a view to achieving that objective, we were going to use every means at our disposal to fight poverty and all its concomitant aspects. My colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, has given substance to that promise. I want to express my heartfelt thanks and sincere appreciation to the hon the Minister for having announced that my department’s budget has been increased by 33,85%. In other words, my department’s budget for the 1988-89 financial year amounts to R735 927 000.

When we took over at that time, my department’s budget for the 1984-85 financial year was R253 785 000, which means that in the past three years there has been an increase of more than R500 million. Who must we thank for this? The Labour Party, of course. [Interjections.]

I am elated at the success we achieved at Ceres yesterday when we won the Bokkeveld constituency for the first time. I wish all hon members could have been there when the polling booths closed. There was great merry-making. At approximately 02h45 this morning, when the announcement was made, more than a thousand people gathered before the magistrates’ office. It was a wonderful feeling. We have never had festivities to equal those of last night. Even the clergyman kicked up his heels, with everyone having a whale of a time.

The hon the Minister did a great deal to help us achieve our victory. According to TV reports the Official Opposition’s candidate lost his deposit. We must nevertheless thank the hon the Minister of the Budget very sincerely, because he helped us; he gave us a shot in the arm. Our party fights for our people. Our party keeps our people informed and involves itself in our community. If it is unparliamentary language, I shall withdraw it, but I want to say that we are not a lot of liars. Our party tells our people what we are going to do for them. I spoke about liars, but in the recent election our hon leader was vilified and accused of the most dreadful things. They claimed, amongst other things, that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had stolen thousands of rand from his church. They also claimed that he had said “Ekskuus, baas” to the hon the State President. But that is not true. The people from the Cold Bokkeveld, however, settled their hash, and last night was a great night for the Labour Party. I want to conclude by saying that our party, the Labour Party, has given South Africa renewed hope. Everyone was there, poor people, MPs and even the farmers. It was good to see how the farmers drove the people to the polling booths to vote for the Labour Party. I do not know why the hon the State President fears for the future, because the farmers are backing the Labour Party.

It was a sight to see the young people supporting us. Oh, Sir, it was a wonderful sight! Young and old, rich and poor, were there yesterday evening. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister of the Budget that he made a gigantic contribution with the budget he negotiated for us. My department submitted its budget, and our hon Minister conducted negotiations for us. He made a good job of it and we thank him very sincerely for having done so. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon the Minister of Finance must not block the Labour Party’s progress; he will regret it. I am not making any threats today, but no one must stand in our way. The Labour Party is moving forward—for South Africa!

Hear, hear!

Sir, I want to ask him not to stand in our way, because he will lose against the Labour Party.

I also want to thank our officials. I am thinking of Mr McEnery and those who assist the hon the Minister of the Budget. I also want to thank my officials. We are in the process of establishing a new department. It is a department consisting of Whites, Coloureds, Blacks and Indians, members of the Christian, Jewish and Indian faiths.

And the UDF too!

Sir, friends of the UDF also come to us in droves to request our assistance.

On this occasion I want to tell our hon Minister of the Budget that he has struck a blow for the Labour Party—hence the runaway victory in Ceres.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debates again after my absence from the House—especially on a day like today, a day on which the LP is shining like the only star in the sky as far as politics in South Africa is concerned.

Do not brag like that!

Sir, I am hearing from my left that I should not brag, but I want to say that when the LP obtains a majority such as the one we obtained there, the other parties should rather not oppose us in by-elections. They should rather join forces and wait until a funeral procession is on its way to the grave so that they can help carry their party’s coffin. To oppose the LP now is really asking too much of their party.

The large majority we obtained there is a clear indication of the support which this party and its policy enjoys. It is because we put our people first. The accusations and insults that we sometimes listen to here amount to nothing but jealousy. I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will not show his face in the Chamber for a few weeks, because everything he said during the no-confidence debate was proved wrong at the polls. The people have chosen, Sir.

And they made the right choice too!

The people have realised that a political party cannot be built on these stories which are far from true.

We have a leader who has to stand his man in outside politics. I see one newspaper has written that he is finding himself in the midst of four fires. The very fact that he can survive in the midst of four fires, Sir, is an indication of the man’s stature. It carries him through these crises.

It was proved in Bokkeveld yesterday that the LP has the key to a new South Africa. We may not have all the scientists in this House, but there are hon members here who put South Africa’s interests first. I recently made the remark in America that we are homemade. We have been made here, and because we have no other home we have to pull this country straight.

We also have an advantage. We are the only minority which can be sure of a majority in the years to come because of the abolition of laws which are bringing people together for the sake of convenience. One day the Coloureds will be in the majority in the new era in our country. We can unite South Africa’s people, because they are already living together in our communities. We do not have to fear throwing open the schools or the communities to everybody. We do not have to be afraid of sharing facilities. Those things are not strange to us; we are experiencing them. We are taking the lead in South Africa.

Those people who are seeking solutions for our political problems should observe how the Coloured community solves and deals with political, economic and social problems. They should come and see how peacefully we are living together—not on the other side of the border in Angola or Mozambique, but on the Cape Flats. We have already created the new South Africa on the threshold of Parliament.

The LP is working. We will win convincingly every election that is called. The LP is the future. The LP has no fear of domination. The LP is not afraid that the political, economic, educational or social system is going to fall to pieces. We have already experienced those fears. We have created a new society.

There are wolves who are going around to the people in sheep’s clothing. They are deceiving people like Mr Langeveldt into fighting this mighty machine. Those people should examine their own consciences. They should examine their own minds, because where is that man today?

Without work.

He has been humiliated in his community. He has been economically and spiritually humiliated. I hope that the Official Opposition, who are not present here today, are going to stand by that man and hold a prayer meeting for him, because he is going to need it.

They need a prayer meeting themselves.

Prayer meetings will no longer help them. They should just go and help that man. [Interjections.] I am a Christian. Hon members say I should not talk about prayer meetings. I believe in prayer meetings. Mr Langeveldt needs a prayer meeting to help him.

It is a pity that hon members who have come here to find a political solution to South Africa’s problems, are once again questioning the motives of the Whites in this Parliament. What happened in respect of our budget during the past week is something one cannot explain here. It is not even a matter which one can explain overseas. We are talking about a tricameral system under which there are equal rights and under which decisions can be taken on the basis of equality.

We are talking about a Minister of the Budget, and when a budget is allocated to him, he should have the right to implement that budget. That hon Minister thought fit to approve the formulae for pensions. What is happening now, however? In typical South African fashion, the man in the White House is once again saying “no”. Who is breaking down this political system? Is it the critics outside? Or is it the people within the system who are undermining the system’s foundation of consensus?

One always wants to do the best for South Africa. Wherever one goes, one tries to blaze a trail for the future of this country. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon the Minister is no longer allowed to go overseas—or it is said that travel documents will be withdrawn—and not withstanding the fact that one is treated like “Oom Paul se bobbejaantjie”, one still loves this country. When we are asked to act on behalf of the country, we do not think about insults or insinuations, but about the destiny of the whole of South Africa.

Say it!

Hon members know, just as I do, that White South Africa can no longer get a message across. White South Africa no longer has creditworthiness outside, and so those of us who have to help them should be protected. The creditworthiness of those of us who are participating in this system should not be destroyed by things like the threats or actions of the hon the Minister of Finance.

It is not doing this system any good. Nor is it enhancing our hope of creating a political dispensation of consensus in this country. When one House or one Minister feels that he is in charge of everything, all hope for co-operation in the South African Parliament is destroyed. That very same hon Minister cannot even fight sanctions overseas these days. We have to do it. [Interjections.]

I am grateful to our hon Minister of the Budget. I appreciate what he has submitted here and I thank him for that enormous increase. It is proof once again that our participation here has paid dividends for our community. It is proof once again that no one can represent our people’s interests better than we ourselves can. It is proof once again that the LP is the only party in this House which can state our case strongly. [Interjections.]

It is a pity one has to talk when everyone in the House has already been converted—the people who should be here are not here. Nevertheless, I want to say that our hon Minister has proved that our people are doing their job. We express our thanks for that. We want to encourage him to go on getting for us what we should be getting. The cake has to be more fairly shared.

When we consider the future and when we consider political, economic and social solutions, we see that nothing but a new South Africa will have to be created. The new South Africa cannot be structured on decisions that have been taken in one House or in one White Cabinet. [Interjections.] Nor can it originate in fears. It must originate in the act of reconciliation and the realisation that we belong together.

The act of reconciliation in South Africa is not merely going to entail the granting of political rights, or the creation of open communities or open schools, but will entail the reconstruction of the whole of South Africa. It will mean that everyone’s dignity will have to be recognised and living space will have to be created for each person. We can no longer be satisfied with only a portion of what we should be getting. We can no longer be satisfied with getting this today, that tomorrow, something else the day after that, and the rest over 20 years while White South Africa, for the past 50 years, has been getting its rightful share as well as the share of Black and Coloured South Africa. All we are asking for today is those things that we have not been getting; and those things should be given to us if that reconstruction of South Africa is to take place.

We must beware that our political promises, political desires and political ideals are not assessed later on and found wanting. We have to expand this system by bringing about justice within the system. If we cannot bring about justice within this system it will all be over, because there will not be another system which can be tested.

I should like to quote from page 19 of the book Question of Survival:

There are also the fears related to political economy. Afrikaners dominated the top and medium levels of the civil service. It is quite conceivable that one of the first objectives of a Black majority government will be to Africanise many of these jobs in the civil service.

That is one of the fears, Sir. It does not have to become a reality. If one is honest and one brings about justice now, if one realises that everyone has to be a part of this new reconstruction and that we have to walk the path together to get to this new South Africa, this fear need not become a reality. Unfortunately, however, people turn a fear into reality when they are not honest and sincere. We are all reaching out towards a new South Africa. We talk about political reform, we talk about social reform and we talk about economic reform, but what is really happening? Certain groups are still being discriminated against whereas others are being privileged.

The people in our community have been struggling over the past few years because of the poor economic conditions. They are finding it difficult to survive and they are complaining. We are the people who have to ask the Government to see whether these conditions can be changed. The more people struggle, the more they turn to other methods in order to bring about change. The more difficult it is to provide for their needs, the more readily people reach out for the ideals which have been created for them and the more readily they turn to violence to provide for their needs.

We have brought our community to the point of negotiation. We have elevated them out of a situation in which they were frustrated, in which they stood defenceless and in which they had no political future. I regret to say today that if we cannot provide for their needs, a larger percentage of the people who have already been accommodated, will turn back to the old methods. We must guard against that.

I want to make an appeal for the hon the Minister’s functions and those of his department to be expanded so that he can address the existing needs. I may be criticised because I am promoting an own affair, but it has to be done, because other departments are failing in their responsibility to take care of our people in every respect. No one can state our case better than we ourselves can. No one else knows how our people on the platteland are struggling. No one else knows how poor they are. If one were to drive through our neighbourhoods, one would see how things look in our communities. It is scandalous; after all these years the Coloureds are still living a stone’s throw away from the rubbish dump, where there are no tarred roads or lights, just stones. This hon Minister of the Budget should be enabled to open his arms wide. His department should be given more functions, not just to expand own affairs, but to improve our people’s situation.

Too much of a fuss has been made for too long about deciding what we can get, how much we can get and when we can get it. Let us take housing. It takes three to five years before an area is declared a residential area. When are the houses going to be built! Yesterday I saw how the opposition struggled for longer than an hour to pitch a tent. [Interjections.] When I told them that they should get hold of the plan, they put the tent down. Those are the people who ask us what we do with the money. They told the voters they were going to build houses. They also said how many houses they would build, and yet yesterday they could not even pitch a tent without a plan. I have never seen people struggle for so long to assemble pipes.

The best of all, however, was that once the tent was pitched, one saw that it was in the LP’s colours. I then said: Now that is a winner! What had happened was that the opposition had not had the plan of the tent, nor had they opened up the tent beforehand. If they had done that beforehand, they would have seen that the tent was in the LP’s colours. For as long as I am in politics I shall never display another party’s colours on a pole. Sir, one has to have some sense to be able to take part in politics. One also has to have a little imagination. One has to have a lot of both, however, when one sits in the opposition benches, so one actually feels a little sorry for them.

I want to come back to the Whites’ fears with regard to the Public Service. I want to return to my previous arguments. I cannot understand how this component—one of the largest in the Public Service—does not have a representative in the Commission for Administration. I cannot understand it. It has been said that the Cabinet is the highest authority in our system of government. The Cabinet, after all, is at the top of the hierarchy. My question now is, if we are welcome in the Cabinet, why can we not also serve on that other body? I shall tell you why, Sir. It is because that party controls everything in South Africa—every regulation, every appointment, every fund, all spending and all powers. Now I should like to point out to the House once more that the fact that we cannot serve on that body makes people doubt this system. We are not destroying the system, nor are we sowing the seeds of mistrust in it. It is the White House, the House which has to decide on that component, which is sowing the seeds of mistrust. If they work in this way with their partners in this system, what hope do they still have of bringing in other partners? We must beware that those of us who are here do not do the system the greatest damage.

I want to thank the hon the Minister sincerely for what he has done to ensure that so many of our people have been appointed in the department. I also want to thank him for the fact that there is upward mobility and that there is almost no inconvenience. We should, however, try to help certain students with bursaries so that they can be trained to render special services and so that they can fill the vacancies that exist in the department at present. We shall have to address certain shortcomings in the department and in the Public Service by encouraging and motivating people by means of bursaries, study opportunities, and work during vacations.

There is another need to which I want to refer. I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister to try to have a survey done or an investigation carried out with regard to the activities of all the communities throughout the country, so that we can keep a check on the spending of money. We must guard against providing for the needs of certain people while forgetting certain other people. It is nice to see these new areas being developed and to read about all the developments. We should not forget, however, about places like Touws River, White City in Saldanha—an area in my constituency—and Laingsburg. Those places should not be forgotten. That is why I want to make an appeal for us to consider the improvement of everyone’s living space and not just that of the people on the Cape Flats—the people in Blue Downs and other such areas. Let us not now regard those people who saw to it that we came here as of lesser importance because we want to make the Cape grand.

I also want to express my gratitude to this department for their actions during the flood disaster. As a matter of fact, one should not only thank them, but also all the people who supported one another in such a wonderful way. Then I should also like to thank the LP, because they were one of the few political parties to put their hands into their pockets and make a contribution.

It will not do us any good to go and ask for help overseas, like Bishop Tutu, if we forget to extend a helping hand when our people here are drowning or being washed away. We talk about violence, but at the same time we forget about the tragedy of those who were struck by the flood disaster. Then it is suddenly not necessary to hold a day of prayer or conference or a demonstration. I want to ask the hon member for Vredendal whether one is acting as a good Christian when one wants to pray like I want to pray, or when one wants to talk about things that are wrong.

This House will have to start thinking seriously about the part it can play in international liaison. We cannot expect the Department of Foreign Affairs to relay our message, because our message does not correspond to that of the Government. Our hon Minister will have to try, therefore, to have the policy of this House publicised overseas. Hon members of this House should be able to travel overseas; we should be able to put across our points of view overseas. It is important, at this critical stage, for a representative of this House to be in Washington, because an investigation is again being held into the question of further sanctions against South Africa. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to make an attempt to get some of our people there, because we shall certainly lose the struggle if we stay home.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

It is a great privilege for me to be able to participate in the relevant budget debate. I want to start off, on behalf of the Southern Free State constituency—I venture to say on behalf of the Free State—by sincerely congratulating the executive of the Labour Party and the Labour Party as a whole, including our candidate in the Bokkeveld constituency, on the resounding victory achieved there yesterday. As far as Mr Langeveldt is concerned, yesterday the Labour Party finished him off! Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, the writing is on the wall. I cannot imagine how the hon members of the Official Opposition, who are so conspicuous by their absence, are going to make any headway in the future. The Labour Party is firing the imaginations of people throughout the country. The party is going from strength to strength and has no equal anywhere in South Africa. We in the Labour Party are now so motivated that we are like a battering-ram that is going to sweep aside everything before it. I want to tell hon members in the opposition benches who are not here today that we are on the warpath. We are not only waging war, but are fighting every election with one object in mind, and that is to sweep away any candidate, wherever he may come from or whomever he may be. What happened in the Bokkeveld constituency will, in the future, look like a Sunday school picnic. In the days ahead the Official Opposition can expect only the worst. That is all I want to say about the election.

I want to tell hon members of the Official Opposition—wherever they may be—that they should lick the wounds that were inflicted yesterday. What is more, they must prepare themselves for the wounds that are going to be inflicted on them in the subsequent by-elections.

I now come to the subject under discussion, and I want to focus hon members’ attention on three aspects concerning what should actually be our people’s priorities and how we are going to determine our future priorities. Sir, I believe that the hon the Minister of the Budget has negotiated the maximum possible amount of money for this House. As we know he is a man who places the needs of his people, the community we represent here, very high on his list of priorities. In the negotiating process, therefore, he has most certainly concentrated on four factors, and I think he put forward his case with conviction.

He realised, firstly, how essential it was to retain the already won confidence of the voters. Yesterday’s result in the Bokkeveld is proof of that confidence.

Secondly I think that the hon the Minister, being the person I know him to be, has done everything in his power to set up the infrastructure for the creation of even more job opportunities in the area falling under the House of Representatives, the object being the combating of the unemployment problem which has assumed such monstrous proportions, particularly amongst our people.

Thirdly, from the Appropriation Bill before us— I am referring, in particular, to three areas, ie those of education, health and housing—I deduce that the hon the Minister has concentrated not only on improving the quality of life and the standard of living of our people, the lessprivileged and less-developed component of the population in this country, but also in uplifting them to such an extent, in the shortest possible time, that those who have looked down on us up to now, and have lived off the fat of our common fatherland, while we died of poverty or went without, will simply have to notice us and accept us as equals.

Fourthly, as I have said previously, I believe that in that negotiating process the hon the Minister certainly never lost sight of the fact that the stability of South Africa—particularly in the economic sphere—should be a top priority. The question of stability was probably the single most important factor when it came to negotiating for funds.

An unstable South Africa, a South Africa crippled by a lack of funds, would be sounding the death knell as far as our neighbouring states are concerned. We can do and say whatever we want to—that is the truth of the matter. An unstable South Africa means chaos, poverty, misery and famine for our neighbouring states. There are countries which complain that South Africa is destabilising them. Now they will have to cry even harder, because there is nothing more for them to depend upon.

Permit me to congratulate the hon the Minister of the Budget. From an economic point of view our country is having a lean time of it at present. In his Budget speech the hon the Minister of Finance emphasised cutbacks and the freezing of salaries. It was with a sigh of relief that hon members in this House noted an increase in the allocation for housing, health and education.

I again want to emphasise the fact that although the Labour Party is grateful for what the hon the Minister of the Budget could negotiate for us, we are not satisfied with the financial system on which own affairs is based. I should like to emphasise my party’s dissatisfaction in this connection. The own affairs system is totally unacceptable to the Labour Party. It is an ideology unacceptable to us. Its control and administration are a thorn in the flesh as far as we are concerned. I do not even want to mention the political unacceptability of the tricameral system. The Labour Party will never accept the tricameral system as an ultimate goal. We regard it merely as a point of departure on the road towards a better and greater South Africa.

Before I place matters concerning education, health and housing in the Free State under the magnifying glass, I want to express my disappointment at the niggardly treatment meted out to our aged in the Budget. We in this House are not at all happy about the fact that our aged are not receiving a monthly increase in their pensions this year. These aged are the pioneers of South Africa. They were the ones that built up the country when it was still untamed and uninhabited. These people played their part. They did what they had to do to make this country the cradle of civilisation in the southern hemisphere and darkest Africa. We, as members sitting in Parliament today, are very grateful to them. It is for them that I am lodging a plea today. They are the ones we are sorry for. I should have liked to see them receive an increase in their monthly pensions. We do, however, welcome the bonus of R60. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare announced that this would be paid to them as early as May. It is, however, merely a drop in the ocean. Our people have many problems to contend with in order to keep their heads above water in the present economic climate. I think we could have given these old people much better treatment. We cannot and may not ever forget them. They will only be with us for a short while, and in that short time we must make them happy. It is therefore with a heavy heart that I heard the other day that there was nothing for them in the form of a pension increase.

I now want to come back to the ideas I raised earlier in my speech and refer, firstly, to the priorities which exist in the respective constituencies of hon members of this House, priorities which the hon the Minister should have acquainted himself with. I think the hon the Minister will understand if I beg him and his priorities board, with tears in my eyes, to give the flood-ravaged Free State top priority status when it comes to the allocation of funds. With the housing shortage and a shortage of health facilities and proper school buildings in the recent past, our position has deteriorated to such an extent as a result of the floods that it has reached crisis proportions. To emphasise the urgency of the matter, I want to quote from a letter I received this morning from Zastron, a small town in my constituency. I should like to quote a few paragraphs from this letter:

This letter is addressed to the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture—

That is merely one town in my constituency which is being prevented, by some or other body, from increasing the overall standard of living of our people and transforming their negativity—a rut they have got into—into a feeling of pride in the community. I could mention a few other towns in my constituency—I know this should be done at Third Reading, but I think I should emphasise this now too—which we are being prevented from developing because of the same handicaps. There are, for example, Jagersfontein, Petrusville, Reddersburg, Luckhoff and Rouxville. In these towns the very same problems are experienced as those experienced in Zastron. One is tempted to ask: Where is the hitch? Who must do what to get the wheels of development turning in these few towns in the Free State? I am asking the hon the Minister to help me.

We gratefully took note of the fact that such a significant allocation has been made to education. I hope that the hon the Minister’s department has also, through its committee which determines priorities, informed itself of our need for school buildings in the Free State as a whole. We are grateful for the mobile units they placed there. That is a temporary measure which, in time, should be replaced by heavy prefabricated structures. Here I am speaking specifically of Jacobsdal, one of the largest schools in the rural areas in the Free State. It is a junior secondary school. Quite a few of the mobile units have been placed in the school grounds. I believe that those mobile units, like those in all the other places in the Southern Free State, ought to be replaced. In Bloemfontein, too, one still encounters quite a few of the mobile units. I think the time has come for the mobile units to be replaced by proper schools. The children find a heavy-module school building attractive and it gives them that stimulation and inspiration to work harder. We shall now have to get to work putting this matter to rights in our province.

I think the hon the Minister also wants to see the Free State developing. I do not think the hon the Minister sees the Free State as the Cinderella of his department or of South Africa. I believe that he has as high a regard for the interests of our Free Staters as for those of any other region in South Africa. [Interjections.] I trust that he will ensure that our people’s quality of life and living standards are increased in such measure that we are not out of step with the people in the rest of South Africa.

Yes, the Free State must come right.

I think the hon the Minister is aware of the tremendous backlog in the sphere of health services in the rural areas of the Free State. Nowhere in the Southern Free State have any health facilities been created for our people. [Interjections.] Representations have repeatedly been made through the various departments to put our people’s case. They say: “Charity begins at home.” So let us begin by uplifting our people. Let us, in the process of upliftment, not leave certain people lagging behind, but rather take them with us.

The Labourites have such a lovely song which goes: “Kom, klim almal saam op die wa.” The Labourites also say, in this song, that all the underprivileged in South Africa—including the Free State—should climb onto the wagon of development and progress.

The time has come to look after the interests of our people with more compassion and attentiveness—in these areas too. It is important for health facilities to be established for our people. I am referring to all the towns in the rural areas. Officials in the hon the Minister’s department will confirm what I have said here now. There is an adage which states: “A sound mind in a sound body”. In the Free State, as in the rest of Africa, we want to have a sound mind in a sound body so that we can join in building up the structures of a country which we believe can serve as an example to the rest of the world of how people of different backgrounds can be fused together to form one great, wonderful family and can make this country the Utopia that we all want.

Hon members in this House must set the example. If the other Houses perhaps find themselves getting bogged down and cannot do what they are supposed to do, we must not allow ourselves to be hamstrung by obstacles in our path. We must forge ahead and set an example for others to follow. I believe that we have the leadership qualities. [Interjections.] When are we going to use those leadership qualities to ford the stream so that everyone who does not…

Order! The hon member for Haarlem must please listen carefully to what the hon member for Southern Free State has to say. He is making an important speech. The hon member for Southern Free State may continue.

I think that our party regards this House as a point of departure. I said at the outset that we did not regard the tricameral system as a goal, but rather as a point of departure on the road to what we would like to have in South Africa. In our endeavour to achieve a Utopia, we in this House must set an example by creating a pattern that everyone can follow. We, as so-called people of colour, have allowed ourselves to be led for too long. The time has come for us, as children of South Africa, to take the lead. The time has come for us to set the pace. It is time we showed the world that we do not simply want to be led, but that we can also lead and that what we are leading people to is a place where everyone can live together in peace and love.

The South Africa we want to see is not one in which races or groups are going to play an important role, but one in which the individual’s rights will be recognised. We are talking about individual rights and not about those of minority groups. We in the Labour Party believe in the rights of the individual. We believe that every person should have the right to live where he wants to. He should have the right to do what he is permitted to do within the framework of the law.

I want to be treated by a doctor and a nurse of my choice in a hospital of my choice. If I can afford to be treated in Groote Schuur, for example, there must not be a law that prevents me from being treated there. [Interjections.] If I have perhaps trod on the toes of some Capetonians, I apologise; I have not done so on purpose. I could just as well have mentioned a hospital in the Orange Free State as an example. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, we in the Labour Party would like to see a South Africa in which there is one department and one Minister of Education; a South Africa in which I, as an individual, can send my child to a school of my choice. If I can afford to send my child to a school in Bishopscourt, for example, there must not be a law which will prohibit me from doing so. The South Africa of tomorrow, which we would like to see, is a South Africa in which the political organisations which are banned at present, will be unbanned. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to thank the hon the Minister of the Budget for having had Hopetown and Douglas declared disaster areas.

Sir, I now want to take the hon the Minister on a short tour of my constituency. Douglas is approximately 150 kilometres from Kimberley. The White area is situated on one side of the river and the Coloured area on the other. In the Coloured area the houses—they are houses built in terms of the self-help scheme—are situated approximately 100 metres from the sewerage system. The hotel, too, is about 110 metres from the sewerage system. So if one lives in the hotel, one must not open the windows; one simply has to depend upon the air-conditioning, because otherwise a terrible smell wafts into the room.

In this South Africa of ours where there is so much land, it is ridiculous for us always to be living on the hillsides or on the planes or near cemeteries. It is true that our people were not devastated by the flood, but we are devastated by the smell.

The houses in Douglas are as old as Methuselah and, what is more, have been damaged by the rain. I am asking the hon the Minister simply to give those houses to the people as a present, because it would cost thousands of rand to repair them. The people very much wanted to buy the houses, but ridiculous prices were charged. Moreover, the cost of repairing them would run into hundreds of thousands of rand.

Millions of rand were spent on the Coloured hotel there. [Interjections.] The Coloured hotel pays a toilet tax for every toilet and also a room tax. Yet there is not even a tarred road running around the hotel. The road is anything but a decent road; it is actually a wagon track, or rather just a strip of veld running around the hotel.

It washed away!

Order! Thus far the hon member for Northern Cape has not asked to make a contribution. He will have a chance if his name is on the list of speakers. The hon member for Griqualand West may proceed.

Sir, not only do the people of Douglas not have roofs over their heads, but they are homeless too. A certain Pastor Jacobs telephoned me from Johannesburg and said that he was in the constituency and that he had paid a visit to Douglas. He took food and clothing along, but what struck him was that only the Whites were being given assistance, not nonWhites. [Interjections.] According to him there are people who do not have food or water. They cannot use the water that is available. They have to go to the White area to get drinking water. That is why I am saying it is unfair, because everyone sings the praises of the JOS for what it has done, but the Coloureds have been neglected and are still being neglected.

The small town of Campbell is approximately 60 km from Douglas. The Coloured area is built on a rise, and we have already tried to get water to the people and to establish an infrastructure there. Even an amount of R300 000 is not enough to lay on water to that area. Outside the Coloured area, however, there is an infrastructure and there are houses standing empty. We, as well as members of the President’s Council, have begged and pleaded for something to be done about the matter, but to date nothing has been done. The people live in extremely difficult circumstances.

Lower down there is the Salt Lake area belonging to a mining company. For those people, however, it is also a hand-to-mouth existence because they had mud-houses which were destroyed by the rains. They are also without food, and I think everyone has forgotten about those people, even the hon the Minister, because they live beyond the mountains.

If one travels further, one comes to the small town of Strydenburg. The school in the small town still has double shifts and, weather permitting, classes are even held under the trees. Across the road, however, there is a school building with 21 classrooms, a school that only has seven White pupils. I want to ask the hon the Minister to give attention to this matter. The school building at Strydenburg must be given top priority—a building must be erected.

How many teachers are there?

There are 38 teachers.

There are also a number of squatter huts outside Strydenburg. One of the squatter huts, measuring approximately 2m x 2m, houses six to seven people. The roofs are made of bags, and if it is not too cold, some of the people sleep outside. There are approximately 20 to 30 such squatter huts in which the migratory labourers live because they have nowhere else to live. The conditions there are atrocious.

The small town of Hopetown is situated about 50 km from there, and this is an aspect I want to dwell on for a moment. The Coloured residential area in the town is known as Steynsville. Hopetown is situated in the Northern Cape, south of the Orange River, and has a population of 7 723 Coloureds, 1 356 Whites and 11 224 Blacks. There are 403 subeconomic houses in the town, no rented houses, 154 economic houses and 24 houses belonging to owners. Some of these houses were built in an area that lies in a pan. [Interjections.] This is the third time that the people living in that pan have suffered rain damage. I was disturbed to see the situation there. The houses are situated below the level of the road. The people cannot pay their rent, Sir, because they have to buy food, and also new furniture each time. When Mr Scholtz and I arrived there, after a brief spell of rain, the people were literally sitting on the roofs of their houses.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Griqualand West must not allow other hon members to try to dictate what he should say. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, the hon member does not have anything to say in any event. I took photographs and gave them to officials who deal with housing matters so that they themselves could see where the people were perched. We came into one room—Mr Scholtz, the ministerial representative was with us—in which water was above the level of a mattress on which a bedridden woman was lying, and the water was coursing through the house. This was not the first time that that had happened. We have repeatedly reported this matter, but up to now nothing has been done about it.

I now come to the next point. Hopetown is in the Karoo; hon members will therefore know that the summers there are very hot and the winters bitterly cold. Hopetown has a climate indicative of inland areas and Karoo-type vegetation. There are no raw materials. The town is situated in the Northern Cape, south of the Orange.

I want to say something about the origins of Hopetown. I have obtained information from the Cape Monthly Magazine of 1876, page 176, from an article written by Rev J A Heiwitt—not Mr Julies! Hopetown was established in 1853 and probably obtained its name from a Major Hope, an erstwhile Auditor-General of the Cape Colony. Because the major was a Government secretary, and it was customary at the time to name places after Governors or officials of Governors, Major Hope was thus honoured.

According to a map of 1853, the north-western portion of the district was known as the Hope Field Cornety, with the name Hopetown recorded under Duwenaarsfontein. According to tradition the name Hopetown appears to have an interesting origin. A servant of a Mrs Wiid gave her a tin anchor which she nailed to her door. It is a symbol of hope, and I am asking the hon the Minister to give us back that hope in Hopetown. Today that symbol is still depicted in the chain of office of the mayor of Hopetown. Hopetown’s motto is: “Spero et persequor meliora”, which means “We hope and strive for higher things”.

The population in Hopetown consists chiefly of Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. In earlier years there was also an Indian family called Naiks, who were good merchants. Because of the Group Areas Act, however, they had to move to Kimberley.

The economic conditions in Hopetown are actually the root cause of the problems of this community. They are chiefly dependent upon Government funds in the form of various allowances which are paid out. It is a poor community. The young people go to the cities to earn money and return to the town of their birth for holidays. Work is very scarce in Hopetown. Nor are there any industries. There are just general stores to serve the people. The per capita income is approximately R25 per week. There is almost no question of recreation. In the field of sport, the following are found in the Coloured areas of Hopetown—five soccer clubs, four netball teams and one tennis club. There are, however, no sports fields. The rugby club was closed after the fatal injury of a player during a match.

There is a management committee functioning under the Hopetown municipal council. They look after the interests of the Coloured community. They feel, however, that they cannot fully meet their obligations. The relations committee identifies problems by way of regular discussions and negotiations in an effort to eliminate, at the local level, bottlenecks and friction that bedevil sound relations between White and Coloured communities. The sports control board does nothing to promote sporting activities. The body is inactive. [Interjections.] Yes, it is Sacos. The Community Foundation identifies problems and seeks solutions for them.

I now come to housing. There are 40 semidetached houses, 218 one-bedroom dwellings, 137 two-bedroom dwellings and 52 three-bedroom dwellings. There are not many houses. At least the dwellings have flush toilets. There are also taps in the backyards. The single-room, double-room and four-room semi-detached houses do not have bathrooms. Street lighting is provided. Only a few houses have electricity. The houses are built chiefly of brick, with asbestos or steel roofs. About 104 houses have burglarproofing.

This survey was done to show individuals that those people want to help themselves. They cannot, however, help themselves. The steel doors—perhaps stable doors is a better description—are subject to shrinkage during the winter and expansion during the summer. In summer the people have to kick the doors open if they want to go in or out. In winter they have to push newspaper in around the doors to keep out the cold. Some tenants would like to buy a house, but until now they have not been able to get a reasonable price. The tenants are dissatisfied with the lay-out of the 104 houses. They are poorly built. Doors cannot lock properly. Some doors have gaps of two or three centimetres at the bottom through which the dust comes. When it rains, the houses are surrounded by water. The roofs have been very poorly fitted. They are loose and dust gets through very easily.

In the Coloured residential area there are two cafés which serve as shops. In the business centre of the town there are three cafés which also have grocery sections. There is only one private shop and the businesses of the co-operative, including one butcher. There are shops selling groceries and farm implements. There is a Pep Stores and there are two self-service cafés. There is also one chemist.

In the Coloured area there is only one telephone. This telephone is frequently out of order. It serves no purpose since it is situated too far from the community. There are a few subscribers who have telephones and approximately 50 people who have applied for telephones but who, four years later, still do not have one. Regularly once a year enquiries are made about the telephone service and forms have to be completed. People then have to say whether they are still interested. The interest is there, but not the telephones.

The needs of the minority groups include, amongst other things, housing and job opportunities. Specifically as a result of certain factors the people are extremely frustrated because promises have not yet been kept. The people are frustrated because they were told that new houses would be built, the roads repaired, sports fields laid on and a new school and hostel erected, but all in vain. It has been nothing but talk.

Illegitimacy is on the increase at a time when those people cannot afford it. [Interjections.] An aspect which is still cause for concern is definitely alcohol abuse. It seems as if an increasing number of young people are taking to drink. It is illegal to be a hawker without the knowledge of the municipality. Conflict is developing. Thus far conflict situations have been confined to a minimum. The people have been living together peacefully.

I want to make a few recommendations. A community hall is an essential facet. There must be a community hall and also a library as recreational outlets for pupils, adults and layabouts, to keep them occupied. Recreational facilities for children and young people, and in particular a swimming pool, should be built. The laying on of sports fields and facilities is an important facet of upliftment. The houses should be repaired and sold, or simply given to the people, because they are in such a bad way. [Interjections.] More telephones and call boxes should be installed.

This brings me to Barkly West.

What about Gong-Gong?

We are still coming to Gong-Gong. In Barkly West there are 60 hovels or makeshift shacks, a squatter camp. With the rains we have had, I must thank the Islamic Society Relief Fund. They, and other churches and organisations, the Defence Force and the Red Cross provided food and clothing there. In Barkly West we have been waiting for four years now for the houses promised to us in 1984. We are still waiting for the school which was promised to us then and for the hostel which has to be built. We keep waiting. We are like little house dogs, but we get nowhere. [Interjections.]

This bring me to Pniel where the people are living in tents because approximately 30 houses have collapsed. Gong-Gong falls under the House of Representatives. We had a problem there, but now we have a bigger problem, because all the houses have been flattened by the rain, not the floods. [Interjections.]

Now I come to Longlands where 260 houses have been flattened. There is not a single house left standing. The Red Cross and other bodies have taken food to that area and the Labour Party branch in Barkly West regularly takes them water. Mr Scholtz, the ministerial representative, and I have visited these areas and seen the terrible conditions there. There are 25 tents for the 1 040 people living there. Two of those tents do not have a roof. The people do not have candles. There is no firewood and consequently the people have to cook with paraffin which is very expensive and which they cannot afford.

From Longlands we go to Winterrush where we have the same story. There there is more “rush” than “winter”. From there we go to Aoachanas where the conditions are even worse. At Warrenton, Windsorton and Holpan things look bad too. Not one house has been left standing in Holpan. The school has been flattened by the rain, but approximately 100 meters away there is a White school with six children and 20 classrooms!

Order! The hon member for Griqualand West is arguing his case. Hon members must allow him to do so, because surely he has a better knowledge of the prevailing conditions. The hon member may proceed.

Each day the children are transported from Holpan to Windsorton by bus. That school, however, is full too. We therefore ask the hon the Minister to ensure that we get extra classrooms. We have already made representations, but thus far we have not received a reply.

The people in Holpan do not even have tents. They live in makeshift houses. There is no food, and I do not think the world even knows about them. Some of our people simply take them food and clothing.

The houses in Windsorton are in such a poor condition that I do not even want to mention them. If there were to be more rain, those houses would collapse.

At Warrenton there are no street drains and people need more houses. There is also a need for another school and a hostel. At the other two towns, Jan Kempdorp and Hartswater, we also have problems, but they are not so bad that we cannot solve them.

The hon the Minister can rest assured that we are praying for the necessary strength for him and for the Ministers’ Council so that they can be cheerful in carrying the burden that rests on their shoulders.

Mr Chairman, as in the case of previous speakers, it was gratifying for me to note the success achieved in the by-election. Permit me, however, to announce that one of our colleagues, the hon member for Rietvlei, was involved in an accident this morning. I should like to place on record that we express our sympathies with his family and that we wish him a quick recovery in the Tygerberg Hospital.

I regret the fact that the hon the Minister is not present at the moment, because in my argument this afternoon I should like to put questions to his department. The first question, which we have been asking here for the past year now, is a question dealing with decentralisation. I feel that this department, which is the key department in the Ministers’ Council because it has to provide the funds which are spent by the other departments, should devise a system in accordance with which its funds can reach its various regional offices as quickly as possible. Such decentralisation would ensure that many of the matters which unnecessarily burden hon members of this House, can be dealt with.

I want to mention one example, ie the salaries of teachers in temporary posts. One of the major sources of frustration to any worker is that of having to go begging for his salary at the end of the day when his job has been done. Ultimately the matter must be taken further by MPs. This is detrimental to the workers in the various departments, and one cannot motivate them then to give the full output one would like them to give. I can mention many such cases. Every MP in the House knows what happens in the process of decentralisation.

Hand in hand with this we find that the Departments of Education and Culture, Local Government, Housing and Works and Health Services and Welfare do have boards in their regions, but it is a pity that this important department is only situated here in Cape Town. It does not have any regional boards. My plea to the hon the Minister today is that such boards should be established as speedily as possible. If the matter is not rectified, our pleas will fall on deaf ears and our deliberations amount to nothing.

I should like to quote hon members a passage from a newspaper called Roland Nuus, volume 2 of March 1988. One of the workers wrote a letter to the editor about decentralisation. One sentence from the letter reads:

From this one can deduce that the officials feel that decentralisation should devolve to other boards. I want to quote the editor’s answer to hon members and emphasise certain aspects in the letter. It reads:

He acknowledges in the letter that all the functions cannot be performed at the head office. I should like to know why they cannot be devolved so that the community can obtain the funds more quickly. I quote further:

I do not know why the department cannot use computers in which data can be stored and reclaimed more quickly. The commercial banks, building societies and Government departments in South Africa have gone over to computer systems. Within one minute one can obtain the necessary data from a computer. Excuses are made on both sides. The office says it has sent information through. The head office, which says it is too heavily burdened, states that it has replied to the enquiries.

There is a trifling matter I want to raise here. When an hon member of the House institutes a claim against the State, for example, that matter is finalised within three to four days. In the Worcester region members have recently complained about daily wages which they have not received for a period of five months. The reason for this is that the department employed people in each of the “super” regions, in Wynberg, Bellville and Port Elizabeth—I gather that this region is going to be moved to Durban—and in Johannesburg too. So in each of these regions there is one person who arranges all these matters. Sir, it is impossible for these individuals to do justice to each of these requests. One blames the other, accusations being flung to and fro.

The department has the offices. I therefore cannot understand why, for example, a certain sum is not allocated to a certain office. That office could then be accountable to head office and could also be entrusted with the responsibility of paying out claims. The “super regions” could then, for the most part, be eliminated.

There is another sentence in this letter which I regard as being very important. It reads:

I repeat “…aan die gemeenskap te lewer.”

The method I propose would strengthen our case in the community. It would remove the stigma attached to our offices by activists, and the result would be that the problems that have to be solved by those offices would, to a large extent, be eliminated.

Hon members must just listen to this sentence:

I expect the answer to this plea of mine to be that head office officials will have to be sent into the field and that this would create problems, because accommodation would have to be provided for those officials. My plea to the hon the Minister today is nevertheless to go into this matter and to ensure that accommodation is provided for those officials when they go into the field, because these regional offices are, after all, situated in major centres. Officials should not simply be told that they are going to Worcester or Upington and that they should find their own accommodation. Let us look, for example, at the officials in other departments. If a magistrate is transferred from one place to another, for example, accommodation is provided for him. I want to bring it to the hon the Minister’s attention that the department has a house in Worcester which just happens to be situated in a White area. Now even a senior official cannot live in that House. If the ambassador of Venda or Transkei were to come here, he could live anywhere. Yet a South African, occupying a very senior position, cannot live in that departmental house. I think that the hon the Minister has the power to rectify this.

The second point I want to raise concerns the degree of progress the department has made in achieving parity in the case of non-teaching staff at schools and other institutions. A year or two ago a promise was given that this matter would be investigated. I hope that “investigation” has now gone further and that something is going to be done. Although I accept that reductions are being imposed this year, I nevertheless feel that these people should at least be able to look forward to something; they must feel that there is something in the offing for them.

I should like the hon the Minister to spell out for me whether bursaries and loans are merely granted to first-year students—it is not clear to us from what we gather from the media—or whether they only apply for as long as students are at college or university. I want to lodge a plea on behalf of those young people in rural areas who have won their spurs by passing matric and ask that proper care be taken of them when they apply for bursaries or loans. I do not think the general public is well-informed about the new points system. Our department should firstly help to inform parents about this, and also those children who have a right to apply for bursaries or loans.

In the past financial year transport schemes have also come under the spotlight. I am sure that not all hon members know—I do not know either— how these transport schemes work, and I think the department should spell this out for us. We want to know, for example, according to what principles a tender is approved. In my own constituency, and also in neighbouring constituencies, known as the Boland region, a monstrous giant called City Tramways is snapping up all these tenders. Once that company has a monopoly, we could shout until we were blue in the face without getting the “affirmative action” we would like to have in the industry.

I also want to refer to staff, and I want to find out from the hon the Minister to what extent his department has helped to appoint our young men and women to senior posts. I should like to see a graphic representation of the situation since the hon the Minister took over four years ago, because he inherited a situation in which our people were seldom appointed to senior posts. I should like to know what progress has been made in the past four years and also how many people have been appointed to important posts. In this connection I want to refer to a certain young man in Worcester who came from a very poor home but who made very good progress. Last year he obtained a B. Comm degree from the University of the Western Cape. When he applied to the department for a position, however, he was in formed that there were no vacancies and that his name would be placed on a waiting list. One of his major subjects was computer science. Those are the things that hurt us, things which could nullify the Labour Party’s “affirmative action.”

I want to conclude by referring to stop-orders. The department ought to inform its officials about when they can make use of stop-orders. A temporary worker, for example, does not qualify. Certain workers, such as cleaners, do not qualify either. Insurance agents sell insurance to these people. They feel they want to take out insurance because they are in the employ of the service. For a period of three or four months a certain amount is deducted. Then the department suddenly wakes up with a jolt and discovers that there is some mistake. The payments are then summarily stopped. I ask myself how I would feel if that happened to me.

I now want to conclude. I feel that officials do not have the facts about these temporary and probationary appointments. When appointments are made, this department must advertise the vacant posts in the newspaper or a bulletin. If there were vacancies in Worcester’s regional office, for example, and I worked there, I could easily submit the name of a friend of mine. He could then very quickly get that job. This sort of thing—even in Ministers’ offices—results in the vacancies not always being filled by the most desirable people.

I would also be glad if the hon the Minister of the Budget would tell us, when he furnishes his reply, what the overall approach to the financing of our other three departments is.

Mr Chairman, let me first state that it is a privilege for me to be able to participate in this debate on the Budget. Firstly I want to thank the hon the Minister and the Ministers’ Council for the amount which they have negotiated and which has been voted by the hon the Minister of Finance. It represents an increase of 6,85% on last year’s amount. I am quite aware of the economic situation in which our country finds itself at present. That is why I should like to express my sincere appreciation to the hon the Minister of the Budget.

I should like to quote certain aspects to which the hon member for Macassar referred. On Thursday, 11 June 1987, he said (Hansard: House of Representatives, col 722):

That is what the hon member said. I quote further:

I am quoting this passage to highlight certain aspects. I quote further:

That is what the hon member said. I quote further:

At that stage the hon chairman said the following to the hon member, and I quote:

Order! I have requested this in the past and repeat it. If such statements are made, hon members must give the facts so that the officials may pass them to the hon Minister concerned for his reply. I take the hon member at his word that he is in possession of the facts. The hon member may proceed.

The hon member for Macassar proceeded and I quote once more:

Mr Chairman, I shall submit them to the hon the Minister in time.

Order! Hon members making statements in the House have to be able to prove them. Hon members cannot merely make statements because they are privileged to do so. What is said here has to be the truth. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I have specifically quoted this passage for the simple reason that I do not believe that statement made by the hon member for Macassar. The hon member has told an untruth in this House. If it was true that schoolchildren are transported in a kombi bus whilst others have to run alongside the bus, there would have been problems on the very first day. On the very first day there would have been a revolt in the community. On the very first day the parents of those children would have raised the matter with the department.

The hon the Minister must tell me whether the hon member for Macassar conveyed the facts to him. If he did not do so, I want to request an investigation into the truth or otherwise of the statement he made. I believe that the hon member for Macassar told an untruth in this House. If that hon member’s facts were incorrect, an investigation should be launched into the statements he made. I want to ask the hon the Minister to call the hon member for Macassar in or to inform him in writing that unless he presents the hon the Minister with the facts, an investigation will be launched into the statements he made. The truth must prevail in this House.

A problem was raised by the hon member for Macassar. He said that tenders were misplaced in the department. He said that applications from prospective transport contractors did not reach the Tender Board in time. If that is the case, I also want to have a serious talk to the department about this. I want to ask that when tenders are received, they should be processed as speedily as possible so that they can reach the Tender Board in time via the right channels.

We in Namaqualand have a very real problem since our children have to be transported from the farms to schools in the town. In many cases we have to depend upon the goodwill of the farmers. When farmers travel from town to their farms in their pick-up trucks, the children are permitted to accompany them. The hon the Minister is also aware of this.

Our request is that an effort be made to arrange for transport for those children who have to attend school in the towns. I am referring, for example, to the children who have to go from Papendorp to Ebenhaeser. If those children are not given a lift to Ebenhaeser in a pick-up truck, they have to walk. The only decent school in that area is at Ebenhaeser.

I do not want to speak about my constituency today, however, because during the Third Reading debate I shall have an opportunity to discuss specific matters in my constituency with the hon the Minister.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to look at the location of regional offices. I do not want to elaborate any further on that aspect. I shall specifically be mentioning this again in the Third Reading debate, since I want to present the hon the Minister with certain facts.

This brings me to the Official Opposition. Today we are discussing the budget here. I merely want to refer once more to what the hon member for Macassar said at the beginning of his speech. He said that he did not want to cross swords with the hon the Minister of the Budget about the appropriation; he wanted to speak about the “economic and constitutional set-up in this country”. Where is this hon member who makes such a song and dance about how concerned he is about the economic and constitutional position of this country? Is that not conclusive proof of their verkrampte political thinking? Is that not proof of their political bankruptcy? If those hon members had the decency, they would have been present in this House today so that they could participate in the discussion of this budget. But no, it is easier for them to stand on the sidelines gossip-mongering and making the kinds of statements that the hon member for Macassar made in criticising the department of the hon the Minister of the Budget.

It is a pity that that hon member is not in the House so that he can react to this, but we are not going to tolerate the second-rate propaganda they bandy about here concerning our Ministers. Where is the integrity of those people who should have been here this afternoon to put forward their voters’ problems? [Interjections.] Those hon members rode into this Parliament on the backs of members of this party. In the debates about the first two budgets, those hon members made a great song and dance about what this hon Minister and the Ministers’ Council had done for them, but the moment they high-tailed it out of here, there was nothing good about that very Minister and that very department. So is it true what they said two budgets previously, or were they just bluffing and paying lip-service?

When those hon members are back in this House we shall put their sincerity to the test here.

Mr Chairman, I apologise for the fact that my voice is slightly hoarse, but you know why. Permit me to congratulate the Labour Party and our Leader on our victory there in the Cold Bokkeveld. [Interjections.] Also permit me to congratulate Mr Nasson. We call him the white dove of the Cold Bokkeveld. The children wanted to know who the man in the white clothes was, but what was significant to me was the victorious smile he had on his face. It is an indication of where this party is heading. It seeks peace and justice for its people. I appreciate that fact and am glad to belong to a party which has a definite course and knows where it is heading and what its people want.

I want to thank the hon the Ministers’ Council very sincerely for the hard work they have done to obtain this money. I know they wanted more money than the amount which has been allocated in this budget to meet the needs of our departments, but we thank them for what they have obtained for us. I want to thank the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare for having done his best to obtain a small bonus for our aged in May. We appreciate the good work he has done and realise that he really has compassion for our aged.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to look at the welfare situation in Bloemfontein. There we need flats for young people who have to obtain their training as nurses. There is no proper place for them to live. We have a very fine hospital there, the National Hospital, and we should like to have our children trained there. Could the hon the Minister not perhaps help us with a few rand to provide flats for them. Recently he gave us such a lovely day hospital with such extensive grounds that we could erect beautiful flats for them there.

I should now like to speak about education and culture. I want to request that in the Education and Culture budget, thought should also be given to Bloemfontein’s Heidedal Coloured area. Recently we spoke to the hon the Minister, asking him what he thought of the fact that the Joe Solomon and Heide Primary Schools did not have sports fields. I asked—and I think they still have the documents—to have land costing approximately R32 000 purchased for the two schools. The children have nowhere to play. The children at Joe Solomon play on a small stretch of tarmac, and when they have finished playing, their tiny feet are covered in blisters. [Interjections .] I want to ask the Department of Education and Culture please to purchase that land for the two schools. The land is available. The Bloemfontein City Council has marked it out for us and we only have to purchase it. I should like to see another city council that has as much time for us as the Bloemfontein City Council. We merely press a button and they are there. They are always prepared to help us when we speak to them. [Interjections.] I know that in Bloemfontein the hon the Minister will not leave us in the lurch.

As far as the Dr Block High School is concerned, I recently received a letter which stated that the Department of Education and Culture is either in the process of developing that land or has called for tenders. I merely want to know what progress has been made. The progress must be speeded up somewhat and the land developed so that our children can have a place where they can play happily.

Sir, I am not going to spend a great deal more time talking. The hon the Minister knows how to employ the few million rand we obtained for the benefit of our people. We do not have all the things our White brothers and sisters have. In Bloemfontein there are two places where people can walk their dogs. They can walk their dogs in a park where they can be taught to sit. The Coloured community of Heidedal, however, does not have any such places.

I now want to refer to the CP, HNP and AWB. South Africa is like a spotted cow. South Africa has black, white, coloured and grey patches. If the one patch is injured, the whole animal is injured. If the one spot dies, the whole animal dies. That is how serious the situation is, Sir, and that is what South Africa is like. It should be realised that if the coloured patch is injured, the whole animal is injured. If they injure the black patch, they are injuring the animal as a whole. A word of caution here. God loves this animal so much that He did not save His son. We must realise what we are dealing with.

Mr Chairman, I do not think those people know God’s love. One must not do to another what one does not want done to oneself. A word of caution to those people. I am very glad that Hansard speeches are now being bound in one volume. All the speeches of hon members can now be read together.

South Africa is multicoloured; we did not make it so. We must ask God why that is so. He is too clever, too elevated, too deep and too wide for one to comprehend. One cannot go round Him; one has to go through Him. We must all enter by one door.

Mr Chairman, if one wants to see loyalty, one can see it here today. We listened to hon members’ speeches. The hon member for Heidedal’s voice is so hoarse because he only finished electioneering this morning. Looking at the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, I wonder if he is the same person who had such a jolly time with his people yesterday evening. It is good to see hon members doing the work here for which they are being paid, and yet also spending time with their voters in their constituencies. The voters want them there. As the hon the Minister said, one must not paint the town red with them and then put in a day’s leave and take to bed. I want to congratulate the hon members who spoke here today because they stood up and said their piece in the House, despite the fact that most of them appear to be very tired after the election.

The NP MPs are pitiable because of their sorry plight after the two by-elections of a few weeks ago. Those hon members have long since told me and other MPs that we should get together and talk in an effort to understand one another. Sir, we understand them. What they should do is read Hansard so that they can find out what we have on our mind, so that they can know what we are talking about and what our complaints are. Then we can sit and have a talk, Sir. We have been talking to them for a long time now, but they do not listen. [Interjections.]

Sir, I also want to thank the hon the Minister of the Budget. Some of my colleagues say that we should not keep thanking him so much, because then …

He might resign any time now.

Yes, any time now he might resign.

To come back to the budget, Sir, let me say that this hon Minister of the Budget is actually dealing with general affairs. Let us be honest: This hon Minister is actually dealing with general affairs, and they give him so little money. He now has to budget for Black people, Coloureds, Indians, you name them, we’ve got them. That hon Minister has to budget for them, Sir. People need only go and look at our areas. They need only read what we are saying. At the beginning of our first session here in Parliament I said I was virtually representing more Black people here than so-called Coloureds, and with his little money the hon the Minister has to budget for all those people.

You know, Sir, from the beginning, for all these years, South Africa’s affairs have been own affairs. The Whites of South Africa conducted their own affairs here in South Africa. It is only since we have come to Parliament that we have really had general affairs, and the Government must take note of that fact. We in this House are actually dealing with general affairs.

We are actually engaged in general affairs.

Speaking of MPs who are representative of South Africa, one finds them sitting in this House, because we represent all population groups in South Africa. Perhaps I am not that old or wordly-wise, but at least I have learnt something. There is one thing that struck me, and that was how an old lady, about a year or so ago, approached me and said: “Mr Jacobs, I have a problem. My child wants to get married.” I told her: “What about your child who wants to get married? Let her get married. How old is she?” “No,” the lady said, “she is nineteen but I cannot give her permission.” I asked her: “Madam, what do you mean by that?” Sir, what I experienced then is exactly what often happens in South Africa. That lady had brought up her daughter from babyhood. It is the child of a Black man and a White woman, and she obtained permission from the courts to bring up the child. When the child was grown up, however, she could not give her permission to get married.

Did she want to adopt the child?

Yes, that is precisely what happened. Then I found out that this old lady— she is just an ordinary parent, one of us—was the child’s maternal guardian. I found out that if magistrates encounter problems as a result of the fact that a child has been born of a relationship between a White man and a Black woman, or between a White woman and a Black, Coloured or Indian man, they call in one of these women. They then show the lady who the child’s mother and father are and ask her if she cannot look after the child. I found out that there were more such children. One then says to oneself: If the Government of South Africa, speaking about own affairs, is referring to its White own affairs, it is a flagrant injustice. [Interjections.] If one looks at their history, let me ask you how many of those so-called Whites are not living amongst our people, and then this hon Minister of the Budget has to budget for them. He then has to budget for those children who actually have nowhere to go. The Government should actually pay to feed those children. [Interjections.] Yet we are saddled with that.

There is one thing I can say—and I am saying it with all due respect—and that is that in our community all the outcasts always find a home. Even the Black people sometimes disown their own people, and children who do certain things are often driven out. Then they come to our community and become so-called Coloureds. That has been the case throughout the years. The same happens amongst the Indians. If someone’s hair is not Black enough or silky enough, that person is disowned and then seeks refuge in our community. The same applies to the White people, and if they join the ranks of our community, our hon Ministers must budget for them too.

The hearts of our people are always open to others and our doors are always open too. I thank the Lord for that fact, and I am certain they will always remain open. One of the hon members here has already said that we are the future people of South Africa. We are the people who will have to lead South Africa to peace. I want to express the hope that we shall always regard this as our calling and that the Lord will give us the necessary strength to do so, so that the own affairs concept does not become an own-pocket concept. That is the case with many of our people, and I do not even want to mention the names of hon members of the Official Opposition. That is why the Government has allowed us to take our seats here. The White Government thought that once we were sitting here, we would be willing to uplift our people so that we could act as a buffer between them and the rest of South Africa. The Labour Party refuses to do that. At public meetings I frequently ask my people whether they want everything, for example, lovely homes and beautiful streets. Then I tell them that if that is what they want, we merely have to ask the Whites for own affairs. Then we must tell the Whites that we shall do what they want us to do and be what they want us to be, ie Coloureds in South Africa. Then they would hasten to pump a lot of money into our coffers.

With all due respect, that is what is happening with the Indians. Many of the Indians are racists—I have friends amongst them, but a fact is a fact. Our people frequently want to know why the Indians get everything, why they have such lovely schools, but it is because they are prepared to adopt the course the White man has charted for them. We, however, refuse to do that. In the interim, we are prepared to live with all the imperfections until South Africa is what we want the country to be, not until the Coloureds are ready.

The NP is supposed to govern us, and in this connection I want to refer to what the hon the Minister of National Education said recently. I quote from Rapport of 4 October 1987:

Oor die wantroue by Swartes dat die NP die finale sê sal hê en dat daar nie ’n “billike verdeling is nie”, sê hy: “Dit is in ’n sekere mate waar. Die NP, synde tans die meerderheidsparty, is die wettige “eienaar” van die huis. Maar die NP sê: “Ek wil kamers aanbou. Ek wil julle akkommodeer. Kom praat met ons en verduidelik hoe ons dit kan doen.”

One grieves to hear grown-up, sensible people speaking in these terms. If they want to add further chambers to the Parliamentary set-up, they could just as well park a number of mobile units next to the building. Then they could accommodate all the Portuguese, Xhosas and whatever other group in those structures. Thus will they make a mockery of South Africa and its system of Government. How can one add on chambers, Sir? Who owns this House, and what House is the hon the Minister of National Education referring to?

South Africa is my South Africa and that flag over there ought to be my flag. The only thing is, I do not like it because I did not contribute towards designing it! I would like to do so, however, so that I can also be a part of South Africa. No one owns South Africa, Sir. God owns South Africa—just as He owns other countries. The NP must wake up. [Interjections.] It is lamentable to hear that they held a conference lasting the whole weekend and then came to light with a proposal about wanting to declare our group areas, ie those of the Coloureds and Indians, to be open areas. I only hope it is not true. What games are they playing? [Interjections.] Why do they not buy themselves some toys and play with them for a change so that they can come back here and tackle the situation in South Africa? How can they play around with our feelings like this? Is the Government that naive, Sir?

They have been playing around with us for 40 years now.

Forty years. The hon member can say that again! As I said a moment ago, our areas are open areas. [Interjections.] We want South Africa to be open, however. That is what we want. [Interjections.] The NP must not conduct one-sided deliberations; they must invite us to participate. We shall pay for our weekend at such a conference. We should like to help them put matters right in South Africa.

The Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Transvaal convened last week. Something came up for discussion that grieved me. I am referring to the fact that—believe it or not—museums are regarded as an own affair. [Interjections.] The officials whom I spoke to there could not explain to me how one could make a museum an own affair. A museum reflects the history of a society. How does one split up history?

We cannot exist without the Whites and the Whites and the Blacks cannot exist without us. We must travel the road together—the more so now that we are so inextricably intertwined.

As in the Great Trek!

Yes, just think of the Great Trek, Sir. Whites were not the only ones who trekked. No, it could not only have been Whites. There must have been someone who did the “boy’s work” and the “girl’s work”. The Whites could not have crossed these mountains on their own. Never! They could not have done everything in the history books by themselves.

How, for example, is one going to split up the history of the Second World War? Men went out together in ships and travelled together on lorries; they fired their rifles together and they died together, and to listen to the stories that soldiers tell, they also did many other things together overseas. [Interjections.] How does one split up history?

Tell us about those other things!

How can one tell our people that only a certain portion of a museum reflects our history, whilst that of the Whites is reflected in another portion? [Interjections.] I really do not know.

I should like to quote something from Rapport. By the way, Sir, someone told me a short while ago that I quote very frequently from Rapport. I do that because Rapport writes a great deal about us. Some of the other newspapers—I am not going to mention any names—write very little about us. They ignore one. That is why I do not feel that one needs to quote a great deal of what they write.

I am referring to Rapport of 4 October 1987 in which Johan Vosloo wrote the following—

Sir, do you see what the problem is? If it is an own affair, how can the Whites claim it for themselves? Are they then Malays? Do they acknowledge that they are part of the history of the Malays? We know that they may well have a share in that history. How can one separate own and general affairs? The NP wants to use the own affairs concept to promote apartheid, but that is specifically what is going to topple them. They are going to be toppled by it, because they are going to write themselves out of the history books of South Africa.

South African history is written in order to indoctrinate South Africans into accepting apartheid. Black South Africans—this includes everyone who is not White—have been robbed of a large portion of our history. White culture and history have been forced down all our throats. We had to read about it, learn about it, because it was written by Whites. One reads the history books, and although one knows that Coloureds must have been involved too, one never reads about them. White historians wanted to condition people to accept apartheid.

Present-day history gives a distorted picture of what actually happened in South Africa. I suggest that we set up a committee to rewrite South African history completely. There are already so many committees. Why can we not have a committee to rewrite history since the days of Bartholomew Dias and Jan van Riebeeck? Our children should preferably be indoctrinated with the truth and not with lies. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare spoke about lies a short while ago.

Let us see what has happened in other African states. When Black Governments took over, everything that had been established by Whites was destroyed. Statues were smashed. Street names were changed and streets were given Black names. Urban areas were renamed. Some countries even changed their names. People wanted to destroy everything that the Whites had left as a legacy. The Black Governments which took over went out of their way to expunge from human memory everything the Whites had established.

Today I want to pose a question to the NP Government: Do White South Africans also want such a state of affairs in South Africa? White South Africans must ask themselves whether they want something like this recorded in our history books one day. Do they want these statues of Verwoerd and Vorster, which can be seen throughout the country, to remain intact? They are going to be smashed if the NP does not heed our plea now. We want to become part of South Africa’s history. We also want to look at Jan Smuts’s statue and the statues of others, even though those people had their faults too. At the moment we do not want to acknowledge that those people were part of our history. We also want to look at them and try to work out where they fit in. We want to know where they fit into the history of South Africa. We would not smash the statues if our participation in history were also acknowledged. Our children, however, are going to smash the monuments of the Whites if that is not done. That “one day” is rapidly approaching, if we go on plodding along as we are doing.

I want to conclude by pledging my support to the hon the Minister’s budget. I want to ask him to carry on doing what he is doing. The Lord is with us. He will always look after us as He always did, even when our White parents left us in the lurch.

Mr Chairman, allow me to congratulate the LP on their magnificent show of strength and the efficiency of their planning. The by-election in the Bokkeveld constituency was won with a great majority. I can only salute the leader of the party, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and all hon members for their hard work. This applies particularly to the leaders of the party. Once more we have demonstrated our formidable power. Beyond all doubt, the LP is moving from strength to strength. The party is formidable. I repeat that: The party is formidable. Through this party emancipation will come to all South Africans.

The UDP must review its position as the Official Opposition in this House. Most of them, I accept, have already spiritually resigned from their party. They are only here in body. [Interjections.] Most of them, including those higher up in the party’s hierarchy, used the LP to come to Parliament. I challenge them to resign their seats and fight by-elections. They are here on the ticket of the LP and we must call their bluff. I give my leader the fullest support when he calls for a general election in 1989 and I am sure most of them will not be here.

Mr Chairman, I stand by my word of honour. I am aware that hon members of the opposition as well as their candidate, Mr Langeveld, are still licking their wounds. They are bruised, swollen, gloomy and sullen after yesterday’s by-election. [Interjections.] They have learnt a good lesson. They now need a strong antiseptic for their wounds, before it is too late.

I warn them that the same thing will happen in Eersterus and Natal. Their weak, septic and feeble machinery was no match for our machinery. They have misled Mr Langeveld. The brilliant future of Stanley Ernest has been messed up and destroyed. Should they do the same in Eersterus and Natal—I need not repeat myself—they are in for the high jump. Their old tricks melted like snowflakes on a hot plate yesterday.

Mr Chairman, housing is a thorn in the flesh of our people. Allow me to share some experiences and hurtful facts which were revealed to me during my campaign in the Northern Transvaal. I came across grim features. Housing developments for the so-called Coloured people are in a sad state. This is mainly because of the housing problem. The Coloured communities in Pietersburg and Louis Trichardt live in shocking conditions—Brits is no exception.

New Pietersburg has about 35 families or perhaps a few more. New Pietersburg is a Black township that was established as long ago as 1925. Under the Group Areas Act, the properties of the Black residents were expropriated and the residents were moved to a new township known as Seshego. Coloureds were moved from their properties and temporarily resettled in New Pietersburg. What is disgusting is that these people now live under terrible conditions.

There are no streets and no lighting, and water for domestic use has to be collected from street comers. What used to be streets have been washed away by the heavy rains. Roads have become dongas and are impassable in some areas.

During my last visit there in January, things were gloomy and pathetic. The residents’ standard of living and quality of life had deteriorated. Things are not too bright for them. They cannot hold back their feelings of bitterness and hatred.

What is hurting them is that fully serviced land at Westenburg, which can alleviate the situation, is lying dormant. Meanwhile, the scheme in respect of the 43 self-help scheme houses and the 35 aid-scheme houses cannot seem to get off the ground. This problem amounts to just one thing, viz a bill of quantities.

Where does the fault lie? Mr Chairman, let us picture in our minds a diagram of a rectangle. Let the top left-hand corner be A, the bottom lefthand comer B, the bottom right-hand comer C and the top right-hand comer D. A represents the management committee, B the local authority, C a regional office of the Administration: House of Representatives in Johannesburg, and D the administration’s head office in Cape Town.

As a rule the management committee identifies the problem, eg housing. This is discussed in their meeting with representatives of the local authority. Consensus is then reached about whether or not houses should be built.

Letters are then sent out to the regional office which, in turn, refers these to the head office in Cape Town. An investigation is then made and a report-back follows.

Quite often there is a delay between the local authority and the regional office, and also perhaps between the regional office and the head office. By the time action is taken, what was a simple straightforward problem—a shortage of housing for about 50 or 60 families—has been compounded so much that the statistics taken at the time the problem was identified, are no longer valid. By this time the straightforward problem has been further complicated and overcompounded by the fact that nothing has been done. The people then view the management committee with hatred.

Mr Chairman, all these problems can be avoided if in every region a co-ordinator is appointed who can manipulate, liaise and manoeuvre between A, B, C and D. As I have said, A represents the management committee, B the local authority, C the regional office of the Administration: House of Representatives, and D the head office.

The co-ordinator can co-ordinate the functions of the four bodies, and what has been a problem can be identified and put straight in no time.

Recommendations from the management committees, local authorities and the regional offices can be addressed without delay and the head office can attend to those recommendations immediately and can make the necessary funds available. Such an official in every region can help to solve many problems that are creating a conflict situation between A, B, C and D, and vice versa. Factors which were not appropriately addressed and correctly interpreted before finality was reached, could be analysed and synthesized by this co-ordinator and he could bring a solution without delay which would help us in our housing situation.

In the case of Westenburg where 43 self-help scheme houses are to be built, the bill of quantities is causing a problem. This could have been ironed out if there was such an official. Those houses could have been erected a long time ago. However, correspondence between A and B, B and C, and C and D, and then between D and C, C and B, and B and A, takes such a long time that by the time the houses are built, the waiting list is so long that the houses that are erected, are not enough for the people needing housing.

Mr Chairman, allow me to shower the hon the Minister of Finance with gratitude for the type of buildings that are being erected in Warmbaths.

They are very beautiful and strong buildings. The workmanship is of a high standard. It is much higher than the standards that we are used to and that were applied when houses were erected in the past. We are indeed very happy because our money is being properly utilised for better buildings which will stand for many years.

I would like to thank the hon the Minister once more for what he has done in the past and for what he, together with his team of officials, continues to do. I pray that God will give them strength to carry out the tasks that lie ahead of them.

Whilst this budget is better than the previous budgets, I hope the quality of life of our people will improve. I hope that the feelings of bitterness and hatred that were created in the past because of poor housing, will turn into happiness.

Mr Chairman, permit me to kick off at once by referring to our party’s triumphant victory in the Bokkeveld constituency and to single it out for inclusion in the annals of our country’s political history. In spite of the Official Opposition’s feigned boycott in the House, yesterday we again clearly indicated that what they were doing was madness.

Their political frivolity demonstrates once more that they are not a viable political party for the voters of today. As a result of the demise of two MPs in the Eersterus and Natal Mid-East constituencies, there are two by-elections in the offing. I want to issue a serious word of caution to the hon members of the Official Opposition and tell them they must stop inciting people against us. Their political “vuma” is quickly running out and this could lead to their political demise.

What is important to the voter of today is his political problems which have occurred as a result of oppression. This oppression came about because the Government did not recognise the other race groups in the country at the social and political levels. A tremendous backlog must still be made up. Since we are now in a position to do so, our party is using its power to wipe out the backlog, and for this reason we are selling our ideas to our voters.

I want to thank the hon the Minister for the budget tabled last week. Education is the foundation on which a prosperous community is built, and that is the basis on which we have to build our future for a non-racial South Africa. Without the necessary funds, however, the necessary facilities which are needed cannot be introduced. The amount of more than R1,5 billion, voted in this connection, is joyful news to our people. That really is an achievement. We are also glad that attention is being given to the problems our students are experiencing with bursaries at universities and colleges. That was undoubtedly a power-base for the radicals, but we whipped the carpet out from under their feet when our department entrusted with education announced last week that attention would be given to that problem. I have already referred to education and to certain funds, but I want to point out a further fact to hon members.

In his speech the hon member Mr Douw referred to the question of the buses and the children who have to be transported between Christiana and Bloemhof and between Bloemhof and Schweizer-Reneke in the far Western Transvaal. When the hon the Minister replied to this, the tender for that transport contract had already been published in the newspapers. A month later the children began to be transported by those buses, and we want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for that.

I also want to refer to the question of culture. Culture is a strange phenomenon. The blood of White South Africans flows strongly in the veins of all of us in this House. That is why, his tyrannical blood flowing strongly in his veins, this fact spurs the AWB leader, Eugéne Terre’blanche, on to give vent to his most spectacular demonstrations.

Culture knows no colour, even though White South Africans attempt to get away from this fact. We all speak one language and have one religion. Consequently there is no difference between the cultural circumstances of the Whites and the Coloureds.

Sir, allow me to speak once more about the great bugbear in regard to everyday problems. I am referring to apartheid. That is the one great problem that should not be tackled lightly. We must not treat it lightly. Apartheid is disgusting; it certainly cannot be tackled with kid gloves. Apartheid is like a spider that spins its taut web in every nook and cranny. Regardless of whether it is at school level or church level, behind the pulpit—apartheid is apartheid and should not be treated lightly. [Interjections.]

One finds a typical example of this in the Church. Apartheid began in the Reformed Churches. It was proclaimed there. So why can apartheid not be opposed by the Anglican Church? It is an abomination and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the actions of Bishop Desmond Tutu and Dr Allan Boesak. [Interjections.] Apartheid casts its net so wide that not one of us—from left to right…

And from top to bottom!

Order! If the hon member for Northern Cape makes another interjection of that kind I am going to ask him to leave the House. The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal may continue.

Sir, not one of the 85 hon members in this House can say where apartheid begins or ends, because apartheid hurts us each and every day. It affects those thousands of voters who cast their votes yesterday, those who still have to vote and still many more. We must put their case here. I cannot see how we shall ever be able to say here one day that we have found a solution to apartheid. It is deeply rooted in South African history and cannot be rooted out. [Interjections.]

Apartheid causes conflict between people. These days our people are killing each other. Take the Pietermaritzburg incident as an example. There Blacks were fighting Blacks. What is their point of departure? Inkatha is fighting the UDF. Why? They say that it is their endeavour to be free one day. Sir, we all want to be free. It is strange that the SA Police have allowed that situation to develop to such a point. Why did they not take immediate action?

That is why those of us in politics must plunge a dagger into the heart of apartheid, because if apartheid succeeds in achieving its objectives, it is slowly but surely going to wipe us all off the scene. We shall systematically be ousted from the country of our birth.

This morning I was reading a story in Die Burger about a schoolgirl who had been evicted from a White carriage. I quote:

Die kondukteur, wat mej. Haseena Sungay van Varingstraat 11, Cravenby, ten aanskoue van drie passasiers uit die wa gesit het, was na bewering ook onbeskof teenoor haar en het haar aan die skouer gegryp.

Let me quote further from the passage under the heading “Vernedering”:

According to the report the manager of passenger services, Mr Piet Lotz, said yesterday:

[Interjections.] Is he not a very poor manager? Is it not scandalous for someone to have such people on his staff? The hon the Minister will have to give us a reply to this question. He will have to tell us why he has such people in his employ. It is an easy matter to draw a shift-card and see from the duty roster who was on duty that day.

My question is: When are we going to get to the end of apartheid? When will there be a glimmer of light in the dark tunnel? Why are our people so tormented? For how long are we going to be detained in chains of torment for contravening the law of apartheid? How many of our children are going to blame us for not making an attempt to break down the walls of apartheid? Are they going to reproach us one day, saying that we reinforced the edifice of apartheid? Will our children have the right answer? That is the question, Sir!

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal has spoken. It is a pleasure for me to do so.

I want to congratulate the leader of the LP on his victory in the Bokkeveld constituency yesterday. That is proof that the electorate continues to back the LP. At the same time I want to congratulate him on his victory in Uitenhage. He trampled the opposition into the ground. Now he again has the opportunity to continue his worship services in Uitenhage. I want to wish him everything of the best on the road ahead. May things go well with him and with his congregation. May they go from strength to strength.

As law-abiding citizens of South Africa, as inhabitants of various towns, we cannot escape our problems. Nor would we do so. We are here to solve our people’s problems. We are here in South Africa to fix up what is wrong. We are here because we were prepared to sit at the negotiating table and discuss matters hurtful to us. We are here to join the governing NP in discussing reform at the negotiating table. We also want to say, however, that reform must be speeded up. We want to see—and we expect—a more rapid pace in the reform process. The pace of reform is too slow and this gives our enemies, locally and abroad, the power and the opportunity to hit back. If reform were to take place more quickly, we and the Government would have an opportunity to hit them hard.

We welcomed it when the hon the Minister of Finance announced that education would be a top priority item as far as funds were concerned. We expect the funds to be used in such a way that the necessary provision is made for areas in education and culture where there are shortages. I would very much like to point out that in Paarl there are two schools that need help. One of the schools, the Paulus Joubert Primary School, burnt down in 1985, and thus far nothing has been done about that. Representations were made, but thus far little has been done and our children are suffering as a result. My plea is that since there are sufficient funds, Paulus Joubert should promptly obtain funds so that the necessary repair work can be done. [Interjections.] I am also thinking of Elke Ziemann which is celebrating its 21st anniversary and does not yet have decent sports facilities. The fields are dotted with large boulders and the children cannot make proper use of the sports facilities. Since there are sufficient funds, my plea is that special attention be given to those two schools in my constituency. [Interjections.]

It is with regret that I have learned that the Administrator of the Cape has shelved the development of the Du Toits Kloof pleasure resort for Coloureds.

Whenever the Coloured people are entitled to something, it seems as if an excuse is found, and as the representative of the Rawsonville constituency I want to express my displeasure, in the strongest possible terms, at the fact that the development of that pleasure resort has been shelved. My question to the Administrator is: Is there an alternative? Since there are so few pleasure resorts for our Coloured people, is there a prospect of another site? I should like to see immediate steps being taken so that a suitable site can be found and developed into a decent pleasure resort for our people here in the Western Cape. I shall leave no stone unturned, because people were scurrying about all over the place making a great fuss. Ultimately the Administrator thought fit to shelve the project.

It is my duty to look after my voters in Rawsonville, and that is why I applied three years ago for a group area for Rawsonville’s Coloured community. I do not endorse the idea of group areas, but for the sake of my voters and for the sake of development and progress in an area where there is not a single shop or café, I decided to do this. I had to do it since no development was taking place there. For example, there are no sports or recreational facilities for my community. I was therefore compelled to apply to have a portion of the Coloured area declared a group area. Up to the present moment I have heard nothing further. The Deputy Minister of Development Planning wrote to me in October to tell me that this would be approved, but that the Administrator still had to give finality on which portion would be allocated to the Coloured community. Four months have passed and I have still not heard anything. I cannot give my voters any indication as yet of what has happened to that application.

There are people who tender for the transportation of children, and we have learned that some of the tenderers do not even own a bus. How can such tenders be accepted? When tenders are called for, previous tenders are re-introduced for a fee. I want to know whether the hon the Minister is aware of that irregularity. Tenders are submitted for three routes. Children are picked up at point A. Then they are transported to point B, where they are dropped, when in actual fact they should have been transported to point C. The bus then returns to pick children up at point A. Those children are again dropped at point B. Then the children who were initially dropped at point B are picked up and transported to point C. This sort of thing cannot go on. Attention must be given to these matters when tenders are accepted for the transportation of our children.

In 1985 a primary school on a farm burnt down. Now our children have to get up even earlier to catch the bus. They are transported from Paarl to Franschhoek. Children from Sub A to Std 4 or 5 have to get up early to go to school. What great cost does the department not incur to transport the children? The children of an entire school have to be transported. Why can a school not be built, since the land is, in fact, available? For how long must children still be transported from Paarl to Franschhoek?

A White person rents land in a rural Coloured area. As far as I know, for the past five or six years not a single grain of com has been sown on those lands. The individual concerned allows another White man to live in the beautiful, enormous farmhouse, while houses and flats are standing empty in Paarl. In the meantime my people in Paarl have to wait for houses. There are approximately 3 000 names on the waiting list.

My information is that the farmer has a year-long lease on the land. I investigated the matter to determine when the lease expired, but the file has vanished without a trace. What does that tell me? We are the representatives of the people in our constituencies, but when they come to us and mention the facts, what must we tell them? We cannot give them an answer when there are such irregularities in our constituencies. The same farmer leased a piece of land from the same department for stock-grazing purposes. It was hectares of land, but when a Coloured farmer wanted to lease a piece of land, his request was summarily refused. We can no longer tolerate that sort of thing. Those are the things that hurt us. They are a source of frustration to the people in our community. We agreed to participate in the political dispensation, and our voters have sent us to this House to look after their interests. Now we come here only to discover that there are certain departments in the Administration: House of Representatives which are run in such a way that in approaching them with our problems, we run up against a brick wall. We can no longer accept that.

As far as the bonuses are concerned, we are glad that this year our aged are going to receive a bonus once more. Those are the people who did the spadework for us, who started the work that we are continuing with today. I am sorry, however, that they are not going to receive a monthly increase. There is a large backlog, a gap in pensions between our Coloured and Black people and the Whites. For that reason they should have obtained an increase, but we nevertheless appreciate the bonus, even though it is a one-off bonus. We abhor apartheid because apartheid is hurtful to our people.

Tears and devastation are the legacy of apartheid. It is not constructive; it is destructive. What I am therefore advocating is that the governing party should, as quickly as possible, do away with the discriminatory laws that handicap our community to such an extent that we cannot make a decent living. The quicker this is done, the better it will be—both for this Parliament and for our country.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Order! The hon the Minister of Health and Welfare has requested permission to make an announcement, and I now afford him the opportunity to do so.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the announcement made last week that a single bonus of R60 will be paid to social pensioners of all race groups during October 1988, the Ministers responsible for welfare of the other population groups and myself made representations to the hon the Minister of Finance, who advanced the payment of bonuses to an earlier date.

It gives me pleasure to announce that the hon the Minister of Finance has now agreed to make funds available in order to effect payment of bonuses during May 1988.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, when the House adjourned yesterday, I was responding to the comments made by various hon members in respect of the very serious conditions of overcrowding in their areas, especially the problems highlighted by the hon members for Camperdown and Actonville.

Early this morning I briefed four hon members of this House, the hon member Mr Razak, the hon member Mr Seedat, the hon member for Actonville and the Chairman of the House, in respect of the in-depth study which the Ministers’ Council made of the three areas which were advertised for possible declaration as Indian areas on the East Rand. They are: The two small parts of Apex, Windmill Park and the Villa Lisa area, which is partly under the jurisdiction of the Boksburg municipality and partly under the jurisdiction of the Brakpan municipality. We briefed the four members of this House, on a very confidential basis, that all the investigations had been carried out.

We are firstly looking at the available land which is the cheapest and where we do not have to deal with any middlemen. The delay in respect of the East Rand was the result of middlemen who had taken options and wanted approximately R30 000 per hectare. I have now introduced a new style in that we are not going to be held at ransom by Whites who force us to take a particular area. This has been a very good exercise, and we are now faced with a situation where everyone is reducing the price of land. In fact, in one particular area we might most probably be saving R128 000 for the benefit of the end-user.

Hon members can be satisfied that whichever area is chosen as a result of an agreement reached between our Ministers’ Council and the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, we will look at all the facts with fairness and objectivity. I can assure the people of the East Rand that their problems will definitely be sorted out within the next few days. We might probably decide on one or two areas, or three if it is possible and there is a need for us to do this.

The hon member for Stanger raised some very salient points in respect of local government. I do not think there is any disagreement amongst all parties in this House as to which direction we want to follow regarding local government. I want to say—I have said this previously—that autonomous areas based on ethnicity are completely out. We are not opposed to the creation of any new local authority areas, provided the boundaries of these areas are based on geographical factors and not on ethnicity.

What depresses me is that individually, certain people are negotiating with certain management committees and LACs about accepting delegations of power, and some of those LACs that have adopted an excellent stand are disappointing us.

They are compromising.

They are compromising. They have been given an excellent list of the powers they will get if they accept the delegations of power.

I want to say that accepting the delegations without the necessary say in respect of the allocation of funds will be suicidal. I believe that certain associations, eg the Transvaal Association of Management Committees, have submitted a memorandum supporting the delegation of powers to management committees.

One must remember what happened in Angola when the Portuguese just left the country without pulling the flag down. To accept these powers would mean autonomy and the people who will accept these powers will definitely live to regret that day because they will reach a point of no return.

I want to refer to another matter. Within the present context, municipalities under whose jurisdiction the management committee areas and the local affairs committee areas fall, are pruning the expenditure of the Coloured and Indian areas according to the income of those areas. One municipality complained to us and asked for financial assistance from the Administration: House of Delegates. I told them that they should not look at the inhabitants of Indian areas as Indians—they should look at all the people residing in all the areas as being citizens of the same municipality.

They all pay rates!

Yes, they all pay rates.

If, for example, in Durban they were to hive off White residential areas such as The Bluff and Woodlands, there will be a deficit in the same way that the Indian residential areas have a deficit.

I want to make another point. If anybody indicated to the hon member for Stanger that somebody in the provincial administration does not know about discussions on matters relating to the Phoenix Hospital that person gave the hon member incorrect information.

To all of us—to all the hon members!

I want to confirm today that we had a discussion with the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. My colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, the Administrator of Natal and the provincial secretary of Natal were all present. As a result of this discussion we had a further discussion with the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development and the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. Arising from that, the Director-General of our Administration together with senior officials of our Department of Health Services and Welfare held discussions with the provincial secretary and the head of the Department of Health Services of the provincial administration only two weeks ago.

Although Health Services falls under the provinces there is an arrangement that we will give the motivation and obtain the necessary finances to construct the Phoenix Hospital which will be run by the provincial administration in terms of the old arrangement. If any MEC gave information contrary to this to the standing committee then that MEC does not know what is happening. I want to give hon members the assurance that we are about to get a decision …

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council take a question? I would appreciate it if he could write to the Administrator and confirm this matter because we were misled in the standing committee. [Interjections.]

Yes, I will ask my private secretary to send a copy of what I have said to the Administrator of Natal. What I have stated are the facts.

Hon members raised many issues that fall under housing which falls under the chairmanship of the Ministers’ Council. Because of the paucity of time I will not be able to respond but we will have lengthy discussions on our own affairs departments during the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill when we can deal more thoroughly with these matters.

I just want to make one request: Let us first check the facts before we make statements. As far as the Phoenix Hospital is concerned I can say we are working well and we are very hopeful. The allocation of a hospital is a general affair and sometimes it is done by the Cabinet. I can say nothing more.

We did not boast about the dental faculty, we only announced it after we obtained the good results.

I think in this parliamentary session my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare will definitely rise in this House to make a very positive announcement about the Phoenix Hospital which should please the hon member for Phoenix.

I have a time restraint and will reply to the other points raised in the Committee Stage of the House.

Mr Chairman, we all have a limited amount of time in which to deal with the Bill.

The budget for the 1988-89 financial year of the House of Delegates reflects an amount of R841 509 000. This gives us an increase of R81 587 000. When one compares this to the 1987-88 budget of R759 922 000 it gives us an increase of 10%.

The general budget shows an increase 12,6% and the own affairs budget an increase of 10%. This I believe is based on a formula which I believe has been accepted and to the best of my knowledge we do not know about this formula. From what I understand, this formula was first introduced in a language that was quite foreign to the members of the Ministers’ Council and it was not even translated. I am subject to correction but this is my belief and my information. It was accepted and after its acceptance this formula document was translated and it would have come as a surprise to most members of the Ministers’ Council when they realised that this formula is not what they would have liked or what they in fact would have supported, hence the repercussions that are now being felt by us.

One could see that this formula was not going to work because I believe it is definitely based on race—after all, one is talking about own affairs and this formula fits into the own affairs situation. No matter what cosmetics one applies to it, it will still have the significance of being based on race and population groups. I should like the Ministers’ Council to look at this matter and to reject it if it is not acceptable or to try to address this matter in whatever way.

I now come to the question of pension benefits. The once-off R60 payment to pensioners is a sad state of affairs. It is sad—and even worse—when one looks at it from the perspective of people of colour. Let us examine it. To get away from the equal distribution of so much per person or so much per pensioner this is now introduced in another way. People over the age of 65 can invest R30 000 and receive a return of 15% of which the Treasury will subsidise 2,5%. Now the issue that arises is that people of colour have never been employed in positions where pension benefits accrue.

Therefore, when they leave their employment they walk the streets, and some of them beg for a living. It may be unintentional, but this definitely benefits one section of the community. We know who we are talking about; the people who can afford to invest R30 000 and receive that benefit. I think this is a very important issue and I would like the Minister responsible definitely to put up a fight. It is not good enough for him to bring it to me. What is important is that we should look at this in the context of the South African situation and see how it affects us.

I now want to turn to agriculture. The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture is not present but I have given him some very good news and I shall not take it upon myself to announce it. He will make that announcement to hon members whichever way he wants to. However, we have good news for those that have been affected by the floods and the drought, and I have conveyed that to him and he will address the matter.

Housing is in a very sad state. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has said that we cannot force local authorities to accept housing projects. We have problems with local authorities throughout the country, not only in certain areas. It is a national problem. However, have we done our part, because when the Department of Community Development and the National Housing Commission were in existence, as much as we disliked them, they got on with the job. They sent a man from Pretoria who went to the local authorities, investigated the needs of the community over there, and provided for its housing needs.

Perhaps the House of Delegates’ housing section has only recently been established and has not yet got to grips with all the necessary needs and requirements …

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question? Is the hon member aware that we are doing that on an extensive scale and, in spite of that, one or two municipalities are refusing to co-operate?

I like that “extensive scale” because the extensive scale appears on TV. However, the point I am trying to drive home is that the ministerial representatives are the people that should be assigned by the hon the Minister to carry out these investigations, and to report to him on the needs of the people. I can tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, how ever, that all of these ministerial representatives are very busy organising women …

Organising women? [Interjections.]

… women’s organisations and addressing them and organising meetings for them. I know about this. We want them to get on with the job. There is a crying need for housing. All I was going to say is: Send people out to carry out the investigations and report back to any department—the Department of Housing or the hon the Minister—and get on with this.

I shall give two examples. Six years ago land was identified in Ixopo. It is on record. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is also the Minister of Housing, should also take a look at that file. Two years ago the previous Minister of Housing and the present Minister of Local Government and Agriculture visited the area with a whole lot of cars and officials and selected people. They discussed the matter, went away and did not come back.

That was the previous Minister.

Yes. I shall tell you later what the present hon Minister did.

The House of Representatives, after it was constituted, built homes in Ixopo, but in the House of Delegates’ section people are living in buses and broken-down cars; nobody cares. The land is there. It has been offered. The hue and cry about not being able to obtain land is not absolutely factual because there are areas that can be attended to, where things can be done. We must do these things.

I received a letter from the hon the Minister of Housing saying that it would take three to three and a half years before we could do anything there. Why? The land is there, they have the money—why can they not do something? I shall discuss this matter further during the Housing Vote. I must conclude that the hon the Minister of Housing must be too busy and must have too much on his plate. That may be the reason why he cannot do what should be done.

Mr Chairman, in the last paragraph on the first page of his speech, the hon the Minister of the Budget says:

1989-90 to 1994-95 as the medium term.

He goes on to say that there are far too many variables to lend any credibility to a longer term. That is a fact. Nothing will lend credibility to this perpetration of own affairs. That is a very good point. I am not even sure about five years. The way things are moving we may be sitting alone in five years’ time or we may not. I think that is something we should think about.

Mr Chairman, I refer to the budget speech given by the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare. In his opening remarks he says:

Then, if we go right down to the fourth paragraph the hon the Minister states:

We appreciate the fact that the hon the Minister is right in quoting a portion of Gilbert and Sullivan, and we must congratulate the speechwriter on this beautiful budget speech.

Following this Gilbert and Sullivan dialogue, monologue or whatever “logue” you might call it, I want to dwell on the lot of the hon the Minister of the Budget as not an “’appy” one in the episodes in this tricameral system.

I was prevented by the rules of convention and the constraints placed upon me from speaking previously. For the past ten months I have been silenced, and I had to keep to that silence. As you are aware, Mr Chairman, you yourself have only to shout “Order!” all the time and make certain rulings. That is the constraint placed on presiding officers.

I want to take this opportunity to say that certain people’s lot is not an “’appy” one—just like the lot of the hon the Minister of the Budget, and in so doing I shall refer to the Hansard of 21 May 1987 col 163, and I hope that that notable reporter Mr Norman West of the Sunday Times is paying great attention to this debate today. He seems to sometimes forget to pay attention to certain debates. He seems sometimes to criticise the various Houses of Parliament, as in own affairs, little realising that the Sunday Times Extra is also an Own Affairs newspaper. In Cape Town one has the Sunday Times Extra for our Coloured community. In Natal one gets it for the Indian community, and there is the one in Transvaal for Indians.

I therefore think Mr Norman West would be able to give me the coverage that he gave me whilst I was under constraint. Knowing well the rules of journalism—if he knows them—and knowing the rules the Chairman of the House fell under, he used to ask me for my comment and I used to tell him: “I cannot comment because I am constrained by the rules of Parliament and conventions.”

In col 163 of Hansard, 1987, the Minister of the Budget, again acting a kind of Gilbert and Sullivan, says:

The previous Chairman, the late Mr Munsook, told me that I was playing the Queensberry rules all along. He said that I must learn from him. However, it seems that Queensberry rules do not apply in this House. I would like to continue with that quote from Hansard:

Mr Chairman, I would like to draw the Chair’s attention to Standing Order No 112. I would like to know from the Chair whether the hon member is in fact keeping to the Budget Speech or not. I request a ruling from the Chair.

Order! I think the hon member for Rylands may continue, but I would like to ask him not to range too wide off the subject, as we do have a particular matter on the Order Paper which is now under discussion.

Mr Chairman, with due respect to your ruling, I hope the Chair will appreciate that this is an Appropriation Bill which covers own affairs and I am dealing solely with own affairs.

Order! The hon member may proceed without going too wide of the mark.

It is a real cry from the heart.

Mr Chairman, my quote continues:

We then continue in col 164 (Hansard: Delegates, 21 May 1987) where the hon the Minister of the Budget says:

I want to know if people hide behind Parliamentary privilege. Was this statement made because the hon the Minister of the Budget was using his Parliamentary privilege? He was quoting an hon member of this House and this could have had serious repercussions against an hon member of this House. This was inciting racial unrest. Has he the courage to repeat outside of this House—in the way that this is usually bandied around the floor of this House—“say it at half past six outside this House”? We have heard that many a time.

The hon the Minister of the Budget uses the expression: “The role of a policeman”. Was the role of a policeman played outside this House or do we come here into this House and lower its dignity by making statements about fellow hon members? The hon member about whom these statements were made, had no chance to defend himself, although non-parliamentary words were used by way of interjections. However, that is all he could do. The hon the Minister of the Budget, who holds an important position, should have the courage to make such a statement outside the House.

He goes on to say the following (Hansard: Delegates, 21 May 1987, col 165):

The reason why I am raising this matter is because those member plead for dignity in this House. They plead that we should come and discuss certain issues here. They attack other people for making character assassinations, and yet what has happened? A responsible Minister of State has made character assassinations in this House.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I can appreciate the hon member’s desire to continue in this fashion but I should like to respectfully submit that we have drifted far away from the Appropriation Bill.

Order! I think the hon member for Rylands must be permitted to continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I do not know why the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition jumped up. I do not know what is worrying him because he used to wander far beyond the scope of debates in the past, and I know the rules. I am speaking on the Appropriation Bill for own affairs, and I have the right …

Order! I should like to remind the hon member for Rylands that every hon member in this House has a right to stand up on a point of order and that a point of order may be taken. The hon member may proceed.

You are not in the Chair any more.

Mr Chairman, I appeal to you to request the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition to withdraw that remark. I never claimed I was in the Chair. That is an insult to my integrity.

Order! I must confess I did not hear it.

Well, I am stating that he said it, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition say?

Mr Chairman, I said he was not in the Chair, because he insulted me by making those remarks about me when I had a right to get up and make a submission to you. I wanted to respond to his nasty remarks, Mr Chairman. I did not incite those remarks.

Order! I think the hon member for Rylands must proceed with his speech.

I should like to continue by quoting from a speech by the hon the Minister of the Budget in which he made the following plea (Hansard: Delegates, 21 May 1987, col 171):

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

I have no time for questions, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like a ruling from the Chair as to whether it is proper for the hon member to describe the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition as a “culprit”.

Order! The hon member for Rylands is quoting from the Hansard record and I think he is permitted to do so. The hon member for Rylands may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I hope you will grant me injury time. I have been given a note advising me that my time is running out due to these constant interjections and points of order.

Order! That is an arrangement between the Whips. I am not in a position to call the hon member to order insofar as time is concerned at this juncture.

I respect that ruling, Mr Chairman.

I quote from a Press statement, regarding what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said. It appeared on 28 February 1988, under the heading “MP faces flak for joining party”. I quote:

The article stated, and I quote:

It hurts me, Mr Chairman, that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is not here today to defend himself, but he should be here. I will say what I have to say, and he can read the Hansard. He made this statement to the newspaper while he was overseas. How he made the statement I do not know. Never in parliamentary history was a man the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Minister of the Budget at the same time. He was riding two horses at the same time, so much so that the PRP was formed, which is now becoming the PFP.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

Mr Chairman, I have told the hon member that I have time restraints and that I have no time for questions. Hon members can address questions to me in writing.

I protested to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I ask: Who was politically dishonest? It was shocking that he presented a Budget and— according to Hansard—voted against his own Budget.

At your insistence!

They say it was at my insistence. Was I the Leader of the Official Opposition? Was I the Minister of the Budget? The hon the State President should actually have fired him, but he remained there by grace. He also moved a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet and three days later he went overseas to Europe. He went—I am given to understand, according to Press reports—concerning issues like sanctions. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should be sitting here. I would have respected it if a member of the ruling party went. They are always told they are the National Peoples Party or the National Party’s people, but when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition goes overseas to promote Government policy, who is politically dishonest? I think people should be able to decide this for themselves. I am wondering whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition thinks he is going to get a Cabinet post one of these days. Maybe he is angling for a position in the Cabinet. However, Mr Eglin is still here, and so is Mr Treurnicht. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is here, but the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is touring Europe on behalf of the Government which he condemned a couple of days ago. I find this strange. I wish to place on record that I am against any person or Governments who impose sanctions against our country South Africa.

My time is up, but on a later date I will speak further.

Mr Chairman, I hold no brief for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Hon members of his party can rise to his defence. However, I do draw a distinction between supporting the Government and supporting the country. I dislike some of this Government’s policies intensely and I dislike the policies of the Government’s junior partners. However, I love this country, and I believe that anyone who wants to promote economic sanctions against this country is trying to undermine the country and all its people. If anyone, whether it be the hon member for Glenview, who is the Leader of the Official Opposition, or the hon member for Houghton or the hon member for Sea Point, who go abroad to oppose sanctions, they are serving the country. Let that be made quite clear.

I was deeply distressed that hon members kept interjecting while the hon member for Rylands was speaking. [Interjections.] It was not the right thing to do. As I tried to say, his speech was a cri de coeur or a cry from the heart. [Interjections.] It is no laughing matter. It is a serious matter when an hon member of this House speaks from the heart after he has been hurt. I also contributed to his being hurt but now, after he has been hurt, one must listen to him in silence.

I think it was sad that the hon member had to be hurt and I myself had great qualms about it. I confided in my bench-mate, the hon member for Springfield, that I did not really want to but that it was necessary and only for one reason. We have had talk in this House of grasshoppers, locusts and cockroaches. I said in this House that if a person changes political allegiance to gain a personal advantage that person is corrupt. I also said that if a person changes political allegiance to retain a personal advantage that person is corrupt. [Interjections.] The dignity of this House which the hon member for Rylands upholds requires that action be taken to see to it that it is upheld. That is very important.

An allegation has been made against the hon member for Springfield that he is allegedly interfering in the internal affairs of the NPP, the National Party’s people. That is quite untrue. The hon member for Springfield is not interfering in the affairs of the governing party in this House. He is interfering in the affairs of this House. He wants to restore the dignity for which the hon member for Rylands appeals. Perhaps it will be for the first time because that dignity has been lacking so far. When a certain individual manipulates people as in the case of Tamany Hall, when he promises posts, when he suborns people, then the dignity of this House is assaulted. When the rot, the evil-smelling cancer which destroys the dignity of this House could be got rid of, it would be a wholesome act.

If the hon member for Springfield is working in that direction and if he is helping the hon member for Isipingo who has been put forward as the shining knight who is about to rid the world of a particular dragon, the hon member for Isipingo should be assisted. [Interjections.]

I had put on my desk this morning a cartoon of a hatchet man. [Interjections.] Its heading reads: “NPP cabal”. It shows a certain gentleman on his knees—this is tragic—and another gentleman who is apparently saying: “I wonder who is next? The possibilities are frightening but real”.

I think I must take slight issue with my colleague the hon member for Springfield at this stage. He appeared to blame the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for the fact that a large sum of money was wasted according to him in distributing copies of an article which appeared in The Daily News on Saturday, 20 February 1988. If indeed this article was sent out at Government expense then it is reprehensible and whoever did it is a criminal who ought to be prosecuted for misuse of Government property.

I doubt very much whether the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council would have distributed this particular article because it is not flattering of him at all. What does it do?

It refers to him as a man who has political cunning almost without equal. If a person is called cunning it is not a compliment but an insult. It also states that he is a master of the politics of patronage and a supreme wheeler dealer. That provokes responses of Mayor Daley of Chicago and Tamany Hall politics, which is disgusting, dirty gutter politics.

I do not think it is flattering for this journalist, Mr Bruce Cameron, to have referred to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in that manner at all. He said that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has shown that he keeps his hair on in more ways than one. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I had to go for a photograph this morning and I asked if I had to comb my hair. Everyone laughed. I do not wear any false hair so therefore I did not have any hair to comb.

Now this is the kind of satirical remark made in this article. Although it says on the back of this particular photocopy, “with the compliments of A Rajbansi, Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates” if the hon gentleman really understood that he was being insulted in that article I am sure he would not have sent it out at all.

We in this House have a job to do and we in the opposition benches are here not only to criticise the ruling party but also to point out defects and fallacies in the policies and principles applied by the ruling party in order to act as a corrective. That is the function of the opposition and it is certainly one which this opposition is fulfilling.

The hon member for Laudium, who unfortunately is not here, did a strange thing. He is a senior member of his party and he devoted his entire speech to a vicious attack on his own Minister. Of course, he may now have joined the opposition in the cross benches. We do not know but we shall see.

Reference has been made to the Group Areas Act. Of course, what could be more of an own affair than the selection of one’s neighbour? One is intimately connected to one’s neighbour for if one is sick a neighbour will come to one’s aid. If a burglar invades one’s house the neighbours will help and if one has a wedding in one’s family it is the neighbours’ family who will come and help. If there is a death in the family the neighbours’ family will provide food for one’s own family until one is back on one’s feet again. It is an intimate own affair. Why should group areas therefore not be an own affair?

However, who were these horrendous barbarians, when we had an intimate own affair in Cato Manor, a wonderful own affair in Block AK, who did this barbaric thing? These barbarians are supported by the ruling party in this House, by every one of those hon members who belong to the NPP. No one must say he did not, because as long as one belongs to the ruling party one is supporting the barbarians who did this barbaric thing to our people. [Interjections.]

Will the learned hon member for Reservoir Hills deny that he is also party to that?

I deny that absolutely, categorically and wholeheartedly. Anyone who says that we in the opposition benches, or I personally, am a party to the actions of this Government is talking absolute nonsense and does not understand the first thing. Only an idiot—I am not saying the hon member is an idiot—would make such an allegation.

Yesterday the hon member Mr Y I Seedat, in reference to a saving of R30 000, interpolated a remark: “No more R30 000, add interest to that”. My immediate reaction was: “Toba, Toba!” Coming from the hon member Mr Y I Seedat talking about such interest, such “haram” was unacceptable.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made reference … [Interjections.] He is hitting back at me. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made reference to the East Rand. I want to reiterate that anyone who says “if there is a need to go for three areas” does not understand the needs of the people. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said “if it is possible and if there is a need to go for the three areas”; he does not understand the desperate hunger for residential land on the East Rand.

I am astonished that the hon member for Germiston sat quietly while his leader was talking such arrant nonsense.

I do not think you know there is …

I know the area exceedingly well and I have made a personal inspection of the area. The need for residential land on the Rand generally is desperate. The need for residential land on the East Rand is also desperate. There are thousands of people who want land. They are not only Transvalers. I am talking about people from Natal who are moving to the Transvaal in search of work and who therefore need homes. I repeat what I said in this House before when the hon the Minister for Constitutional Development and Planning was here, and I also put this in writing to him. We need a Villa Lisa, a Windmill Park, an Apex, and a Dawn Park. It is obvious that some of these townships are available for immediate development, for building houses. It is equally obvious that Villa Lisa will take at least 18 months to come into operation. I see no reason whatsoever why those in immediate need should not be provided with land immediately. True, in a certain area— Windmill Park, I believe—the prices are such that they will not suit the lower income group. The higher income group, however, are my people as much as the lower income group are my people. The poor man is my brother and the rich man is also my brother.

What about those in between?

The ‘in-betweens’ like the hon the Minister of the Budget are also my brothers. Sadly, he belongs to the wrong party.

I see no reason at all why Windmill Park should not be made available immediately for those who can afford the prices there.

And Apex!

And perhaps Apex. Villa Lisa is a development that must come about. I know the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned in this House—which he later denied; people say things and then withdraw their statements afterwards and deny they made those statements—while a debate was going on in respect of Villa Lisa, a bribe had been offered by someone who said that if it was made an Indian area he would be given a large sum of money. I think the figure he mentioned was R2 million. That has been recorded and enshrined for posterity in Hansard. Although the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council subsequently denied having made this statement, which he did in fact make—it is recorded and printed in Hansard …

Mr Chairman, may I rise on a point of personal explanation?

Order! The hon the Minister will have to take a point of order or pose a question.

Will the hon member take a question?

Certainly, as soon as I have finished my speech, if there is time available.

I did not deny that.

Order! Is the hon member for Reservoir Hills prepared to permit the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to give him an explanation?

Because of time constraints and notes saying that time is running out being held up to me, I am not able to take any questions at this stage.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

You are misleading the House.

Therefore, my point is this: There is no question of whether it is necessary. The necessity exists at the moment.

We do not say…

Because there are agents there.

… that public money …

People are doing deals that are known to you.

… should be used.

We do not say that public money should be used. What we are saying is that the iniquitous Group Areas Act should not apply.

Do you know who is doing the dealing there? But you never touch that!

Let market forces operate—and the public—since we are operating in a capitalistic society. The hon the State President and boss of the Cabinet of which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a member, constantly talks about private enterprise and free enterprise. Why, then, permit the Group Areas Act to stultify it?

[Inaudible.]

All that we are saying is: “To hell with the Group Areas Act; let it not apply.” It is as simple as that.

People who are your friends are guilty of exploitation there. [Interjections.]

The Government of this country, to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council belongs, …

Of which you are a private supporter.

…a super salesman of the Nats … Anyone who says that I am a private supporter of the NP …

You have been for 23 years.

If I were to say that he was telling a lie, you, Mr Chairman, would make me withdraw that. He is talking absolute nonsense. He is telling an absolute untruth.

I now come to the dental faculty. Reference has been made to the dental faculty at the University of Durban Westville. This was bruited abroad in this House as if it were a great development. What do we have, however, at the Durban Westville University? We do not have a proper dental faculty at all. We have Prof Jairam Reddy, who was appointed there with great fanfare and a tremendous amount of hoo-ha. Dr Jairam Reddy is a frustrated academic because the faculty which he was promised has not materialised. That is a very sad and dismal state of affairs. The public cannot continue to be bluffed and the students at that university know the truth. The students are not prepared to be bluffed.

As far as own affairs are concerned, I wrote to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and asked him for details in regard to the Checkers sites. I asked him to advise me how much was paid for it and how much it was sold for. What I did not ask is how the profits were going to be split or who was going to get the profits. I did not ask that. However, I do want the information as to how much was paid for it, and what was the interest spent on holding costs. That means public money wasted. I also want to know who conducted the negotiations. Why was housing money—which is desperately needed for the provision of houses for ordinary people—used for the purpose of trading in commercial sites? Who was involved? Who made up this consortium of 10? Why did the consortium break up in disarray? Who was it that said that he wanted one half of the million rand profit from the transaction, which resulted in a conflict within the consortium itself? Who was it that said that he must have the R500 000 profit, while the other R500 000 could be distributed among the other nine members of the consortium?

These are details which it is necessary for this House to have and which it is necessary for the public to have.

Referring also to the wastage of public money, I wish to mention that during the Tongaat elections, party-political propaganda was sent out at public expense. However, it was very cleverly done. The party-political propaganda consisted of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council pretending to be completely opposed to the Group Areas Act and saying, according to the newspaper report …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think this matter is at present being investigated by a commission of inquiry. Can it, therefore, be discussed?

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills is within his rights. He may proceed.

I want to assure the hon member that I am fully conscious of what may and what may not be discussed in open debate in this House at this juncture.

Propaganda was made on a partisan basis. I have a photocopy of the cover of an envelope in my possession which is addressed to: The Householder, 179 Hummingbird Avenue, Lenasia 1820. At the bottom of the envelope in the left-hand comer appears the legend: Office of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, House of Delegates. This envelope is official and therefore exempt from postage.

Those were official matters.

The matter which was sent under this cover was not official. It was a trumpet-blowing exercise. I am not sure if the hon member for Northern Coast could have distributed this, because he appears here looking very angry. This is the rather notorious incident at the Louis Botha Airport when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council harangued a police official. That document was sent out at enormous public cost to the house-holders of Lenasia.

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

Mr Chairman, I am not taking any questions. This expenditure cannot be justified and if the hon Minister of the Budget allows this kind of wastage of public money, then that hon Minister stands to be crucified. If he is to be crucified for the sins of one of his colleagues, that is his bad luck.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: During the last hon member’s speech, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council by way of interjection, used two unparliamentary expressions. He referred to hon members of this House as being two-faced and then accused the hon member for Reservoir Hills of misleading the House. I submit that these words are unparliamentary and they impinge on the dignity of this House. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council use these terms?

Mr Chairman, I do not recall having used those words, but if I did say anything unparliamentary I withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I want to compliment the hon the Minister of the Budget on the comprehensive report which he has submitted to this House, which shows that there is an increase in comparison with the 1986-87 Budget.

Housing and education are the main priorities of our community and I am indeed satisfied that under the present hon Minister of Housing a lot has been done with regard to the Transvaal, in spite of what the hon member for Reservoir Hills has just said. That hon member has pointed a finger at me, saying that I kept quiet about the extra land that was available on the East Rand. I would like to tell the hon member for Reservoir Hills that I do not want to get involved in a deal where there are speculators and exploiters who are trying to exploit our community on the East Rand. They now have an option on the land and they say to me that they would like me to recommend Windmill Park—something which I would never do. In all honesty I must tell hon members that I have issued a Press statement wherein I have asked all the developers and speculators please to leave Windmill Park be, so that I can take this matter to the hon the Minister and submit it for approval as an Indian area.

Yes, and the speculators and exploiters are his friends and he is protecting them! He is protecting them—go and check Checkers. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to put on record that I made this Press statement in 1986 and 1987, requesting these speculators and people with options to get off that land before I can recommend it to the House of Delegates.

An honest man.

I want to put the record straight.

I want to tell hon members that although I know they have criticised the hon the Minister of Housing, he is doing a lot for the people in the Transvaal. I want to invite hon members to come to the Transvaal and I shall take them around. I want them to take a look at some of the areas we are living in. I am living in one of those areas.

They are not worse than Natal.

Well, I am concerned about the Transvaal as I am representing my people in that province. I want to compliment the hon the Minister of Housing on what he is doing in so far as housing is concerned in the Transvaal. [Interjections.]

I am indebted to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare for his visit to Palmridge. We now have a social worker who comes there once a week to attend to our pensioners as well as those people who are unemployed.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member firstly, whether he is aware of the fact that I support the development of Windmill Park as long as people do not promote exploiters and secondly, that I chased a man who had formed a consortium of ten and who wanted to make R1 million on the deal, out of my house, and that he ran to cry on the hon member for Reservoir Hills’ shoulder?

Yes, I know that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is also Minister of Housing, has said that as long as those land developers get out of Windmill Park he will be prepared to look into the area and to recommend it for the Indian community. Secondly, I was also told that this consortium of ten—whoever they were—approached the hon the Minister and asked him to proclaim a certain area for a certain amount of money, upon which he chased them out. I was told about this by the hon the Minister.

Answer the third part of the question, but watch your words!

I have a problem in so far as some of our pensioners are concerned. When our pensioners were moved from Germiston and the Asiatic Bazaar to Palmridge, no provision was made for them. They were eventually put into sub-economic homes, for which they have been paying a rental of approximately R60 per month, and they find this extremely difficult to pay. I should like the hon the Minister to take note of this, as I brought it to the attention of his department a year ago and up to now I have not had any reply in this regard.

I welcome the amount that has been appropriated for aid to farmers in respect of the many losses they have suffered during the floods and I also want to appeal to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture to approach the hon the Minister of Finance so that he may obtain more money for some of those farmers who are in a situation of virtual bankruptcy. I know that the hon the Minister of Agriculture has allocated an amount of R400 million to enable the White farmers to overcome their debt situation.

Mr Chairman, much praise has been given by the hon member for Central Rand to the hon the Minister of the Budget for his very fine report. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, too, referred to it as an excellent report. However, Mr Chairman, I do not think so.

I want to refer to housing.

I quote from the hon the Minister’s Budget Speech:

I do not know where these townships and serviced stands are. He goes on to say, and I quote:

When I look at the Estimates, on p 2-7, I see that the loans to local authorities only come to R4 million. How on earth R4 million is going to solve the housing problems of the Indians I cannot imagine.

The hon the Minister of the Budget continues as follows to say, and I quote:

If one looks at the Ladysmith community, it is clear that it will be an impossible task to relocate them within the medium term, not even in the next 20 years, because of the cost. What is the hon the Minister trying to tell us? The whole statement appears hypothetical and vague to me. Using terms like “it is expected”, “it will happen”, “this will be done” seems to involve a great deal of speculation. I would like to know what is going to be done, and within what period of time it will be done, as well as how many units will be provided? I want to know how the housing problems of our Indians are going to be solved?

The housing problem of the Indians in South Africa is so vast that I think we will not catch up in half a century. There is a need for 49 000 housing units in order to satisfy the housing needs of all the people. In Natal alone 40 000 housing units are needed. In the Transvaal 6 000 are needed and in the Cape 3 000. These are approximate figures. In Natal, in Chatsworth and Merebank, people are living in overcrowded conditions. The quality of life is not improving. Young couples are refusing to have children, because they cannot accommodate them. Even people of the higher income groups cannot get land to build houses.

I am a representative of a constituency, and so are many hon members present here. They will understand what I am trying to say. We have so many requests from people for housing, but we cannot satisfy them. Yet the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said yesterday, and I quote:

This is a very serious statement. He says that we must not approach the State for more money. We have a very big problem in Indian housing and to say that the money we can get from the local authorities will be sufficient for our housing needs is ridiculous.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member whether he is aware of the fact that we cannot spend, even in the next four financial years, what we have in our reserves.

Mr Chairman, in that case the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has a problem and he ought to solve that problem. Yesterday he also said: “When we have the ability”. This means that he lacks the ability. He is solely responsible for lacking that ability. How is it possible for the House of Representatives to go ahead with housing, while we are bogged down and say that we need infrastructure and clearance from the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning? What kind of clearance? [Interjections.]

The problem in South Africa is the Group Areas Act. What the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has to do is to address the Government and Cabinet to open up the land for Indian residential areas. What is happening in Transvaal? We are swimming in our own little pools there, fighting over the little pieces of ground we have been allocated while masses of land in this country is owned by a few individuals.

What is the input of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council with regard to obtaining land for our people and to getting rid of the Group Areas Act so that our people can be liberated? The massive housing schemes in Chatsworth and Phoenix are teeming with people. If they could be given the opportunity of building their own homes on land in other areas then many of those people would grab the opportunity.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he realises that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was in the Orange Free State not long ago, looking for some land?

I do not know for whom this land was meant. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council went on to say: “I do not think our land identification problem in Natal is so problematic as that in the Transvaal.” However, the hon the Minister tried to obtain some land for recreation purposes for the poor people of Chatsworth. Now he says that there is no problem.

When one looks at Chatsworth and Phoenix one must be thankful that our Indian community consists of such disciplined people who can persevere and weather all storms rather than to degenerate into an immoral society. We must very thankful for that because people can easily be demoralised when they are lumped together in great masses.

What we need is more land. It is a very big problem. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the Durban City Council know that one cannot even obtain one acre of land on which to build a house because Durban is already saturated. It has become necessary to expand to other areas that would be suitable and convenient for our people to live in.

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

I am afraid I have no time.

As it is our people are paying a tremendous price. I am talking about the lowest wage earners and the poorest people. They have to travel 20 to 30 km every day on a single journey and they do this at a tremendous cost. People who earn well can easily live in the peripheries and outlying areas of a city because they can afford their own transport to come into the city to work. To put the poor people in such a remote area, however, is tragic.

How can the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council say that we do not have land problems in Natal? Who is he trying to bluff by emphasising housing developments in the Transvaal? What is the purpose of all this? Is it to obtain the support of voters in the Transvaal for his personal interests? I can only guess.

You are ignorant of what we are doing in Natal!

I have here an advertisement in which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council says that 25 000 homes will be built in three years. If this does not materialise the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will have to hang his head in shame.

Mr Chairman, the imminent closure of the Melville Primary School has aroused the wrath of parents whose children attend the school. A report in the Sunday Tribune Herald dated 20 March 1988 stated and I quote:

It is a well-known fact that the floods of September 1987 caused devastation throughout Natal. The magnitude of the damage caused was such that the whole of Natal was declared a disaster area by none other than the hon the State President himself. Melville was no exception. The water purification works on the banks of the Umvoti River was completely devastated.

The C G Smith Group, the proprietors of Melville village, continued providing water. An emergency pump was installed to supply unpurified water for washing purposes and a tanker provided purified water for human consumption. It is hoped that the new purification plant will be completed by the end of April.

Furthermore, concerned parents have approached me to stop the move by the department to close the school and have alleged that:

1. 1. Department officials have contacted and canvassed the support of two C G Smith employees, who hold senior positions in the company with regard to the closure of the school.
2. 2. Both these company employees have grown-up families and do not have children attending school.
3. 3. They do not serve on the Education Committee and should not be allowed to use their office within the company to influence people to vote for the closure of the school.
4. 4. Parents whose children do not attend the school should not be allowed to vote.
5. 5. One of the two company employees to whom reference was made earlier had gone to a new school built in Stanger Heights with a senior official of the department.
6. 6. The only reason a senior education planner gave for the closure of the school was that the class I and II pupils are combined and one teacher is in charge of the class.
7. 7. It would appear that the reasons given by the Director and the Senior Planner are fallacious. There are many schools throughout Natal that do not have piped water and these schools are susceptible to the effects of drought. If piped water is the criterion, then all the schools that belong in this category should also be closed.

On the other hand, if combined classes were the concern, then there are other schools where the situation is far worse. I cite just a few examples. The following schools also have combined classes.

It would appear that the combined classes are not the reason for having the school closed. Melville School with 109 pupils is far larger than the other schools that have combined classes.

The Melville Primary School was maintained by the C G Smith Group right until the end of 1987. It was only renovated at the beginning of this year and was then handed over to the department. It would appear that the reasons given by the officials are not the reasons for closing the school, but rather that due to bad planning five classrooms are standing empty at a school in Stanger and that some departments are getting it in the neck.

Some department or official is getting it in the neck, and my people in Melville are now being used as scapegoats. I therefore take a strong stand and I appeal to the hon the Minister to see to it that this school is not closed. Furthermore, when planning of this nature is done we should first of all get our priorities right. We should first see that housing is provided for people. Building new schools and building classrooms where there are existing schools involves a large capital outlay. If one takes into account the interest on the capital outlay and transport costs, the amount would be more or less the same as the cost of keeping the existing school going. If a school is not viable, I would also like the people to move out but the point is that we need houses. At the moment in Shakaskraal we have a large school which has a number of classrooms empty.

We have housing problems here. Many people have applied for housing in Shakaskraal. The land has been identified …

The money is available.

No, the money is not available.

The money is available.

If the money is available why is the project not going through?

You know the problem. It is the sewer.

If the problem is the sewer, why can’t provision be made for sewers?

We cannot provide it.

Why can it not be provided? The House of Assembly is giving grants-in-aid to areas that fall within their jurisdiction. Why can the House of Delegates not do the same thing? I would like the hon the Minister of the Budget to answer this question in his reply. He should make provision for this in his budget because the whole community is suffering. They are the people that are really stuck out on the farms. They put up with the hard country life. They carry water, chop wood and do without electricity. The cowards have left that hard life and have run to the city centres. They leave the farms, get into the city centres and are immediately put on the housing list and provided with housing, whereas the farm people are left alone. The irony is that when the indentured labourers came out from India they settled in the rural areas and have never been a burden to the State or to anyone else. They have always provided for themselves. To date, however, nothing has been done and they have received no assistance in overcoming their difficulties.

My time has expired but I would just like to mention one fact. The rural community provides an essential service. Without their services the whole country would collapse. They are the providers of food. I will take up this issue in the appropriation debate again.

Mr Chairman, I wish to comment on the question of hospitals in Phoenix. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare announced as long ago as September 1987 that the building of the hospital would commence in 1989. The Phoenix hospital has been a very major issue. I think it was during the time of the SAIC that provisional plans were drawn up again and shelved, drawn again and shelved again. However, I had the assurance of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare that finality would be reached and that building would start in 1989. It is hoped that no further delay will be encountered in this major programme and for the benefit of Phoenix residents it is hoped that the hospital will be ready in 1991.

I want to address the hon the Minister if Housing in this regard. Two years ago I wrote to the Minister of Housing at the time with regard to the people of Campbell’s Town, the employees of the sugar mill and Huletts.

I did receive a nice letter from this good Minister to confirm that the matter was receiving attention. Our problems began with the present hon Minister of Housing. He also indicated that he wanted to assist me, or at least the employees in that area, but up to now I regret to inform this hon House that nothing tangible has been forthcoming.

However, I want to say to the hon the Minister that I do know that the sugar companies are asking exorbitant prices, beyond comparison, for land. It is exploitative, unreasonable and unfair. What I want to say, however, is that the people that are clamouring for these houses are the very ones that contributed to the sugar industry. They were directly responsible for putting the sugar industry on the map in Natal, and I am sure that the owners of these properties must give some consideration to these employees who now want to be housed. I say this because as soon as an employee completes his term of contract with the company and retires, he is no longer allowed to live on company premises. I want to make an appeal to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to do something to find accommodation for those people in Mt Edgecombe—Campbell’s Town.

Mr Chairman, this is a budget within a budget, and a budget that has been introduced by our hon Minister of the Budget. In my personal opinion this would appear to be a popular budget. Certain contradictions have been made and criticisms levelled here today. I do not think it is proper to level such criticisms at the hon the Minister; I think he has been doing a fine job.

When I say that it is budget within a budget, I mean that he has to operate within the framework of the money that has been allocated to him. I serve on the Finance Committee, and we have had evidence from various departments. Essential services have been cut down on by something like R200 million. Therefore anything that has been done has, I think, been done within the confines of the means that our House has been provided with.

Among the important matters that have been highlighted is health services. According to the section on health services in the budgetary report, the clinic at Phoenix has been taken over. There are efforts being made to take over the Lenasia Clinic, and provision has been made for the planning of a long-needed hospital in Phoenix. I think that we should compliment the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this regard. He is a newcomer to this particular portfolio, and I think that he is a very popular Minister.

I think we also appreciate the services he has rendered and the role he has played with regard to the floods in Natal. I think that immediately it became known that floods had ravaged large areas of Ladysmith and other areas in Natal he immediately set the whole department in motion and relief aid was rendered to those people that had suffered as a result of flood damage.

More recently one could read in newspapers that his department attended to applications from those flood victims, and cheques were received by his department and given to those people who had suffered as a result of the floods. I think that these are some of the important matters that should be raised and discussed in this particular House. I wish to thank the hon member for Cavendish, who I think was very fair in thanking the hon the Minister. I think that that was one hon member opposite who actually appreciated and acknowledged what the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare had done. I think that among all the hon the Ministers—I am not going to single any one of them out—this hon Minister has been very popular, and he has presented a fair and reasonable budget within the confines of the means of the House of Delegates.

There are other issues that are also provided for in the Budget.

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

Mr Chairman, I regret to have to advise the hon member that I am not able to do so. My time is very limited and as I believe I have only another moment or so, I must respectfully decline his question.

I had a number of things to say of which I have made notes, but I shall conclude by once again complimenting the hon the Minister of the Budget on his very popular budget which has provided quite a lot within the present constraints. If the hon the Minister continues in this fashion he will be able to do a lot for the Indian community.

Mr Chairman, before I compliment my colleague, I would like to answer the question asked by the hon member for North Coast so that I can immediately allay his fears about the Melville Primary School. I am aware of the fact that he is worried about the situation in his constituency. I would like to assure him that certain investigations have taken place to explore the feasibility of transporting children from there to a nearby school or otherwise of asking them to remain there. At this stage that school is not closed and we will review the position. He can convey to his constituency that the matter is still being reviewed. With over 100 pupils involved we will not rush this issue. The hon member’s point of view will be taken into consideration.

I wish to compliment my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget for presenting a budget which portrays a good picture of an economic situation which is not as healthy as one would have liked it to be. However, within certain constraints my colleague has given a clear picture of how finances have been distributed for the various budgets. We are grateful to him for this.

In his remarks he dwelt on productivity, which is the backbone of success for any venture. He also mentioned the need for the prescription of a minimum age and standard for school-leaving. Although he did not mention it in those terms, that is what he meant. While some communities already enjoy this, there are others which do not enjoy the same. Until equal provision of education is achieved, within the next few years, it will not be possible to achieve this aim. The acquisition of good, sound education is not only an asset to the individual, but an investment of enormous value to his country. I say this because a lot has been said about education in my portfolio. It is therefore incumbent on any state to provide equal educational facilities and opportunities to enable all its citizens to rise to the highest levels.

Before I answer the questions posed by many hon members, I would first like to complete my answer to a question which was posed a few days ago in connection with the matric exemption results. I wish to stress that I have mentioned quite a few points, but I wish to complete this reply that was given to the Press:

The department subsequently …

That is, on 30 January 1987—

In that connection I also want to read a very short quotation from what the acting chief executive director had to say to the Press, as follows:

I shall now deal with the various hon members.

The hon member for Laudium did say that he had a problem in respect of a swimming pool in the Transvaal. I want to ask him to give me the name of the school where the swimming pool is and where this problem occurs, and I shall certainly investigate the matter with the intention of rendering assistance.

He also spoke about the training college in the Transvaal, namely the one in Laudium. I want to tell him that the department cannot continue to keep costly tertiary educational institutions open when facilities are available elsewhere. In the process of rationalisation the department will have to close institutions which are not serving the purpose for which they were built. May I hasten to add, however, that I am not construing that that institution is now to be closed. Someone did make mention of that yesterday. I will certainly say at this stage that that institution will continue to serve as a teacher training institution for as long as it is required.

I also want to say with all due respect to the hon member for Laudium that he was with me when we visited the training college there and he privately agreed with me that in view of the facilities there it would not be a waste to use that institution as a technical college in the future. We shall look into this if and when that need arises. No finality has been reached in so far as closing that institution is concerned and there should be no misunderstanding on that score.

Yesterday a number of hon members also conveyed to us their concern about the early closure of schools on Fridays for the Friday prayer. I want to emphasise that in all my discussions I have indicated that I cannot order schools to close at 12h15. Parental choice will have to be respected. If the parents, the community and the principal agree to close at 12h15, with the necessary time adjustment, they are asked to do so.

The job of the Minister in the Ministers’ Council is to formulate policy. The administrative side of it is dealt with by the department in consultation with the schools and their principals.

The department is in the process of finalising a suitably worded circular to schools. I want to assure hon members at this stage that before the second terms opens principals will have that circular on hand as a guide as to how to go about it. Principals will be advised in due course. Hon members must please appreciate the problems of the department regarding this matter. Most schools have opted for the second choice that was given to them, but if they want to adjust with the new circular they are at liberty to do so.

I indicated the other day that in the light of the circular not having gone out timeously, principals were at liberty to telephone the department to get clarification on these issues. However, the circular will certainly do that. Changes, if at all necessary, should only be made in the second term, since timetables have been finalised and changing in mid-term would be a disturbing factor. I can assure hon members that the preparation of a suitably worded circular is under way. Note must be taken of the fact that I cannot directly order schools to close at 12h15 on Fridays. It has to come as a directive from the administration. I hope that matter is absolutely clear and that hon members will be able to walk tall when they get back to their constituencies and be able to say that I have spelt things out quite clearly and that the circular will do the rest.

The hon member for Brickfield complained that certain examination subjects were being taught during prayer hours. I can also assure him that we will look into this. The general rule is that no such examination subject must be taught while other pupils are away during the day for prayer purposes. I want to say that this is generally the case. The case quoted by the hon member might be the exception, but I certainly want to assure him that I will look into it.

The hon member also asked about the early closure of schools in Natal. I can only tell him…

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he would tell us if it is the policy to close all Indian schools at 12h15 on Fridays.

Mr Chairman, my answer is no. The explanation is that the Transvaal schools had this privilege and when the schools were taken over they were promised that they would continue to enjoy the privileges they had prior to take-over. Therefore this promise is being honoured.

As far as Natal is concerned, I am encouraged to tell hon members that I read in the Press that a member of the Muslim community had said that the community there is a large one and that there will be parental option. If there is parental option, hon members can imagine what could happen. In any event, we cannot rule out the possibility that there will be some demands from other quarters as well.

As far as the discharge of officials is concerned— I think the hon member for Cavendish enquired about this—I want to say that there is no truth in the statement that the department has discharged any official in the last six months. I need not say any more, but I should like more information on this so that I can investigate the matter properly.

Regarding applications for leave, I want to say that these are granted in the light of prevailing regulations. No leave can be granted if the regulations do not allow it. If some teachers did not have the required number of leave days to their credit—as I said by way of interjection—even in the case of a teacher who needed five more days to his credit in order to be able to take a whole term, these were granted. This gives the lie to that allegation. I was told that one teacher had 56 days, but he required 57 days and he was not granted leave. I respectfully ask that the information be supplied to me and I will investigate it.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Montford said that the department has introduced a new sport policy. I agree that we have a new sport policy at schools and the early indications are that this policy is succeeding in arousing greater enthusiasm and participation from pupils, and even the parents are becoming involved in this situation. More coaching is taking place and a number of coaching sessions for pupils are being organised. This is just the start—with a little more time we will be able to really get going with the job. Financial constraints, however, prevent the department from doing anything more than that.

The placing of teachers is an important aspect affecting many persons in the constituency. It is the policy of the department to appoint teachers as close to their homes as is possible and when teachers take up appointments away from their homes there must be sound reasons for that. The hon member Mr Razak—he is not here at the moment—referred to the criss-crossing of teachers but that will only happen if we want a teacher with certain qualifications in a certain area and we may not be able to swap teachers. There are certain difficulties in this regard.

I think I have answered most of the questions that arose from the speeches. A question was also asked concerning the number of persons trained as teachers at the University of Durban Westville. There were 368 teachers who sat for the teachers’ examination—that is B.Ped Science— and 287 of them qualified. Of them 176 were appointed and the rest were not employed at that time. I have the full details of this and it can be made available at a later stage. With that I hope that I have answered most of the questions. If some questions were left unanswered I am willing to do so if hon members will come to me personally.

Mr Chairman, it is a known fact which has often been repeated in this House that the largest concentration of Asians of Indian descent can be found in Natal. The second province on the list is the Transvaal and the third is the Cape Province. Trailing far behind is the Orange Free State.

From the days of the SA Indian Council the Cape Province has been labelled as the “Cinderella” province. People seem to have forgotten that there are a large number of Indians scattered throughout the Cape Province. The Cape Province covers an area of 489 000 sq km. It stretches from Vryburg in the north, extending southwards through Warrenton to Kimberley and then westwards to Upington, Douglas, Prieska, De Aar, Laingsburg, Beaufort West, Worcester and down to Cravenby. Since the removal of the interprovincial barriers—this is thanks to the House of Delegates—there is a tendency for Indians to move from the Transvaal …

It is thanks to the SA Indian Council!

The SA Indian Council probably started it in the Free State and Northern Natal.

As I was saying, more Indians are moving from the Transvaal and from Natal to settle in the Cape. They are welcome because they bring with them their knowledge of culture, commerce and industry as well as their academic qualifications. This is especially the case since Natal has started to show signs of congestion.

Voters in my constituency are always posing questions on what we are doing in Parliament. They ask us what they sent us to Parliament for. They say that they see houses being built and handed over to occupants in the Transvaal and the next thing they know, houses are being built and handed over to people in Natal and then the same thing happens again in the Transvaal. They ask, “what about us in the Cape Province?”

In a debate of this nature we can only highlight the problems of our constituencies and leave it to the Ministers concerned to solve them individually or collectively.

Criticise we must, but let us be constructive and not destructive in our criticism. Let us highlight our problems and leave them to the Ministers.

In the Cape Province the Indians have lived side by side with members of the Coloured and White communities for many, many years until the pernicious Group Areas Act came in and drove a wedge between us. Despite the separate residential areas we attend the same schools as the Coloureds and play the same sport together, dance in the same halls and intermarry. With the advent of more Indians the picture may change.

*Sir, I hope I shall be afforded the opportunity to speak again. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.