Mr Chairman, I crave hon members’ indulgence for two matters I wish to bring to their attention at this early stage of the debate. Firstly I want to apologise for the fact that we could only succeed in making the annual report of the department available this morning. The circumstances—I hope hon members will understand this—are such that, as far as my knowledge goes, this is the first time in history that we have discussed a Vote in this House before the end of March. Consequently we have had to put very severe pressure on the Government Printer to have the report available in time.

This morning we took the necessary steps to have the report delivered by hand to hon members of the House. As hon members have probably noticed, it is a good report. It is a good, comprehensive report, and we trust it will serve as a reference document for the purposes of this debate. We trust it will be accepted as such.

There is a second aspect which I think it is necessary for the Committee to discuss at this stage. The Committee is aware of the fact that at present there is a whole series of emergency situations in agriculture, in fact in very large areas of our country. To start with I should like to focus on certain aspects, and I hope hon members will permit me to make these few introductory remarks.

We are dealing with emergency conditions owing to lengthy droughts and also emergency conditions as a result of floods which took place within the space of a few weeks and shook the country as it has perhaps never been shaken before, bringing the problems of agriculture to the attention of a major portion of South African society. Just as aid-schemes are designed to deal with droughts, aid-schemes will also have to be designed to assist the flood-ravaged areas. Inevitably the schemes will differ from each other in several respects. I think we have reached the stage in which aidschemes which have to be designed should be specialised in every respect and should be applicable to the specific circumstances prevailing in an area and the conditions involved in production. The implementation and administration of these schemes, after they have been devised, inevitably place a great burden of pressure and responsibility on my department.

I also want to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the departments which have at times spent long hours, sometimes working day and night, conducting surveys to enable us to devise aid-schemes and to determine the scope of such schemes.

This also places severe pressure on the own affairs agricultural budget. It makes this budget extremely complex to handle, and inevitably additional demands will be made in the process.

I can give the assurance that in the Ministers’ Council White agricultural matters are given top priority because this goes hand in hand with the overall maintenance of White rural communities, which have to be maintained with every means at our disposal.

We are trying to adopt a positive approach to these emergency conditions. We see that there are also benefits to be discerned in these conditions. We have learned singularly interesting and valuable lessons, particularly in the drought conditions which have prevailed for the past five or six years now. I do not think South African agriculture has ever been subjected to such close public scrutiny. It has caused rural undertakings to realise how dependent they are on agriculture. It has made South African society realise how vital this industry is as a provider of food and as an industry providing job opportunities. Indeed, millions of people are dependent upon agriculture. These facts are confirmed in the report of the State President’s Economic Advisory Council.

The emergency conditions give rise to new and positive approaches to agriculture in general, one realisation being that agriculture is a singularly high-risk industry. That is why it is necessary for certain structural changes to take place in agriculture, for example diversification within specific farming systems to link up with a more market-orientated system of production.

This is already stated policy. It is accepted and confirmed by organised agriculture, and we are already heading in that direction. The land conversion scheme, which was announced, is an example of this, and good progress has been made in this regard.

The department is adapting to these changes in agriculture, because structural changes cannot take place in agriculture if the pattern, according to which departments of agriculture have operated throughout the years, continue unchanged.

The department must also adapt to these specific circumstances. For that reason a decision has been taken to establish agricultural advisory centres to support the existing extension service systems that we have. This means the augmentation and reorganisation of staff within the department, and the Ministers’ Council has already called for an investigation into this aspect. At a later stage we can expect further announcements about this.

Meanwhile the aid programmes must continue in order to meet the emergency situation facing White farmers. Some of these programmes are short-term programmes which could terminate within a year or within a specific budgetary cycle. We are thinking, for example, of the six-year and 10-year schemes established on a medium-term basis. They will terminate some time or other, as conditions in agriculture improve. Some of these programmes, however, could drastically change in character overnight. A drought-aid programme in the stock-grazing areas, for example, could change into a flood-aid programme as a result of stock losses, etc. This situation also applies in some of the summer-grain agricultural areas.

It remains of importance, however, that shortterm and medium-term aid-programmes do not clash with our long-term policy in agriculture, for example the structural changes we are engaged in at present, and also the basis of all aidprogrammes, ie the protection of agricultural resources. This has compelled us to reconsider certain of the aid-programmes which have been in operation for a relatively long time now and to make certain adjustments. We were therefore also compelled, in certain respects, to launch other aid-programmes because circumstances demanded that we did so. I now want to discuss such a new aid-programme.

With the good rains before the planting season this year, in October 1987—I am now referring specifically to the summer-grain areas—there was great demand for production loans. To accommodate the farmers, more funds were made available for this purpose than were initially voted in the budget under this item. On 31 December the amount of the loans stood at more than R120 million, loans made available to 2 685 farmers. The farmers had hoped that if everything went well, and better harvests could be obtained, their financial position would improve considerably.

It is in the nature of farmers to be extremely optimistic; if it starts raining well, even if they have debts, they incur further debts wherever they can and plant their crops. That is precisely what happened, but then came the great disillusionment when the rains in certain areas, particularly in the Western Transvaal, ceased and were followed by exceptional heat-waves. Hon members can imagine the situation facing a farmer whose production over the past five years was only about 30% of his average annual production in normal years when it rained.

The farmers were crushed; they were dispirited. I personally had the traumatic experience of sharing this plight with them. It should also be borne in mind that the weakening financial position of the farmers also began to affect many persons in the towns. It had a domino effect, rippling through to the shopkeeper, the doctor, the lawyer, the chemist, the hotelkeeper and, last but not least, also our churches and schools.

At the invitation of the South African Agricultural Union and Nampo my colleague, the Deputy Minister, and I visited the specific areas on 9 and 10 February of this year to ascertain the agricultural conditions in those areas. It appeared that the extent of the damage caused by the drought varied from one area to the next and that the western areas, in particular, had been much harder hit and were worse off than other areas. We became deeply conscious of the fact that if traditional assistance were not given to farmers in certain areas, the overall agricultural infrastructure would be in danger and farmers would not be able to meet their obligations to their farm labourers either.

On 24 February 1988 I therefore requested the chairman of the Agricultural Work Committee and the Agricultural Restructuring Committee under the chairmanship of Dr Jacobs to institute an investigation—only for the 1988-89 season— into adjustments to the existing aid-measures and the establishment of additional aid-measures, the object being to assist farmers in the identified areas and thus to secure them against possible sequestration.

Hon members will understand that when one has uninterrupted, successive periods of drought and an accumulating burden of debt, this increasingly affects the economic sensitivity of the farmers and those communities. In other words, a crop which is 50% or 60% of what would normally allow that area to survive, no longer applies. Even a crop greater than that, even one greater than 50%, or one as high as 60%, no longer has the same effect, in that situation, as it would have had under normal circumstances.

After considering all the proposals we received, and after further discussions with the South African Agricultural Union on 18 March of this year, and also bearing in mind the funds that we have available, I now want to announce the following additional aid-measure.

Mr Chairman, in certain areas—let us call them special emergency drought areas—by subsidising farmers’ input costs for the 1987-88 production season, the scheme aims at keeping the farmers on their farms and enabling them to discharge their debts. In this way we believe that rural communities will also be indirectly assisted.

The scheme is therefore limited to certain areas I shall be referring to at a later stage. In referring here to a special emergency area, we are referring to an area which has been strangled to death, as it were, as a result of successive years of droughts or, to put it more succinctly, by very intermittent rainfall. That is also a kind of disaster which is merely slower and which lasts for a longer time. The one is like a heart spasm and the other like a disease that systematically debilitates one.

The question that can be asked is how such a disaster area is identified. After due consultation with organised agriculture and many experts from our department we have come to the conclusion that the following basis can be used to identify such a special drought area: In order to identify the areas, i e magisterial districts, or parts of magisterial districts, for the purposes of the aid-programme, we total the average annual crop production per hectare of these areas for the production seasons from 1982-83 to 1986-87. If the average annual yield per hectare over the relevant period is 40% or less of the normal yield per hectare, such an area is regarded as being a special emergency drought area.

How is a “normal crop” determined? We argued this point at great length, and a considerable number of contributions were obtained from scientific and accountancy sources. We decided that it would have to be done by calculating the average annual yield per hectare, according to the dominant crops furnished by agricultural co-operatives over the 10-year period from 1975-76 to 1984-85. The poorest and the best production seasons during the relevant period would be omitted. This means that the average annual yield per hectare for eight production seasons—per recognised, reasonably homogeneous agricultural region, such as the North Western Free State and the Western Transvaal— would be taken as the criterion for determining a normal yield per hectare.

In certain summer-rainfall areas maize would be the dominant crop which is cultivated. In other areas it would be wheat, or a combination of maize and wheat, whilst in another area, amongst others the Springbok Flats, for example, where there can be considerable variation from year to year, any crop which is cultivated in the area on such a scale that it covers an average of 60% of the cultivated surface area, can be used as a criterion for determining the normal production per hectare, and the average annual yield per hectare in accordance with which the disaster areas are designated, as I have just explained.

For the purposes of defining those areas, a delimitation committee will be appointed, a committee consisting of the relevant regional director of my department and representatives of industrial organisations, together with the SA Agricultural Union. We shall be conducting further discussions, and final clarification of the position will be announced at a later stage.

In such an identified special area all farmers—I want hon members to note that all farmers will be involved—will qualify for the proposed assistance. The reason why we include all farmers is that even farmers who have relatively large systems of production and plant crops on a relatively large scale will be able to participate in the scheme with a view to thus establishing a stronger cash flow in the area. We have certain restrictions which I shall come to in a moment.

Amongst other things, this assistance takes the form of a one-off input subsidy equal to a maximum of R100 per hectare with a maximum of 400 hectares per farmer under dry-land crops for the 1987-88 production season; in other words, the crops at present on the land. This does not take into consideration the number of farming units a farmer has and excludes public companies.

This will be paid to farmers in the selected disaster areas after 1 July 1988, i e shortly. As soon as this crop is realised, the amount is payable. The amount will not be paid to the farmer himself, but to his creditors, for example his commercial bank, the co-operative or the Agricultural Credit Board, to discharge his production debt for the 1987-88 production season. Farmers will have to furnish certificates in support of their actual production expenditure financed by the commercials banks in terms of the existing interest subsidy scheme for 1987-88, the agricultural co-operatives and the Agricultural Credit Board.

We felt that we should also expect a quid pro quo from our producers. Many millions of rand of taxpayers’ money is involved. We do, after all, see what is going on around us. We also want the understanding and the confidence of the taxpayers. We in agriculture do not want to create the impression that we are spending funds on an uncontrolled or random basis. Therefore we also felt that there should be a quid pro quo from the producers.

We require a farmer to participate in the co ordinating extension campaign—this is a prerequisite, in my opinion not an unreasonable one— and keep an acceptable agricultural record system with the assistance of his co-operative, if he does not yet have one. I think that the majority of the farmers do have one, however, but if there are farmers who do not have a proper system of records, they must join in with the system. What is more, a concession will be considered—this is very important—for those farmers who are already participating in the land conversion scheme, to the effect that they can include the number of hectares they are withdrawing in the number of hectares on which a maize crop would have been cultivated. In other words, they would receive the beneficial difference between the land conversion and the input costs.

Apart from the one-off payment of the stated input subsidy, in regard to the second portion of this programme, relating to both the six-year and 10-year carry-over schemes concerning farmers’ carry-over debts, it has been decided to pay to agricultural co-operatives in the special areas an interest subsidy equal to 10 percentage points of the Land Bank’s interest rate on cash credit loans for the 1988-89 production season, commencing on 1 May 1988 for winter crops and 1 September 1988 for summer crops. The Land Bank’s lending rate, however, may not be subsidised to a level lower than 2,5%. It has also been decided to subsidise farmers’ outstanding production loans with the Agricultural Credit Board, for the 1988 and 1989 production seasons, by 5,5 percentage points on the same basis. The carry-over debt that comes into consideration for the additional interest subsidy is that calculated on 30 April 1988 for winter crops and on 31 August 1988 for summer crops. The maximum amount per farmer—this is where the restriction applies— which can only be considered for the additional interest subsidy, is R500 000. We cannot have multi-millionaires participating in this scheme.

A further aid-measure, which will also apply only to farmers in these specially identified drought areas, relates to the fact that if they were to qualify for production loans with the Agricultural Credit Board in the coming planting season, they would receive an amount of R100 000 instead of the R75 000. The additional amount of R25 000 is being made available so that they can purchase essential provisions for their families. These funds will also help to keep labourers on the farms and to support the rural communities as such. There is a certain category of our farmers who no longer have any credit standing with the agricultural co-operatives or the commercial banks. They only have credit status with the Agricultural Credit Board in terms of a special scheme. If a farmer does not qualify for that, we use these means to help him get some cash in his pocket to enable him to stabilise his position on the farm.

It is estimated that this aid-package in the identified disaster areas will cost the State at least R120 million. At this stage we are still working with rough figures; we do not know what the actual number of farmers will be. We are getting an approximate estimate. Depending on which farmers qualify and what the size of the areas is going to be after we have used the various criteria, we shall possibly be able to adapt the scheme further. For this purpose a portion of the R185 million of the original R400 million will be employed. The rest of the amount will still be used to save farmers from sequestration, as we have done in the past year. We shall continue with our normal current aid-schemes. The production loans of R90 million, debt consolidation of R50 million, subsidies on carry-over debt of R140 million—I am now referring here to areas which do not fall in these particular selected areas—all constituting the normal, current schemes, are still applicable.

There is one outstanding aspect which is also still subject to investigation. I am referring to the consideration of a kind of debt-covering scheme. Debt has built up over a long period and young farmers, in particular, are getting restless about the situation. Young farmers are frequently burdened by a great deal of debt because they could not build up capital over the years like the older farmers. We are seeing whether we cannot develop a debt-covering scheme for the younger farmers, in particular. We are, to a certain extent, familiar with such schemes, for example that of the Land Bank. We want to see whether we cannot, where applicable, develop such a scheme to give farmers a more positive orientation towards making use of these debt carry-over schemes.

In conclusion let me say that we in agriculture believe that the drought is a thing of the past. We believe that after these floods there will be prosperity. We have a positive approach to agriculture and believe that the emergency conditions will bring a stronger and more stable agricultural community to the fore. The central objective still remains, according to the White Paper on Agriculture, that of keeping the optimum number of economically independent owner-farmers on our agricultural land.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to jump the gun by praising the hon the Minister too lavishly because we must first study the scheme carefully. I do want to tell him, however, that it seems to me as if he is on the right track. We see our way clear to supporting the Government in this matter.

Last year we asked the Government to consider subsidising production costs at the point of origin, since this would have an uninterrupted effect, being the most effective way of combating inflation and increasing input costs. The hon the Minister is engaged in doing so at present, and I want to thank him very sincerely for commencing to implement the Official Opposition’s very sound policy. He is now on the right track.

Hear, hear!

We shall study the other announcements he made. I want to tell the hon the Minister that he should design this scheme with a view to its success, because it could then mean a great deal to agriculture. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we shall be studying this matter carefully and acknowledging when he is doing the right and proper thing. If he does something wrong, however, we shall not hesitate to say so. I nevertheless think this is a step in the right direction. We shall also have to gauge the scope of this in relation to the actual problem. The amount of R120 million which the hon the Minister mentioned is, of course, not a very large sum if one compares it to the annual interest of approximately R2 000 million that has to be paid on this debt burden. We prefer to exchange ideas on that at a later stage, however, and not today.

I am saying that the hon the Minister must design this scheme in such a way that it can succeed, because the other day he was very upset when I told him he had designed the R400 million scheme to fail. The hon the Minister was so upset that he reminded me of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He is becoming as flustered as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

The hon the Minister said that this scheme had failed because there were other good schemes. Let us, however, take a brief look at these other schemes. I want to look at one in particular, ie the State-guarantee scheme. I want to refer to the case of Northwest Co-operative versus J M Beyers, the former MP for Schweizer-Reneke, which was heard in the Transvaal Supreme Court. In this court document it was stated clearly that the Beyers group reached a voluntary settlement with their creditors to convert all their assets into cash and to have them fully excussed without sequestration. The fact is, however, that the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Agriculture refused to pay out the State guarantee to the co-operative unless that group was sequestrated. In court the judge stated that it was unnecessary for these people to be sequestrated. He said:

That was the agreement—

That is not all the judge said. He went further and stated that it was illogical to sequestrate those people and that it was not in accordance with the wording of the State-guarantee scheme either. He said:

Die judge went even further and said that the State had tied the hands of the co-operative and the Land Bank, placing them in an unenviable position. He said:

Here the judge said, in clear and unequivocal terms, that the hon the Ministers’ decision resulted in the co-operative and the Land Bank being forced to sequestrate those people when, in point of fact, it was unnecessary.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that that decision of his and of the hon the Minister of Finance was to sequestrate those farmers. That step on their part made the farmers even more afraid of the R400 million aid-scheme, because they were afraid of sequestration.

A few days ago the hon the Minister challenged me in the House, and I now want to know from him whether he is also going to challenge the judge to repeat in public what he said in the court-room. After the hon the Minister has finished with the judge, he can let me know where I should repeat what I have already said outside Parliament so that he can hear it. If he wants me to repeat it in the Bethal constituency, I shall try to persuade the hon member for Bethal to grant us his hospitality so that we can settle the matter there. [Interjections.]

I also want to come back to the question of the agricultural credit committees and the hon the Deputy Minister’s statement that the CP is trying to split organised agriculture. [Interjections.] That is precisely what the Government is doing. It is trying to split organised agriculture and this is being done by virtue of the way in which he appoints agricultural credit committees without consulting the agricultural unions.

Apartheid for the farmers.

The hon member for Fauresmith and the hon the Minister confirmed this a few days ago when they said that the last thing they would do would be to allow CP members to be appointed to these committees via the agricultural unions. We know—and have a great deal of proof to back this up—of many CP members who have given outstanding service on these committees, people who simply received letters of dismissal so that someone else could be appointed in their stead.

I heard of one case of a relatively young man with a degree in economics having furnished excellent and valuable service on the committee. He received a letter of dismissal, while the only qualification of the man appointed in his stead was an NP blue card. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister said that a CP member of the committee in Lichtenburg was replaced by another CP member without his having resigned. Does the hon the Deputy Minister know how transparent it was that within a few hours of our having mentioned the matter, he knew precisely to what political party that man belonged? It seems to me the hon the Minister is only interested in those people’s political affiliations and not in their competence. [Interjections.] He knew precisely to which political party the man belonged. What is more, he must not think that because, in one instance, he replaced a CP member by another CP member, we do not know that this is an exception and that for the rest he has replaced CP members by NP members. The person concerned, however, did not accept the appointment for the simple reason …

Did you tell him not to?

No, we did not even discuss the matter. He is a loyal member of organised agriculture who knows how these things work and who knows that organised agriculture ought to be consulted. Because organised agriculture was not consulted, and because he had not been recommended by organised agriculture, he refused the appointment. He knew it would be a slap in the face for organised agriculture and a step towards splitting organised agriculture. For that reason he refused the appointment. He is a good agriculturist, but he is also someone with integrity, and that is why he did not accept the appointment.

I want to tell this hon Deputy Minister that I am aware of NP members he has appointed to those committees, people who, the very next day, after a farmer had come before them to apply for a loan, visited his farm in their capacity as members of the NP executive, toting their blue card, to ask him to join the NP.

Yes!

That is a radical and despicable thing to do! I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that he is not allowing organised agriculture to nominate and consider the most competent people, but with the hon member for Fauresmith and the hon the Deputy Minister as its spokesmen, the Government has stated that it will not ensure that the most competent people are appointed, but that an NP man is appointed.

Scandalous!

In the case of Lichtenburg’s agricultural credit committee, the Agricultural Union was not consulted, but the defeated NP chairman was consulted to ascertain who was being appointed, and because the hon the Deputy Minister wanted one example—he thought he was going to get away with it—he nominated a CP member to take that man’s place, whilst in all other instances NP members were nominated to replace those people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, before I come to the hon member for Lichtenburg, please permit me briefly to welcome and congratulate Dr Heyns. We could not do so last year during the corresponding debate; at that stage it was not yet official. Dr Heyns and I have come a long way together, and that is why I personally have great pleasure, not only in congratulating him, but also in wishing him a prosperous and fruitful period of service as Superintendent-General.

The hon member for Lichtenburg creates quite a number of problems for me. During the years 1982-84 one could very profitably sit listening to the hon member in this House, because then his reason still had the upper hand to a certain extent. He is someone who knows agriculture, and he has insight and even a little wisdom as far as the subject is concerned. Since that time it is very clear that the hon member has progressively deteriorated as far as his agricultural debates are concerned.

He has clogged up.

That hon member has grown increasingly bitter and has come to the fore with increasingly distorted ideas—hence his somersault in regard to the R400 million. The hon the Minister referred to that last week and objected to it personally. On behalf of this side of the Committee I would very much like to take exception, in the strongest possible terms, to that statement, which he cannot prove in any event, because he is now trying to present the Beyers incident as an example. I would rather not express an opinion about the asset-liability ratio of the Beyers’, but let me tell hon members that regardless of what a judge has to say, I would really not have loaned the Beyers’ one single rand.

I waited for the hon member to give us one positive piece of information, to make a constructive speech about agriculture, which is certainly experiencing many problems. The furthest he got was to congratulate our hon Minister, tongue in cheek, on his announcement. He can take his tongue out of his cheek, because on behalf of hon members on this side of the Committee, and on behalf of the country’s farmers too, I want to thank our hon Minister very sincerely for the announcement he made today. [Interjections.]

I do not know why the hon member for Lichtenburg—as chief spokesman on the opposition side he represents quite a few farmers—argues in such a way that he gets himself all tangled up in petty issues. I have known that hon member for quite a few years now, and I want to tell him that he did himself a disservice today. When, as chief spokesman, one begins arguing about such petty issues as the appointment of agricultural credit committees … [Interjections.]

Then the sequestration of the Beyers’ is probably a petty issue too. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, let me put it to the hon member for Potgietersrus quite frankly that I am the only one in this House still serving on the SA Agricultural Union, of course apart from the hon member for Cradock. We are both members. So if the hon member wants to know what the SA Agricultural Union’s opinions or ideas are, he would do well to ask us about that first. We would then be able to tell him he is wrong. [Interjections.]

I would very much like to come to another matter. Over the years the Directorate: Financial Assistance, or Agricultural Credit as it is generally known, has been an absolutely indispensable part of agricultural financing, not only for the so-called category-3 farmers, but also for agriculture as a whole in so many other spheres. In my opinion that directorate can boast a proud list of achievements when it comes to granting help and performing a service, something for which I think the farmers of South Africa are sincerely grateful. Here we have seen another manifestation of that. By way of this directorate the hon the Minister has announced aid-measures which, I think, will prove to be of fundamental value to those who have had to bear the brunt of this in specific districts.

Of course nothing is ever faultless. We believe, in fact, that there are things which can and must be put right, and I shall also be referring to that at a later stage. I nevertheless do want to say that it is easy to criticise. The hon member for Lichtenburg has proved that to us. He continually criticised without saying anything. What is more, it is probably even easier for one to be wise in one’s own eyes. I am therefore merely asking that when we criticise, even if we are expressing our gratitude, we should retain our perspective. After all, we must thank Agricultural Credit, because in past years it has been the farmer’s ultimate refuge in his hour of financial need.

I do not want to mention a whole series of schemes. By way of example, I merely want to refer to three of them. For the payment of pressing financial debts—the so-called debt consolidation scheme—an amount of R14,493 million was granted to 381 applicants during the 1981-82 financial year, which in the 1987-88 financial year grew to an amount of R79,612 million granted to 889 farmers. A second example is the following. For means of production an amount of R8,238 million was granted to a mere 485 farmers seven years ago. Last year R120,667 million was granted to 2 685 farmers. The last example I should like to mention is the following. It probably relates to the newest scheme prior to the one just announced by the hon the Minister. I am referring to the land conversion scheme. Up to 31 December 1987 234 applications were approved in regard to 30 000 hectares of land. At present this figure has already been approved for 50 000 hectares of land, and in the budget under review an amount of R24,5 million has been granted for that purpose.

If we exclude certain schemes and subsidies, the total assistance granted to farmers by Agricultural Credit increased from R93 million in 1981-82 to R292 million—almost R200 million more—in 1987-88. With these few facts in mind it can therefore be stated that the directorate not only has a proud list of achievements to its credit, but has also played a valuable role, for which agriculture in South Africa is sincerely grateful.

When one spells out the overall role played by Agricultural Credit and expresses one’s gratitude and one’s great appreciation for the role it has played, the fact remains that nothing is faultless. We therefore believe that in regard to some aspects there is room for improvement. To our way of thinking there are bottlenecks, shortcomings, problems and certain matters that simply must receive attention because circumstances change. After all, nothing remains static. Needs never remain the same.

One of the most pressing problems experienced by farmers is, I believe, that of delays. It sometimes takes an endless period of time for an application to be finalised. I concede, of course, that there are many errors made by the farmers themselves, for example incomplete forms, additional information that is lacking, insufficient arguments to motivate the application or no motivating arguments at all, etc. Having said all that, let me state that in the farmer’s heart of hearts the conviction remains that there are unnecessary delays. Add to that the normal red tape of files that move from one office to another and are perhaps lost en route, and one has a picture of what actually frustrates applicants.

Worst of all is the fact that this does not do the directorate’s name any good, even if only a small percentage of the applicants are involved. The worst aspect, as far as I am concerned, is the complaint about people having heard that a loan is being granted, but that the amount is only paid out months later. All in all it can easily happen that such an application takes even up to a year to be finalised. I concede that this is the exception, but it does happen and it creates a bad image. I am convinced that we could drastically decrease the period to say six weeks, which could probably be regarded as normal. We could do so by taking a few steps.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I sincerely thank the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition.

I think we should firstly consider enhancing staff productivity. Secondly we should examine the use of modern technological aids. Thirdly—in my view this is terribly important—we should consider reinforcing the ideal inherent in providing a service. People should also be motivated to search continually for more efficient methods. What is also extremely important, as far as I am concerned, is building up a self-image of efficiency within the directorate. Lastly there is the appointment of well-trained and motivated staff.

The object of everything I have just said is not a destructive one, saying that nothing is right. In no way whatsoever is that the object. The argument is simply one aimed at greater productivity, because a body, a department or a company which says it is perfect is already on the downhill path.

I should like to refer to another problem area, and this involves the norms laid down for the determination of the production value of a hectare of land. The truth is that it is much easier, in the case of pasturage or arable land, for example, but it becomes much more difficult when one has to determine the value of orchards, vineyards and plantations. One greatly appreciates the fact that agricultural credit is conservative in the norms it lays down, but in the latter case it has become clear to us that a new system of valuation has become a matter of urgency.

Without getting bogged down in detail and quoting a long list of examples, it suffices to sum up by saying that there must be some mistake when such a value which is determined is less than what it cost to establish the product, starting with a land value of zero.

A further problem, for which a solution is becoming more urgent each year, involves the amount granted for the financing of housing for labourers. The truth is that such housing involves extensively subsidised loans and that that is a permanent asset, as far as the farmer is concerned, but in my opinion this is not what it is all about. That house is a permanent asset for our country. The farmer, after all, is merely a temporary manifestation on the landscape, whilst the farm remains a fixed asset of the country and its people.

If we bear in mind the tremendous population in the rural areas, and also the backlog as far as good and efficient housing is concerned, let me state that this R10 million which has been granted is only a very much appreciated drop in the ocean. Seen in the light of the fact that the amount is not only being taken up in toto, but that the demand is also so much more than the supply, I want to make a very serious plea for us to consider increasing this amount in future budgets.

In conjunction with this housing for labourers, it should be pointed out that a farming trust cannot obtain loans. One can quite understand the reasons for this, but I do not think the matter should end there. It is true that a trust is a more modern development, particularly in agriculture, a development which is soundly motivated. To my way of thinking, however, simply to eliminate this because some or other Act or provision exists somewhere, embodying certain aspects of security, provisions with which a trust cannot comply, is to close one’s eyes to an ever-increasing problem.

I have enough confidence in the fact that our legal experts will find a solution. When all is said and done, an Act is made for people and not vice versa. If this statement of mine is an oversimplification, I want to oversimplify still further by saying that I find it impossible to believe that a plan cannot be devised.

I gladly present these matters for the due consideration of our hon Minister and Deputy Minister, together with their senior officials and department heads, because I believe their approach will be a dynamic one which will present us with solutions to the problem.

Mr Chairman, I would like to agree with the plea of the hon member for Wellington that delays in the processing of assistance applications should be kept to a minimum. There have been occasions in the past when help has come too late and farmers have gone to the wall because assistance that they should have received was not received in time.

I also agree with him that the amount made available for the improvement of farm labour housing is at this stage still a drop in the ocean. We have to take very seriously the need to provide decent housing accommodation for farm labourers, and this is frequently beyond the financial capacity of the individual farmer.

In regard to the hon the Minister’s announcement of additional financial assistance, I would like the opportunity to study it a little further. On the face of it, however, it seems a positive step in the right direction. I believe it is very necessary, when assistance is given to farmers, for the public at large, in other words the taxpayer, to know that it is money well spent and not good money going down the drain after bad money.

I think the accusations made by the hon member for Lichtenburg about the Beyers sequestration are of a very serious nature indeed. There has always been a feeling among many people in agriculture that agricultural assistance goes to supporters of the ruling party, namely the NP, and I would like to see this cleared up and to find out the truth about the situation. [Interjections.]

In spite of the hon the Minister’s apology about the late arrival of the department’s annual report, I would like to express my disappointment at the fact that we are discussing this Vote without having had a proper opportunity to look at the annual report. As the hon the Minister knows, I received my copy late this morning. The hon the Minister is aware that it is virtually impossible to do one’s duty as a member of Parliament without access to this document. He also knows, as we all do, that one of the major tasks of a member of Parliament is the scrutiny of public spending. It is our job to ensure, as far as possible, that the taxpayers’ money has been well spent. Today, on the basis of that process of scrutiny, we have to decide how much money is to be made available to the department during the coming year. As we have only belated knowledge of how successful last year’s programmes were, we cannot make any real judgement of the proposals before us today. [Interjections.]

I know that the debate on this Vote was brought forward to suit the convenience of the hon the Leader of the House and the Whips, but I do not think this sort of thing should be allowed to happen. When it does happen, it appears that the Government is treating Parliament like a rubber stamp. I must tell the hon the Minister that we in these benches do not intend to be regarded as a rubber stamp. We are not going to give our approval to everything that the Government chooses to do, and we are not prepared to pass everything that is put before us. I must protest about this in the strongest possible terms. I appreciate the hon the Minister’s apology and I am glad he made it, but I must nevertheless ask that this never happen again.

The matter I wish to talk about today has to do with Programme 5—“Entrepreneurial development”.

I believe that as a result of the floods, a particular responsibility rests on the shoulders of the extension services and the advisory services when it comes to the question of veld and grazing management.

I am sure that many of us, including the hon the Minister, must have looked at the exceptionally rapid run-off which resulted from the rain and filled dams very quickly or broke dam walls, with a degree of unhappiness. Why was that run-off so fast and so extensive? I am sure we all agree that the veld was in a poor condition as a result of the extended drought and had very few moisture retention properties.

I also believe that the drought is only partially to blame and that a large part of the problem is the result of overgrazing and poor veld management practices. I think we are now in a happier position than we were a few years ago in that much marginal land which was being used for arable purposes, has been put to grass, and much more of this kind of conversion is in the pipeline. In this regard something is being done, and I think all praise should go to those who have encouraged it. I am not satisfied, however, that enough is being done to induce better veld management practices.

I think we received warning from the Laingsburg floods some years ago—I think it was in 1981— that all was not as it should be as far as the Karoo was concerned. The Domoina floods served as a further warning. We were, admittedly, suffering as a result of extreme weather conditions, but certainly the run-off appeared a little faster than it should have been. The fact that Natal has had to cope with two major hundred year floods within five months of each other is a further indication that we have major problems, and this has been further underlined by the devastating floods in the Orange Free State and the Northern Cape Province.

There is no doubt at all that adverse economic conditions during the drought period tempted many farmers into overstocking and overgrazing and that the principles of veld management were sidestepped. I believe that only a very small percentage of farmers are using veld management principles and techniques effectively, and that we are faced with a major problem because every ton of topsoil that is carried to the sea by flood waters, harms our long-term agricultural potential. We cannot afford this loss.

Soil erosion legislation exists but frequently this is not applied strongly enough. One only had to look at some of the television pictures at the time of the Natal floods to see how many farmers had been growing cane right up to the edge of rivers on river banks, in clear contravention of the law. I understand that very few, if any, prosecutions have taken place to discourage this practice. Why not? Offenders have to be prosecuted, prosecutions have to be initiated and, if there is going to be legislation, it is not going to be a bit of use unless that legislation is enforced.

Of course, forcing farmers by law to pursue good veld management practices is not the real answer. The answer lies in persuasion and education. This is where the extension and advisory services have an absolutely vital role to play. The farmers have to be convinced that their long term prosperity lies in rigid adherence to veld management principles.

I was distressed to see that in an answer to a question by the hon member for Mooi River, the hon the Minister made known that 52 posts for extension officers were vacant. This is a very serious situation. Most farmers need the expert advice that is made available to them. Top priority must be given to filling these vacancies and a major programme directed towards better veld usage must be planned.

Over the years the extension services have done a tremendous job, and I believe the South African farmers owe a debt of gratitude for a particularly efficient and praiseworthy job well done. However, I believe we have to go further. Farmers know that the extension services are there if they require assistance, but I believe that more aggression is needed to push farmers so that they have to comply with better veld management standards.

I also believe that, in the light of the sad experience of the floods, the time has come to look at our present policies with regard to catchment areas—particularly on policies with regard to afforestation. There is obviously a much greater run-off from forest areas than from grassland.

I believe we must research extensively the happenings of the past months. We have never been faced with quite this sort of situation before, and now is the time to learn by experience and to research further. We must spell out to the farming community and, if necessary, enforce a more rigid compliance with existing legislation designed to protect our soil.

Finally—I do not believe the hon the Minister is going to like what I have to say now—I want to say that this can only be done if we see the geographical area of South Africa as one country where all farmers, whatever their colour or race, should be working together to fight soil erosion and the accelerating desertification of our country. This is why we in these benches feel that agriculture can never be regarded as an own affair. In agriculture, what one’s neighbour does, affects one. One’s neighbour’s actions can destroy what one is trying to achieve. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon member for Bryanston, and I do not think there was anything in his speech worth reacting to. I shall therefore confine myself to saying that.

I want to talk about the natural pastures in our country, especially in this period in which we have come through a protracted drought, a disastrous drought, and in which—we hope—we are experiencing a wet cycle in which there will be more rain and moisture. If time permits, I also want to say a few words about established pastures which can supplement our natural pastures.

I want to talk about this subject because it is so important; if the natural pastures are permitted to deteriorate any further, this will eventually lead to a drop in the standard of living and the quality of life of the whole South African population.

Having said that, let me add that those who do not know any better, such as the hon member for Bryanston, may be prone to point fingers at our South African farmers. I shall not deny that certain farmers—there are few of them—are responsible for the deterioration of our natural pastures because of poor management or over-exploitation. I feel most strongly, however, that it is not only the farmers’ fault that there has been a deterioration in the natural pastures in our country. There are factors beyond their control which are the true causes of the deterioration of our natural pastures.

Having said that, I want to talk about the grazing strategy within the framework of the White Paper which was tabled in the House of Assembly in 1984, indicating the agricultural policy and the national program of action for the grazing strategy within a broad framework.

In the programme of action for the national grazing strategy it is of the utmost importance that there be support from every sector in public and political life. Agricultural scientists, agricultural researchers and, yes, even the Weather Bureau and weather reporters must be able to give us more accurate and longer-term weather reports so that there can be better planning of and control over our grazing.

It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that agricultural extension officers and the farmers co-operate closely in this whole attempt to improve the grazing in South Africa. This is the only way in which a proper and successful grazing strategy can be effected.

If this should be necessary, I want to request that action be taken against a farmer who may commit an offence in respect of this grazing strategy. Such action should not be taken in terms of regulations which are not based upon and determined by scientific research facts within the ecological area in which the offence has taken place, however, especially with regard to veld fires in the high-rainfall areas, which usually consist of sour veld. There are extremely divergent views in respect of these methods of veld management. If it is not done in this way, we are not going to effect the active involvement of the farmers in those areas. The farmers want to be involved and they want to co-operate, because who knows better than they do what good pastures are really worth?

Scientific research in the seven agricultural regions in South Africa will also have to determine the best strategy to follow so that the best research can be done for each ecological area by means of the 295 registered grazing research facets that are involved with the natural veld, pastures, established fodder crops and even lucerne. I hope this research will be extended even further.

It is also very important to identify areas by means of objective norms so that decisions can be taken on the allocation of manpower and funds for grazing in the various ecological zones. There must also be objective norms for the identification of areas with high potential which will be suitable for veld replacement by improved grazing methods. This can be made available by means of improved research technology applied to grazing. The kinds of sour veld and the composition of species of the high rainfall areas cannot be changed by means of conventional management practices. Veld pastures in such areas and established pastures can be radically improved by modern technology. The number of cattle can be extended meaningfully in these areas. In this way one can compensate for the possible reduction in the number of cattle in other areas.

Grasslands and other semi-extensive grazing areas can also be identified by means of objective norms. Where the rainfall is too low, radical veld changes can be effected by establishing pastures. The ecology of the said transitional veld types is dynamic, and the flora in these areas can be stabilised on a productive level by means of research supported by the necessary extension. A clear stock loading should be determined by proper research for the more arid ecologically extensive pasture areas such as the Karoo regions and the Bushveld regions which are relatively stable pasture areas where extensive farming can take place. The main emphasis of the department should be on extension, which should also be supported by regulatory extension.

The fourth and last sphere I want to talk about is that of the identified area in which the ecology is so vulnerable as a result of a shortage of moisture that commercial stock-farming cannot be reconciled with the aid of the natural fauna. One must therefore determine, by means of science and research, whether further stock-farming should be permitted in these areas. The hon member for Bryanston also referred, although in a different sense, to the fact that there will have to be negotiation with our neighbouring independent and national states. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to welcome Dr Heyns on behalf of the CP. I think he is entering this department in a stormy period. There are thunderstorms wherever one goes today.

Various aspects have been emphasised in this debate. The hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply came out against the hon member for Lichtenburg in an hysterical outburst last week. I am pleased to see that the hon the Minister is calm today. It is very clear to me why his voters in Bethal rejected him during the election on 6 May 1987. Just as the governing party has turned its back on the Whites, he has turned his back on the farmers. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the Committee have no problems with all the various aid-schemes the Government makes available to the farmers. We want to thank the Government for these schemes. We also want to thank them in particular for eventually acknowledging the CP’s idea of taking a look at the drought-ravaged areas— very late, but never too late. We thank them sincerely for doing so. [Interjections.] It is extremely difficult to get money out of the Government, but our problem is this spectre of the R400 million which was made available as a result of pressure by the hon member for Lichtenburg. I do not know of a single farmer in my constituency who was assisted by this scheme. Everyone who applied upon my recommendation, whether he was a Nat, a Prog, a CP or an NRP—which no longer exists—was rejected and sequestrated by his creditors. They were driven from their farms and I was forced to advise numerous farmers not to walk into the trap of this scheme, since they would be doomed to bankruptcy. I want to put this specific question to the hon the Minister: How much of this R400 million was paid out to farmers? I am not asking how much was approved.

I should also like to address the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture who attacked the hon member for Lichtenburg about the appointment of a certain member in his constituency. I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that the CP is not hard up for little jobs. None of our members will accept little perks from that hon Deputy Minister unless our CP MPs recommend that they do so. The hon the Deputy Minister must take cognisance of our standpoint on this matter. He is not simply going to take our people. We have a say about that as well. The hon the Deputy Minister must please tell me who made the recommendations in connection with people from the Groblersdal district agricultural union who served on the Credit Board for six and nine years and who were still members of the NP and of the Afrikaner Broederbond at the time. They are now being replaced without the recommendation of the district agricultural union which functions on a non-political basis. Who is bringing politics into agriculture now, the CP or the NP? Definitely the governing party!

Upon the recommendation of the Agricultural Credit Board, an application from Middelburg was not approved. The Land Bank sold this family farm, which was in the family’s possession for three generations, before Christmas. I personally tried to persuade the Land Bank in Middelburg and Pretoria not to sell the farm before Christmas, but rather to wait until January, for the sake of the farmer, his wife and three children. Another farmer had to be led to the slaughter, however.

What is most shocking to me personally is who bought the farm. It is claimed that one of the Credit Board members—I sincerely hope my information is wrong—drove to the farm immediately after the auction and informed the White farmer that he had to vacate the farm immediately. Is that normal practice? Should the purchase not have been approved first? Since when does one have to get out as soon as the auction has taken place? After the settlement this farmer was paid out another R10 000. Was it really necessary to sell him out?

There is another example of a young farmer with a degree in agriculture which he worked hard for many years to obtain. His application was rejected, he was sold out and he is now selling insurance. It will not be easy to win him back, therefore. I can also mention the border farmers in the Groblersdal district who were even deprived of their danger allowances. What has become of the original settlement proposals in terms of which all the creditors would be brought together and attempts would be made to effect settlements with interest and interest standstills? I do not know of a single case. Was it really the Government’s intention to assist the farmers with this R400 million? I put that by way of a question.

I want to mention a last example of a person I tried to help. He received no assistance, was sued by a finance company and his possessions were auctioned. I was informed, however, that a reserve price of R200 000 had been determined for his small farm. I do not think it was worth more than R120 000 or R130 000. No one turned up for the auction, because the farm was definitely not worth that price. Eventually that little farm was sold to a private purchaser for R80 000. As a result the rest of the creditors, including the Eastern Transvaal Co-operative which was owed R50 000, lost their money.

I have mentioned sufficient examples, but I want to know from the hon the Minister what he is going to do to market the estimated 7 million tons of maize, while apparently the import of rice is being permitted on an enormous scale. It is being sold at almost half the price of maize meal. If that is true—I have reason to suspect it is— surely the Government is cutting the farmers’

throats. Is it true that this rice is being imported from Cambodia? Do we have any agreements with them?

I also understand that there is no restriction on the import of cotton goods. How is the Government going to solve the problems in the cotton industry and the problem of unemployment that is caused by this kind of conduct?

What about the cooking oil that is produced from cotton-seed? I understand that loads of cooking oil are waiting to be offloaded in the harbours. The same thing happened with chicken a while ago.

The hon the Minister of Agriculture must seriously think about making room for someone else. He has completely lost touch with what is happening in farming and in agriculture. Numerous farmers are going under as a result of the Government’s policy. The CP will help them. If the Government calls an election and we take over, we shall appoint a Minister of Agriculture who knows what goes on in farmers’ hearts and who knows how to solve his problems. [Interjections.] Our deputy leader has already given the Government two excellent pointers.

I want to come back for a moment to my constituency which also consists of irrigation farmers who fall under the Loskop Dam scheme. I want to issue a timely warning that that scheme was designed to establish farmers for the next 20 years.

It is 40 years later, and water is also supplied to homelands by means of canals now, something for which the scheme was not designed. Why did the Government not permit the farmers to use Loskop Dam’s overflow? No, the farmers were compelled to pay the full tariff for that water, although that water eventually ended up in the sea! Why does this happen? The members of the Water Advisory Board are newly appointed, and they do not know what is at issue. The Government must pay urgent attention to the development of another scheme below Loskop Dam.

We have also been informed that the hon the Minister appoints people, who are not elected to co-operatives’ boards of directors, to the marketing boards. When, therefore, the farmers have found a person wanting, he gets a better appointment with the assistance of the hon the Minister. I understand there are numerous such appointments. The people on the opposite side are going to get a fright now; it is the former NP MPCs who have become chairmen of the regional services councils.

Yes!

That was the hand-out they got. [Interjections.]

My greatest concern is the relationship between the input costs and the sale price of maize. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Middelburg and I can agree on only one thing, and that is on congratulating my friend, Dr Alex Heyns, on his appointment as Superintendent-General of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply and wishing him the best of luck in the extremely important task that lies ahead. He has reached important milestones in the department within a short period, and I believe the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister will give him the necessary recognition in this regard.

As the hon member for Middelburg has just illustrated, the right-wing radical party has the repugnant habit of thriving on people’s misery and distress. During the past few years they have thrived on the misery and distress of farmers who have been experiencing disastrous droughts. One often hears—and this has been said a few times again today—that the Government’s emergency measures are a failure; that too little money is spent on the farmers. The hon member for Lichtenburg is confirming that.

Let me just place the matter in some perspective. These aid-schemes have had immense impact in our country. Since 1981, direct assistance to the value of more than R1 million has been granted to farmers, mainly to keep the high interest rates, which were unacceptable to agriculture, down to a low level. During this period a further R1,4 billion was granted to farmers in the form of loans by the Agricultural Credit Board.

The impact of this is illustrated by the fact that 25 000 of the 59 000 farmers made use of these emergency aid-schemes during this period, and some of them made use of more than one scheme, because 35 000 accounts were registered with the Agricultural Credit Board.

It is important that the emphasis in all these aid-schemes is on striving for certain important objectives, viz to keep the maximum number of self-sufficient owner-farmers in agriculture in order to ensure the constant provision of food to the inhabitants of the RSA, to protect the country’s natural resources and to diminish the risks as a result of circumstances beyond the fanners’ control.

I maintain that these aid-schemes have been eminently successful in fulfilling these objectives. One of the most important positive points with regard to these schemes is that we have kept 59 000 farmers in the agricultural industry. When we began these schemes, there were approximately 60 000 farmers. According to certain calculations we shall have lost 1 500 farmers after this period of drought, and we really hope that the good years are approaching. During the last decade, the seventies, the number of farmers in this country decreased by 10 000, and this Government has succeeded in retaining 59 000 of that 60 000 during this period of drought.

We know what happened in the USA when that country’s agriculture was also in a stranglehold as a result of high interest rates and so on. They simply left the farmers to go bankrupt. Half of the USA’s farmers left their farms. This is a responsible Government, however. The aid-schemes it has established are aimed at providing for the objectives I set out here.

The Official Opposition has made the accusation that the aid-schemes are deficient and have failed. In one of the recent Official Opposition newspapers I read the headline: “Gebrekkige hulp aan boere laat TLU ingryp”. This, of course, is from the 19 February 1988 edition of the Patriot. The first paragraph of the report in question reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, this report referred to deficient assistance granted by the Government. I want to know from the hon member for Lichtenburg whether Mr Dries Bruwer referred to deficient assistance granted by the Government, or whether it was this newspaper.

Can you not read? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I deduce, therefore, that Mr Dries Bruwer said this. [Interjections.] When I read this newspaper, it looks as though it was the president of the TAU who said he had had to draw up a scheme because this Government’s schemes had failed. [Interjections.] I want the hon member for Lichtenburg to tell me what the situation is. After all, he did not read this document that was made available by the hon the Minister. Had he perhaps read it in the meantime? The hon the Deputy Minister asked him about this the other day; then he said he had not read it. I want to know whether he has read anything about this new consortium scheme of the TAU. Has he read it?

You have the newspaper there! Read it yourself! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the absolute ignorance …

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg may not react to questions put by the hon member for Sasolburg. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the absolutely deliberate ignorance with which the hon member for Lichtenburg wants to debate here is simply frightening. He has not read this set of pamphlets he received from the hon the Deputy Minister. Neither has he even read anything about the TAU’s consortium plan.

Of course I read that thing! [Interjections.]

You simply do not understand it! [Interjections.]

But the hon member told the hon the Deputy Minister the other day that he had not read it! [Interjections.]

Order!

The ignorance displayed by the hon member when he gets up to speak in the House proves that he has not read this at all. Or did he perhaps not understand what it said? [Interjections.] That is the problem of the hon member for Lichtenburg, Sir. [Interjections.] This consortium scheme elicits strange questions, Sir. Why did we have to read about it in the Patriot for the very first time? That is the first newspaper in which we read about it.

No, it was in the Landbouweekblad ages ago! [Interjections.]

Does this little newspaper have a direct telephone line to Mr Dries Bruwer, or what is the situation? [Interjections.] I also want to know why this is the first time one has read about this scheme, and why this report was distributed by the Patriot exactly one week before the by-elections in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton. Why was it timed in such a way that it appeared shortly before the by-elections in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton?

We are on our toes!

Order! No, the hon member for Lichtenburg simply cannot continue in that way.

It is being said that deficient aid on the part of the Government is forcing the Transvaal Agricultural Union to intervene. I want to put a few questions about this, Sir. If the hon the Minister has seen the TAU’s scheme, I shall put these questions to him. Does this scheme also provide for production credit to these farmers who are going to be assisted so that they do not have to be sequestrated? After all, they are going to be taken over by a consortium. Are they only going to do popular things with the aid of this consortium’s aid-scheme, or is that scheme also going to provide for the important granting of production credit?

I want to know whether this scheme is going to function without farmers’ debt being written off and without their being sequestrated. There is only one legal way of writing off debt in this country, and that is by way of sequestration, when a person is declared bankrupt and therefore loses his legal personality. That is the only legal way of writing off debt in this country.

You do not know what you are talking about!

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want to know whether this scheme of the TAU provides for farmers’ debt simply to be written off without these sequestration procedures being followed. If that is the case, I say that no farmer in South Africa has any chance of getting credit of any nature whatsoever from any institutions.

Of course we welcome co-operation between the private sector and the co-operatives. I really hope that this scheme of the Transvaal Agricultural Union is going to work and will eventually be realised. We on this side of the Committee will co-operate to the greatest possible degree to that end, but I hope this is not simply a CP ploy, because if it is, we are going to roast the hon member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.]

I conclude by thanking the hon the Minister for the announcement he made about a special drought aid-scheme this afternoon. It is associated with and specifically endorses the objectives all the Government’s aid-schemes have, in that it is geared to effecting the optimal utilisation of our resources. It is aimed at assisting participants in this scheme and at keeping records, because the important decisions taken on a farm are taken on that basis. It is aimed at getting farmers to participate in a co-ordinated extension campaign. That is why we welcome it, and we thank the hon the Minister sincerely. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I talk to farmers often, and what worries them the most is that inflation is so rampant and is destroying the farmers’ future. The present Government inherited a low inflation rate. In 1967 the inflation rate was a mere 3% and in 1977, no more than 11%, but in 1987 this inflation rate had risen to 16,1%.

How much is it now?

This Government let inflation sky-rocket.

How much is it now, today? [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for George that the inflation rate is rising again.

This Government was incapable of keeping the country financially sound. We are so fond of comparing ourselves with Great Britain. In 1977 their inflation rate was 15,8%, whereas it was 4,1% in 1987. The difference is that the Tories at the helm are a decisive government. The Tories, Mrs Thatcher and the people around her are determined to rectify matters. It seems to me that is the trouble in South Africa: The Government has no desire to put matters right. The farmers have been watching with bated breath as inflation started to rise again this month.

Since the Government abandoned the well-known course of racial segregation and began to implement its reform policy, agriculture has also been adversely affected. Economists are now admitting openly that the economy of the country is deteriorating because of the reform policy of the Government. This reform policy has no roots and no direction either.

I blame the dilemma of the farmers’ economic misery as a result of the greatest adverse factor— ie the inflation rate—squarely on the Government, a government which, owing to its inability, will not be able to bring the inflation rate down to 3% per annum again.

There is also a second aspect about which the farmers are unhappy. I am so glad that the hon the Minister sounded a positive note here today, and now I am referring to his decision to subsidise at the correct point. This means not at the end, but at the beginning.

This R400 million about which such a fuss was made, was made available to farmers experiencing difficulties, …

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

No, Sir; I do not have time to reply to questions. [Interjections.]

The R400 million, which the farmers were ostensibly going to receive in their hour of need, was announced with a flourish, but what is the reality? The mountain brought forth a mouse, because up to now only a little over R21 million has been spent on the project, and this amounts to little more than 5%. Why this utter failure? A certain judge has already spoken about this. The hon member for Lichtenburg also said that the R400 million scheme was designed to fail. The hon the Minister was very unhappy about this remark.

Do you agree?

He said it was not planned to fail at all. He spelt out indignantly what steps had been taken to get this scheme off the ground. He spoke about new schemes which were going to be developed and he said they would be successful.

The fact of the matter is that in spite of all its measures, this scheme failed miserably. This is the reality and the truth of the matter. If we accept that the hon the Minister did his best, did everything in his power and devoted most of his time to this, and it is nevertheless a failure, I want to start arguing that the hon the Minister is not equal to his task. [Interjections.] It was either planned to fail or it was a victim of the hon the Minister’s incompetence. It must be one of the two, because it cannot be both. [Interjections.]

Order! Too many hon members want to participate in the debate.

Oh, shame on you, Greyling!

Order! When I am giving a ruling, I expect hon members, including the hon member for Lichtenburg, to listen. Too many hon members are talking while the hon member for Witbank is making his speech. The hon member for Witbank may proceed.

Let us assume that the hon the Minister did his best, but it failed. All one can deduce from this is that he was incapable of looking after the interests of the farmers. This R400 million should have been distributed within three months and should already have served agriculture. Not the unwillingness, but rather the inability of the hon the Minister to act in a creative and administratively resourceful manner, resulted in the scheme coming to nought. If there is one thing which South Africa very urgently needs, it is a new government, but specifically a new CP Minister to get agriculture off the ground again. [Interjections.]

When I look at agriculture, I note that nowadays the Government is as panic-stricken as the old UP Government was prior to 1947. We are now experiencing a time similar to 1946-47. The political trend is virtually the same. [Interjections.] As a matter of fact, there are many similarities which one notices every day. One of these is the appointment of people to agricultural credit boards. [Interjections.]

In Witbank a vacancy in the Agricultural Credit Board had to be filled. The usual process is to consult the Agricultural Union and the local MP, and then the person is appointed. However, this is not being done. [Interjections.] One member of the Agricultural Credit Board simply made a recommendation and this was almost agreed to. Let us hope that competent people who may be members of the CP will be nominated by the district agricultural union! [Interjections.] Of course the recommendation of the member now serving on the Agricultural Credit Board will be that an NP crony of his should be appointed.

The late Dr Malan complained in 1948—hon members can go and read this in Hansard—that appointments to these boards by the UP were not being made on merit. I suppose Dr Malan was also being petty, as the hon member for Wellington said, but he experienced the same situation the CP is now experiencing, and he knew what he was talking about. The same thing that happened to him in 1947, is happening now in 1988. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the Government that by doing this they are chasing away even more voters. If they carry on like this, very soon they will be sitting on this side of the Committee and the CP will be on that side.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Witbank kicked up a terrible fuss here about inflation which is so high and which cannot be brought down or halted. He mentioned quite rightly that this started in 1967-68. That is when we became aware of inflation, but the NP had been in power for 20 years by then. [Interjections.] This is a world trend which did not only occur here; the whole world shares this problem. Every country is battling to keep inflation as low as possible. [Interjections.]

The hon member also compared us with Great Britain. We are not so keen to compare ourselves with that country, but he has done so. He mentioned how well things were going there. An hon member said something here, and I want to tell him that the reason why things are going so well is because there are no CP’s in Great Britain. [Interjections.] There are only Englishmen, and they are also battling to combat inflation.

Mr Chairman, I want to dwell on another remark for a moment. The hon member for Lichtenburg referred to the Beyers farm and to Mr Andries Beyers senior and his two sons who had been sequestrated. It is a pity that he accused the hon the Minister so flagrantly of being the cause of the Beyers’ eventually having to be sequestrated. [Interjections.] Those people were prominent farmers in their part of the world. They were affluent and lived an ostentatious life. I suppose the elements turned against them, like ail the others, and things started to go wrong for them. They got even deeper into debt and at one stage—a year before they were sequestrated— they asked for assistance and got it. Noordwes-koöperasie, of which Mr Andries Beyers senior was the chairman of the board of directors, did not want to help them any further. The cooperative refused because their debt was too big. In some way or other—I am mentioning this for the record—strings were pulled, and Mr Beyers was helped once more. This was after Noordwes-kooperasie, of which he was the chairman of the board of directors, did not want to help him. Yet he received assistance and carried on for another year.

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

No, I am not replying to questions. He will have a turn to speak in a moment if he wants one.

That is because you are ashamed of what you have just said!

Mr Beyers carried on farming for another year. However, his debt was so big that he could not carry on any longer, and the money had to be paid back. At that stage his debt burden was approximately R11 million. His assets totalled less than R5 million. If he was really in a position in which someone could have prevented his being sequestrated, why did his friends in the CP not band together and help him to get out of trouble?

He abused his position as chairman.

I did not say that, but this was mentioned. He was the chairman of that board of directors. He could not pay that astronomical debt of more than R6 million, and consequently his creditors descended on him and he was sequestrated. Is this the fault of the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply? Must the flagrant accusation be made here, as the hon member for Lichtenburg did, that he could have prevented this? How should the hon the Minister actually have prevented this? Must the State stand surety for people who spend money so recklessly that their debt burden totals R6 million?

No, it was not recklessness!

Must the State now intervene because it gave the co-operatives a debt guarantee, and pay that debt to save someone, simply because the CP says so. [Interjections.] That is not what we stand for in this country. That is not what a Government is there for, and it is not the hon the Minister’s job to save such people either.

Did those people farm correctly? Many farmers battled, but there are farmers who are in direr straits who are still on their farms, who are still making a success of farming and are carrying on. Many are receiving assistance, but some of them are carrying on without assistance from the authorities, the Land Bank or the DFA. Mr Chairman, it is not the hon the Minister’s fault that the Beyers’ were declared bankrupt and were sequestrated, and it is not this Government’s fault either.

Go and tell the judge that!

They have no one to blame but themselves. Much was made of the fact that the Government was going about things the wrong way and that many other farmers had been sold out because these schemes, offered by the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, ostensibly went wrong. It was jokingly said here that every new scheme which came into operation did not work, and then another was introduced. That is not why the schemes are changed every now and then. This is not done to be inconsistent, but to adjust to requirements. People are lent money for inputs, and a year after those people have been assisted, they have another crop failure and their problem must be viewed from another angle to ascertain how they can be assisted. This is then done.

It is being said that the hon the Minister must step down in favour of someone else. I do not know who the hon members of the Official Opposition want to appoint in his place, but I hope they do not think it should be one of them, because they would make a terrible mess if they were given half a chance. They would not get anywhere near what is being done now. We will not allow them to tell us when this hon Minister should be replaced and by whom. He was appointed by the hon the State President, and we shall stand by him and support him. We are going to make a success of agriculture. [Interjections.]

Reference was made to various assistance programmes being used for the farmer. The one I want to mention here now, does not contribute a great deal of money. If a farmer borrows money for his inputs year after year, and eventually has another crop failure or a poor crop, and he cannot carry on any longer, but is still being helped in some way or other, we can surely understand that he does not have enough money to support his family, and that he is experiencing problems. For that reason we want to express our thanks today for the fact that health services and welfare also came to their aid. They assist families that no longer have any cash, are really battling and may even be starving. The welfare department has come to their aid and an allowance is being given—not lent—to families who apply through their magistrate for assistance, in the form of a sum of money which is paid out to such families every month. This amount is based on R180 per month per adult, and R54 per month per child. This is an allowance which they are given to live on.

Every farmer also has a small income from cattle, milk, chickens, pigs or sheep. With this money he can then pay his workers and keep them going too. Thanks to this assistance, he and his family can at least buy food and household necessities, and I want to express our sincere thanks for this to our health services and the welfare department which made this money available. This is not money coming from agriculture, it is going directly to agriculture.

It is probably not pleasant for farmers to ask for this assistance; none of us wants to ask someone else for money. Just think, however, what would have happened if that assistance had not been given. If the farmer remains on the farm, he is at least in his own home. He gets his milk free of charge and he has his own meat and a few other things which he can convert into cash. If he no longer has it and he must leave his farm and go and work in town, he must first rent a house for R500 or R600 per month. He must drive to work, which would also cost R100 or R200, and all the things which he had on the farm—things which he did not get for nothing but which he worked for and which belonged to him—must now be sold. Consequently his direct expenditure when he moves to town is approximately R1 000, and what must he live on? The way things are going nowadays, there are many people who do go and work and who must start with R1 000 or a little more. It is absolutely impossible for those people to leave their farms, but if it is their own fault that they fall by the wayside and no one—I challenge the hon members of the Official Opposition to assist them … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to talk to the hon the Minister about protection against competition in respect of fertiliser, tractors, certain agricultural implements and parts, VAT and interest rates.

In the first place fertiliser is one of the most important inputs of the Highveld farmer. Fertiliser prices have already risen this year. In the early eighties farmers who took the trouble could negotiate good discounts, because price control was abolished and protection against imported competition was reduced.

As a result of the on-going droughts, the domestic consumption of fertiliser was scaled down. How long can such a scaling-down continue? The farmers are now using up the soil reserves and are fertilising below the optimum levels for normal crops. Of course this results in the production capacity of the soil simply being prejudiced in a normal climate.

Protection against imported competition, which is an important foundation on which the fertiliser industry relies, can have far-reaching implications. That is why the Competition Act must be reconsidered. Co-operation between the various companies, such as joint listed prices, as well as joint discount structures, is dangerous. Protection was reduced towards the end of 1986, but early in 1987 it was increased again over a wide front. Now the SA Agricultural Union has asked that the protection should be reduced again. The application was published in the Gazette. I really do hope the Board of Trade and Industries will accede to the request this time. I have nothing against the local fertiliser industry, but the farmers cannot keep on subsidising it while they themselves are going under financially. The maize industry must make specific structural adjustments; after which the fertiliser and other input industries will also have to do so, where necessary. The solution to these people’s problems does not lie in greater protection, banding together and manipulating the market at the expense of the farmers. They will have to find other alternatives, because fertiliser can be imported far more cheaply.

Parts for machinery constitute one of the farmer’s major problems. I personally think that the price of tractors was pushed up disastrously high. The farmer simply cannot afford tractors any longer. It is therefore not surprising that the sale of new tractors dropped from 24 000 units in 1981 to less than 5 000 units at present. Without tractors a farmer cannot farm, and he cannot keep his farming implements in running order by means of repairs either. Parts have become extremely expensive; and that is why the farmer will have to get replacement tractors in future. Tractors and many other kinds of farm machinery rely very heavily on imports. We all realise that the exchange rate and the inflation rate in the country from which something is imported play a very important role. Bearing this in mind, a tractor which would have cost R10 000 in West Germany in 1980, cost R33 780 last year. On the other hand a tractor which would have cost us R10 000 in South Africa in 1980, cost R36 567 last year. This is 8% more than the imported tractor, and that does not include GST. This indicates that problems other than the exchange rate will have to be addressed. One problem is tax. A tractor is, after all, a means of production and is used up in the production process, like other input costs, for example seed and fertiliser. Why is GST paid on the one and not on the other?

The next problem is ADE. According to the tractor industry at present, ADE is increasing the price of tractors by approximately 14%. A long list of parts and equipment at present enjoy protection against imported competition. Consequently the production of goods which we could have imported more cheaply is being benefited, and the production of goods we could have exported competitively is being prejudiced. The original idea was, after all, that protection would be allowed for a certain period, but protection is now simply being increased. I feel the entire policy of protection and its implementation in practice should be reinvestigated. At the same time the degree of competition in all protected industries must be investigated. We can start with ADE.

We must allow free access to the economy to compete with the world market. Why must these goods constantly be protected? Is our economy being run so badly that our industries cannot even produce competitively any longer? Somewhere there is something very wrong with our policy. On the one hand there are fine words about what we want to do, but if we consider what is happening in practice, we simply see a downward spiral which can destroy us all, as well as our opportunities. We hear that the Board of Trade and Industries is in the process of investigating the rationalisation of the tractor industry. It is a good thing that there is concern about this state of affairs. I want to ask that competition be encouraged and protected so that the market can do the necessary rationalisation itself.

Next I want to discuss VAT with the hon the Minister. VAT is simply another way of levying taxes, but I make so bold as to say that if it is passed through to agriculture in the form in which I understand it, this can have a tremendously adverse effect on agriculture. We must remember that VAT does not apply to foodstuffs. I want to ask again whether VAT is going to be the difference between the outputs which are sold and the tax on such outputs, and the tax which the farmer must pay on the inputs he has purchased? In a biological production process like agriculture the ratio of output sales to inputs purchased on the market is far lower than in the business world. That is why VAT is extremely high in agriculture—which is a biological process—because most of the source does not come from the marketable structure; for that reason it will place a tremendous tax burden on the farmer. I want to ask the hon the Minister to give attention to this, because farming cannot afford it. VAT has disadvantages for agriculture because careful records will have to be kept of all purchases and sales. When the farmer sells his products, he will have to pay VAT to the State. We must remember that the GST exemption on certain foodstuffs will be abolished and the price of food will rise.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to address the already rising interest rates timeously, because I see that a deficit before borrowing has been budgeted for, and when I consider the Government’s history of overspending, I must accept that just like last year there will be a big deficit. If this is read in conjunction with the Reserve Bank’s target for money and money supply reduction, this means that pressure will necessarily be brought to bear on private interest rates. [Interjections.] Hon members should listen, because this has already happened anyway.

Structural changes in agricultural financing have resulted in the relatively direct share of the Land Bank in agricultural financing remaining constant while agricultural co-operatives and commercial banks—which provide short-term financing—have increased in relative importance. In 1975 agricultural co-operatives provided 8,1% of the total financing, and in 1987 this had already risen to 25,4%. The joint exposure of commercial banks and co-operatives at present totals more than 50% of all agricultural financing.

How do these things affect the farmer? He does not earn any income on his carry-over debts, whereas he does pay interest, and one knows that the more interest one pays, the more pressure one is under. Even if the interest were to be subsidised, as is the case at present, one would still have to make money this year to pay back last year’s debts and interest. I thank the hon the Minister for his announcement in that regard. If I understood him correctly, relief will be given in this regard on a percentage-point basis. That situation meant that there was no income on last year’s capital. If interest rates were to rise further, it would be impossible ever to pay back these large carry-over debts in the face of inflation. This, over and above an increase in production costs, would destroy the production capability of the farmer. If at all, a very low rate of interest should therefore be levied on carry-over debts.

If prime interest rates are allowed to rise, the State in particular will have to give attention to this before it is too late, for the farmer’s sake and also because it is in the interests of the total economic policy. We must remember that the more sensitive sector of the economy is the supply-side, and if the demand-side is limited, the economy will stabilise at a lower level with the same inflation rate, and this is stagflation. If we see to the demand-side, we are still stimulating inflation, and that is why the real income of the farmer is still declining. We do, in fact, need a production budget for the farmer in order to stimulate the supply-side of the economy. Up to now the supply-side has been penalised too much, and now VAT is being introduced as well, which will further destabilise the supply-side. We therefore have a growth-suppressing budget for the farmer. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, if there is one element which has come to the fore in this debate this afternoon, in the arguments advanced by the Official Opposition, it is the outstanding characteristic of the total lack of realism of those hon members. [Interjections.]

Those hon members are suffering from a political disease.

Incurable!

That kind of disease tends to make one sit like a mole in a burrow so that one can see nothing but the tunnel’s exit in front of one. In the meantime one is totally unaware of the reality of the circumstances in which one you finds oneself.

The hon member for Delmas has just made an interesting speech, and while he was reading it out I was wondering about him. I got to know the hon member in the standing committee as a level-headed farmer, but he advanced a number of arguments here about VAT, the protection of industries and interest rates. These arguments may contain elements of truth, but seen as a whole, agriculture does not, after all, exist in isolation as a separate component of the economy. [Interjections.] Agriculture is, after all, part of the total economy, and if certain structural changes take place in the world economy which result in a change in demand and therefore have an effect on the South African economy, agriculture cannot exclude itself from the effects of this. It is one of the Government’s responsibilities to protect industries in this country, in spite of the costs involved. Anyone who takes out an insurance policy can never say that it is going to be profitable until after he has died, and that is what is happening here.

The other interesting phenomenon is that the hon members concentrate consistently on the R400 million-scheme. It is like a gramophone record that has got stuck.

Like your AWB!

They cannot understand, and apparently cannot hear either, because the hon the Minister spelt out very clearly in this House last week how the State was helping the farmers of South Africa. [Interjections.] Last week the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture also mentioned that the total assistance to agriculture was more than R2,4 billion. However, they harp constantly on the R400 million. This is, however, only one scheme which did not quite come up to expectations, because there were other schemes which could perform this task. It is a great pity that the hon members would seem to be doing nothing but making speeches in this Committee, with the sole purpose of having them recorded in Hansard so that they can peddle them in their constituencies without conveying the replies of this side of the House to their voters too. [Interjections.]

†I want to refer to what the hon member for Bryanston said earlier on about the implementation of the Soil Conservation Act and various other matters that he touched upon. I think this side of the Committee shares his concern about what is happening to our natural agricultural land. I also think we all share his concern about the 52 posts for agricultural extension officers which are vacant.

*I want to link up briefly with what the hon member said. As regards research and extension we are perhaps inclined to neglect the aspect of training a little. In my opinion training, research and extension are three components of the same function which must be performed. I read in the annual report which was tabled recently that the department spent just over R100 million on research in various spheres during the past year.

This afternoon the hon the Minister indicated here that a structural change had to take place in order to adjust to changed circumstances.

The Superintendent-General, Dr Heyns, recently referred to these aspects at the wintergrain conference. I also want to tell Dr Heyns and the hon the Minister that the agricultural industry shares their concern regarding the matter of research and extension, and supports the intention of the hon the Minister and his department to co-ordinate this entire strategy on a more structured basis.

There are various examples in the history of agriculture of wonderful successes achieved by the researchers of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. There are various examples in the respective divisions of agriculture. An interesting phenomenon, when one examines these projects, is that one will find that the relevant industry made a big contribution to the department at some stage or other in order to channel the research in a specific direction.

If I can now refer to a very good example of a research process which was successfully completed, it is the one on bitter-pit in the apple industry. The apple industry is one of the biggest earners of foreign exchange in the Western Cape, and the success achieved in the research on bitter-pit is saving South Africa R100 million or more annually. What happened with regard to this research project, however, is that the apple industry initially addressed very serious representations to the department and made big inputs.

One comes across the same phenomenon in the winter-grain industry. In the barley industry the co-operatives and SAM—the company which manufactures malt—made dramatic contributions to promote research in this field. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister that when this entire scheme of research and extension is coordinated, the industry’s contributions must receive prominent attention so that the relevant industries are encouraged to ascertain where the needs for research lies.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Caledon has spoken at some length about research within the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. I will also refer to it, but I will do so later in my speech.

In the first instance, I want to turn my attention to the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply itself. The Government has time and again declared itself committed to ending apartheid, to creating equal opportunities for all South Africans. From time to time we hear about discrimination on the basis of colour, which is an obstacle to job and promotion opportunities for all people in South Africa, being removed. I believe, and certainly this party believes, that this is what should be the case, and that this should in fact happen as a matter of absolute urgency. Certainly many departments within the Government’s service do claim to be desegregated and do claim that equal conditions of service exist for all people, irrespective of race. It is therefore of much concern—and I have had it verified in various ways—that there still appears to be a large degree of discrimination in this particular Department of Agriculture and Water Supply.

In a copy of a letter I have in my possession it is stated quite clearly that the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply is, and I quote: “Still in the delicate position of only employing Europeans”. Further, in response to a question I put to the hon the Minister earlier this year with regard to his policy in the promotion of Black employees I was given the following answer, and I want to quote from the reply:

The highest rank to which Black employees can aspire is that of General assistant Grade III.

That is quite a low position on the whole promotion ladder, Sir. I must say I find this a totally unacceptable position, and I do want to ask the hon the Minister immediately, whether the Government has adopted this practice of discrimination in this particular department because it is an own affairs department. If this is the case, I believe it contributes even further towards exposing the own affairs system of government as an extension of the apartheid system and makes a mockery of the Government’s claim that discrimination in the Public Service is no longer practised.

It is morally wrong to employ someone in the department while knowing full well at the time of his employment that there is no structure in terms of which he can move up through the ranks ultimately to reach the highest level of his ability. The department says that promotions are considered according to merit. I want to ask the hon the Minister, however, how he can justify the promotion of people up to the rank of post level 3 only simply because they are not White, and with no due consideration being given to their merits or their abilities to be promoted beyond that level. I want to ask the hon the Minister, too, what his department intends doing about this, and whether there is in fact a move afoot to change this policy and to allow all South Africans, firstly, to be employed by his department and, secondly, to be promoted up through the ranks within his department, with a promotion plan based solely on merit.

I want to move on to another issue, Sir. The 1986-87 annual report of the department does make interesting reading. I did receive a copy of it this morning at 11h30. I was a bit more fortunate than most hon members of this House. I had time to study it to some extent before the beginning of this debate today. The report emphasises the need for assistance to farmers and refers to the Economic Advisory Council’s involvement in the problems within the agricultural sector and the recommendations the council has made in relation to the restructuring of agriculture.

It is quite clear from the report that the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply will have to involve itself fully in any restructuring process that might come about within the agricultural sector, and in particular in relation to the need for improved training methods, greater emphasis on research and a review of the financial assistance scheme to farmers. All three of these are absolutely essential if uneconomic farming is to be overcome in this country. In order to achieve this, however, the department will obviously have to develop further its service programmes to farmers and create the opportunity for farmers to become more fully acquainted with modern farming methods.

In this debate last year I made reference to the importance of ongoing training for farmers in all areas, including management skills, in order to improve productivity, because it is quite clear that improved productivity is really the aim of all improved farming methods—in fact, the aim of farmers. Certainly, farming has suffered some severe setbacks over the past few years—among other things as a result of the drought and the floods—but there is no doubt, too, that may of the setbacks from which farming has suffered have been the result of poor farming methods. We must be aware of the fact that farming now contributes only about 6% to the country’s GDP, and therefore everything possible must be done to assist farmers to improve their particular methods in this regard.

The 1986-87 report makes the following points, and I quote:

Taking this into account, there is an ever-increasing need for training at all levels for the farmer— both the student farmer and the practising farmer. Every opportunity should be created to enable the fanner to come to terms with the latest technology and with up-to-date farming methods.

Obviously much of this can be done by informal and non-formal means, and I am aware that the department has to some extent been able to achieve this through their extension officers. As the hon member for Bryanston has already indicated, however, these extension officers unfortunately often find that, for a number of reasons, they are unable to fulfil this particular aspect of their duties as effectively as would be desired. I therefore believe that it is up to the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply to find alternative means of keeping farmers fully up to date with modern fanning methods.

It is essential that the department not only acknowledge the importance of farmer education and training, but that it also does all it can throughout the country actually to implement programmes from which farmers can benefit. I stress that this suggestion is aimed at increased productivity and making the farmer more independent of and less reliant on State aid, a situation which has got out of hand in the past few years. This has happened not only because of the droughts but also, in many cases, because of poor farming methods.

It is also interesting to note that during the 1986-87 year the agricultural colleges ran a number of short courses over and above the diploma courses. It was observed that these were relatively well attended, and I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether it is his intention to run similar courses this year and whether, in fact, such courses are already in progress.

I also want to mention that I am aware of the fact that the Cedara college in Natal accepted its first non-White students this year. This is a good move, and I congratulate the hon the Minister. I now look forward to seeing a time in the not too distant future when all students enrolled at this college are accepted on the basis of merit alone.

In conclusion, I want to say that the department also deserves much credit for the concern they show for research and for the wide range of research activities that they are engaged in. Ongoing research is obviously essential if agriculture is to keep abreast of developments and continue to play its role as this country’s second largest net earner of foreign exchange. As a matter of interest, it is second only to gold.

It is essential that research opportunities and findings be shared among all race groups in South Africa. It is a great pity, therefore, that research remains very much an own affair. In the debate on this Vote last year, the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture admitted that this was the case and indicated that as agriculture in other communities in this country progressed, the own affairs nature of research would have to be looked at again.

I would like to tell the hon the Deputy Minister today that the reverse of this should be happening in this country. We will find that making research available to all farmers and including people of all race groups in the research programmes will enable Black, Coloured and Indian farmers to progress very much faster than they are progressing at present. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in participating in this debate. I am grateful for the congratulations conveyed to the new Superintendent-General, Dr Heyns. I am pleased that his good attributes are being recognised right from the start because in truth we have a formidable man here who has already left his imprint on the department in this short period. I also wish to congratulate his successor, Dr Frans van der Merwe, and thank him for the support and cooperation we have received from him.

I think hon members will also note that there has been an appreciable revival in agriculture and that there has been no hesitation in examining rules and the application of principles. I am grateful for the change which has set in and for continued development in this direction. After all, we cannot escape change because conditions change. If we remain bogged down in old rules and conditions, we end up with a set of rules which do not solve the problem. It is a continuous adjustment, and it obviously also provides an opportunity in politics for reciprocal reproaches and accusations—but that is part of the game.

I want to pause here for a few moments and voice a few thoughts, on behalf of the gentlemen who now head the department, on how we see the future of agriculture, with emphasis on the aspect of research because it is an important aspect.

At the outset I wish to react to a few of the hon members’ speeches.

†The hon member for Durban North, whom I have just followed on, spoke to some extent about discrimination in the department with regard to its employees. We have a basic difference in our approach to the problems of South Africa. Our approach and the implementation of the policy within the department depends on the policy of the Government of the day. The PFP’s approach to certain principles differs from that of the Government. That is why one finds this basic implementation of the policy of the Government of the day throughout the Public Service. The department is bound by that. One cannot escape it; one is part of that system.

Furthermore, there is another aspect of the policy of the Government of the day. They say that the rights of the group are more important than the rights of the individual, and that the rights of the individual should be granted by the group. That is the basic difference. Until such time as that is changed, this will hold good, and this is how the department will be run. One may change it at another point, but not in this department. We are bound by what is debated under other Votes.

’As regards the hon member for Bryanston’s speech, I wish to emphasise certain aspects concerning offenders in terms of soil conservation legislation and so on. We had quite a shortage of officials who could carry out the implementation of this measure. This does not mean, however, that we are indifferent to the legislation. We have tightened it up now as far as we are able. The most important improvement we have introduced here is to use a helicopter from which one can identify this problem from the air, then land there and talk to the farmer concerned. In this way it is possible to ask the farmer whether he is in agreement or not. If he does not agree, one takes him aboard the helicopter and shows him. If he refuses to co-operate, the Act is made applicable to him. We instituted prosecutions in this regard during the past year.

†These were the prosecutions of four people for unauthorised burning of the veld, five for unauthorised ploughing of virgin soil, one for exceeding the prescribed number of animals and one for damaging subsidised waterways.

*The solution to this problem does not lie in prosecution, however, but in co-operation. That is why we try to put these prosecutions into effect as a last resort only. I agree; the floods have proved that there are high-risk areas which should never be cultivated. We are attending to this and, if possible, later want to demarcate certain flood-lines or danger-lines within which farmers will farm at their own risk.

Mr Chairman, if I examine the attitude adopted by the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition here today regarding the new scheme, I hope he will find that details of this scheme are available and that he will see that we do not hesitate to address principles. Nevertheless, it is quite difficult to follow the logic of his argument that this principle is an aspect of policy originally proposed by the CP. When I listen to other members sitting in the CP who say that the money in this R400 million scheme should simply be distributed within three months …

You said you would do it within six weeks!

Order!

We then arrive at the difference in principle between us and the hon members in Opposition benches.

Assistance has to be given according to certain rules. Any Government fund has to be applied in a responsible way because one has to be able to justify what one does for one person to another person too. That is why the matter of writing off debt has always been a difficult problem and a source of dispute between the governing party and the opposition. The opposition can insist that it is apparently able to solve the problem, whereas the governing party has to bear the responsibility of spending the taxpayer’s money in such a way that he is satisfied and that it ultimately also serves the purpose for which it is employed. That is why it was not so simple a matter.

As regards the R400 million-scheme, which the hon member mentioned here on previous occasions, I merely want to say that conditions are different from what the hon member presented from the outset. It is not as simple as a scheme which was instituted and failed. I want to prove this to hon members with the aid of statistics. The reason put forward by that hon member for the so-called failure of the scheme is not valid. We were prepared to deal with applications; we put everything into operation; we were prepared to deal with them. [Interjections.] That was not the problem. [Interjections.] No, that was not the problem. The problem was that people did not apply. One of the reasons was also that people who applied and wanted to reach a settlement subsequently said that members of the CP had come to them and told them not to apply because they wanted the scheme to fail.

That is untrue!

I have proof of this and I have sworn statements in this regard from people who told me about it. [Interjections.]

There are also other reasons for this. [Interjections.] If we examine the R400 million-scheme, we find it originated with the SA Agricultural Union and co-operatives which identified the demand for it. It involved 3 500 farmers; 356 of them applied for assistance, of whom 123 received aid. But this is a final scheme. The conditions of this scheme make use of sections 22 to 28 of the Agricultural Credit Act. What would it mean if this scheme were to be a success? What did the hon member want? If we had distributed the R400 million according to conditions we had agreed upon with the SA Agricultural Union, to which this union had agreed and which had been accepted by the Jacobs Committee which negotiated the money for it, what would the result have been if this R400 million-scheme had really been a success? [Interjections.] The system implies that it makes use of a settlement scheme in terms of sections 22 to 28. It is a sequestration scheme; it is a scheme which helps bankrupt farmers to walk out with only their name, without any assets. They walk out with only their name. If we were therefore to make a success of this scheme, we would specifically have to remove farmers from the land. Is that what that hon member is appealing for?

[Inaudible.]

What else then? The R400 million-scheme comprises nothing if not that we act in that way. This was the agreement we reached.

Was the R400 millionscheme not designed to keep people on the land?

No. It was designed to save those farmers who were on the point of sequestration because, if a large number of farmers had failed, at that stage in certain concentrated areas, it would have jeopardised the price of land …

You are talking yourself into a comer!

Those were the reasons. At that stage it would have caused mass sequestration, the price of land would have fallen and other farmers would still …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he is implying now that the scheme was designed specifically to sequestrate farmers and not to keep them on the land?

We had the given fact that there was a large number of farmers on the point of sequestration.

Surely you were to avert that!

To avert that, we had to see how many of them we could help with agricultural value as security and the production inputs we could supply, and in a variety of other ways. This scheme was instituted to enable the Government to intervene in an attempt to keep land prices at a reasonable level by being able to buy it in—that is part of the scheme—and in a way avert those sequestrations. The only legal mechanism we had, which has existed for 22 years, was sections 22 to 28.

We applied this mechanism, but it meant sequestration and the writing-off of debt according to a certain procedure. We therefore had to submit a plan to that farmer, and the creditors had to agree to it. That was one of the problems we had. A creditor has certain rights and cannot be compelled in any way to accept that plan. In the light of this we have a problem, which is that they refuse to accept the settlement plan. I shall now quote the figures to prove what the position was, why creditors did not accept it and why we then experienced further problems. As the hon member said, the people are still on their farms; they have not left them. They are still there.

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

No, I am not replying to questions now.

If we examine the origin of this “final R400 million-scheme” of ours, we find a very interesting situation. If we take the number of applicants who applied for the R400 million-scheme and we take the Agricultural Credit Board’s valuation of those assets as an index of 100, we find that the own valuation of assets of the farmers who applied bore a numerical index of 202; in other words, double the valuation of the Agricultural Credit Board. In proportion to this, the farmers’ burden of debt is represented by the figure 300, so there is a figure of 100 which can serve as security. The farmer says his valuation is double that figure while his burden of debt is three times his security. Its productive value is only 80; the remaining 20 consists of mortgages on movable property which the Agricultural Credit Board grants. We are therefore landed with applications which are exceeded threefold by liabilities. How on earth does one resolve this other than by an application in terms of sections 22 to 28, under which one saves only the person and then tries to buy back the farm afterwards. In three such cases we let the farmer have a deed and he could repurchase his own farm after we had written off his debt by settlement. This is what we are trying to do. This is why many of these applications have not been concluded yet, because creditors are still creating certain delays.

There is a last point on this R400 million that I want to raise here. The accusation by hon members of Opposition parties that the hon the Minister deliberately designed this scheme to have it fail, that he misled this House with his intention when he tabled it…

[Inaudible.]

Well, that is all I can think the hon member’s words meant, or does he attach another meaning to words? What does “deliberately misleading” mean other than that he was dishonest? [Interjections.] Surely that is what he said.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister has used the words “deliberately misleading” and “dishonest”. To whom is the hon the Deputy Minister referring in using those words?

The hon member for Lichtenburg used them in his speech.

When? I did not say that. I said it had been designed to fail!

He said it had been deliberately designed to fail.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may not use those words in connection with any hon member. If he states, however, that another hon member used those words, and that hon member denies saying this, the hon the Deputy Minister may proceed. Of course, the hon the Deputy Minister has to accept the assurance given by the hon member.

Should he not withdraw it? [interjections.]

Order! It does not appear to me that there is anything to withdraw. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I do not have the speech in front of me, but we shall continue the discussion on it later. [Interjections.]

There are interesting statistics regarding the farmers who remained. We devised another plan and now there are 7 265 farmers in respect of the 5-year carry-over scheme and 4 700 under the 10-year scheme. Of these, 3 150 were transferred to agricultural credit committees and we assisted 86%. The reason why farmers are still on their land is that we assisted them by means of alternative schemes.

If we look at sequestrations, we see that over the past three years the number of farmers sequestrated amounted to 247 in the financial year of 1985-86, to 358 in the financial year of 1986-87 and to 385 in the financial year of 1987-88. Out of a total of 59 000 farmers, this comes to 0,4%, 0,6% and 0,64% respectively. We therefore succeeded in assisting farmers in difficult times and with financing which could not easily be obtained.

There is a large number of aspects I still wish to deal with. As regards agricultural credit committees … I should like to have the hon member for Lichtenburg’s attention for this. The hon member is free to look at the legislation, which grants the Minister discretion regarding whom he wishes to appoint. It is recorded that, when a person’s 3-year term of office has expired, he has no right to reappointment; anyone may be appointed.

If he is a Nat!

No, that is not so. As regards appointments, if he claims we bring politics into agriculture and agricultural credit committees, I want to bring the policy we apply in this regard to his attention. The legislation also lays down that if any member of an agricultural credit committee uses his office as a member for political gain, I may relieve him of his office summarily.

Even if he is a Nationalist?

This applies to Nationalists and CPs. It applies to everybody. If I receive a sworn statement in this regard, I shall act accordingly. I have acted according to such a statement before and I shall do so again. That is the point. And while those hon members are speaking about politics being brought in, I want to ask them what happened in the case of the Transvaal Agricultural Union. Did they not bring politics in there?

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, I cannot permit a dialogue between the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon member for Lichtenburg. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

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

No, that hon member has put questions already. What is happening in the Transvaal and in the Free State is that even directors of co-operatives are now being elected on a party-political basis. [Interjections.] Do those hon members wish to deny that? Who is bringing politics into agriculture now? Politics were brought into the Transvaal Agricultural Union, while we want to keep politics out of it. Now that the political shoe is beginning to pinch those hon members, they want to cry about it. They are going to cry a great deal more if they continue in this way, because they are forcing us to take these steps. As long as they bring these politics, which are not based on facts but on emotion, into agriculture, we shall hound them from point to point.

Oh, you cannot even chase a fly!

We can do it because we have the whip hand. We shall do it too because we have the interest of the farmers of this country at heart. [Interjections.]

Order!

We are not afraid of doing it. [Interjections.]

Order!

There are other hon members on whom I still want to spend some time … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Permit me to bring certain figures to the attention of hon members as regards the Beyers’. If hon members look at the entire position of the Beyers’—hon members of the CP are now dragging it into this public debate—they will see that the application was made on 7 September 1987; it was received in Pretoria on 21 September. On 25 September the Agricultural Credit Board decided that it could not but refuse to help these people, in spite of enormous compassion toward “Oom Andries”. According to their application, liabilities ran to R12,8 million and assets to R3,5 million, at their own valuation. There is the debt ratio which emerged from the application; R12,8 million as against R3,5 million; this is 300%. Basically this is threefold insolvency. Debt to co-operatives amounted to R5,9 million, of which R4,6 million represented a possible claim against the Government guarantee. Own capital as a percentage of total debt was 3,3%. Now the finding of a judge is quoted here. If those hon members would take a close look, they would see that that judge confused the R400 million with the R800 million in his judgement.

The judge is wrong!

The R400 million was not at issue!

Order! [Interjections.] Order! No, I cannot permit …

Then the judge was wrong too!

Order! The hon members for Brakpan and Lichtenburg are both senior members of this House and I do expect them to control themselves when the Chair is giving a ruling. I cannot permit a running commentary on the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech. Interjections are one thing, but a running commentary is something quite different. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I want to summarise everything by saying that the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply did everything in his power and gave instructions that we should leave the other people and try to save “Oom Andries” from this, but it was impossible. We tried everything possible and did our utmost in this regard. I consider it disgraceful conduct that hon members of the CP hold up these circumstances and figures to the House with the purpose of stirring up emotion. I really think it is unseemly to stir up emotion for political gain by mentioning such information and figures.

We shall furnish replies to various other questions, and those which I cannot reply to now I shall answer personally later. I want to revert to a few aspects of departmental policy. Agricultural research is an important component, and I want to state unambiguously today that the level at which agricultural research and production stands at present is due to people who serve this industry with distinction. There have been various achievements in this regard, and I want to name only a few of them. As regards stock production, I want to mention that the grading system of meat is recognised nation-wide and world-wide. The stimulation and shelf life of meat and the conversion of useless field grass hay into energy feed which is utilised have reached a high standard. We have succeeded, by means of dairy research, in increasing milk production by 26% per lactation. This means a total of R313 per cow per lactation. These are important achievements.

Veterinary research has led to the identification of new viruses and the re-evaluation of an-aplasmosis vaccine. These are achievements which cannot be repeated anywhere in the world.

Research has been done on river gnats and tick infestation. We are breeding animals which will be resistant to ticks. We have made an important breakthrough as regards Nguni cattle, inter alia, and we want to breed important characteristics of this cattle breed into other breeds.

The CP would call that integration!

Horticultural research has led to the cultivation of new plants. The entire export industry is based on cultivars which we have developed in South Africa. There is a total of 56 domestically cultivated deciduous fruit cultivars which bring in a great deal of money for us. Crop research has led to the cultivation of maize with a high lysozyme content; this has led to considerable savings as regards lysozyme imports. It is a remarkable achievement in the sphere of dried bean cultivation that we had only 180 grams of seed of the Camber variety eight years ago; today 75% of the harvests of the entire country are derived from this single variety.

A new wheat cultivar, Palmiet, which is intended for the Swartland and winter-wheat areas, was made available to the industry and produced a yield 16% higher than that of existing cultivars over a period of three years. It is expected that this cultivar will yield at least 9% more grain on a commercial scale than the current yield. This means that wheat production in winter-rainfall areas will bring in almost R15 million more in profits per annum. There are at least four more exceptionally promising new cultivars coming for other areas. These are exceptional achievements.

There have been unparalleled achievements as regards biological control because we have shifted our emphasis.

We are concerned about pollution and the costs attached to combating it.

As regards the weed sesbania punicea, we have imported beetles which are solving this problem on a large scale. We have imported insects to control the thistle problem. We have also imported insects to destroy the jointed cactus.

The hakea fruit snout beetle has been established at quite a number of places now and is solving this problem. This is evidence of thorough research and good planning.

As regards prosopis—the mosquito tree—two types of beetle were also imported, after thorough research, to solve the problem. All this has enhanced the prestige of our research enormously overseas. Our people receive invitations from all over the world to visit there. We receive invitations from Africa because our people are the only researchers in the world who can deal with the problems of Africa because we are of Africa, we work here and we know what the problem is and how to solve it. We shall reap the fruits of this research later at other levels too and we have experts in this connection. That is why it is our objective to expand research in South Africa. Our objective is greater achievements and that is not easy, Sir. It is not only research on new conditions which is involved. It is also research on the present situation.

The hon member for Caledon brought it very clearly to the fore when he spoke about bitterpit, and I want to conclude with this. Bitterpit threatened to bring the apple industry to a standstill in this country; it also resulted in the export industry being on the verge of collapse. Researchers then investigated the problem. It was not a simple problem; a variety of disciplines were related to this and they succeeded in making a world breakthrough within six years and presenting a technological package which led to the bitterpit problem being solved. By the correct application of practices such as fertilising, liming, irrigation, crop control and calcium spraying, bitterpit is no longer a problem today.

Today Golden Delicious apples are an earner of foreign exchange—the greatest earner of foreign exchange. We spent a few million rands in solving the problem but today this cultivar earns R300 million for South Africa with 12 million cartons of export apples. In this way this department serves the country, Sir, and I have the greatest appreciation for those workers working silently in laboratories.

Then the question of grazing strategy also remains, which I have not even reached. There are exciting developments in that sphere as a follow-up to those important standpoints which my predecessor, Mr Sarel Hayward, propagated to such an extent in this House and outside. We created a centre where we gathered all the disciplines for further development, and this will ultimately result in much good for the farmers of South Africa.

I am sorry I was unable to reply to all hon members’ questions, but I shall do so in writing at a later occasion.

Mr Chairman, it is not for me to react to what the hon the Deputy Minister said, but I do want to thank him very sincerely for once again trying, in regard to a complex sector like agriculture, to explain a complex and sensitive matter like agricultural relief measures to the hon members of the Official Opposition. It is no trifling task to accomplish this. [Interjections.]

Natural conditions in South Africa vary from one extreme to another; agricultural conditions also vary enormously from one region to another.

They vary not only in regard to different commodities, but in regard to farming practices as well. In addition it is true that every region has developed its own tradition and character around a certain commodity. For instance, sheep-farming is not carried out in the same way in the Western Cape, the Free State and Natal. That is why it has become necessary for the Government to offer an extended series of relief measures in an attempt to bring relief in regard to various problem areas in agriculture which have arisen in various regions.

The Government, in close co-operation with the SA Agricultural Union, has from time to time come forward with relief measures which have eased the plight of our farmers enormously. Consequently I wish to express our thanks, on behalf of the farmers in my constituency, for all the assistance that has already been received. I also wish to express my thanks for schemes which are still to be announced. The hon the Minister has already come forward again this afternoon with a scheme by means of which he wants to help our farmers through this period of crisis. I want to appeal to the suppliers of production inputs not to handicap this scheme by raising the prices of their commodities again. I request them to exercise control so that the full benefit of this scheme can go to the farmers.

Mr Chairman, I could not believe my ears last week when the hon member for Lichtenburg alleged here that the R400 million relief-scheme had been designed to fail. I am amazed that people can apply their time and intelligence to thinking out such nonsense. [Interjections.] That is obviously the reason why I have not heard a single positive thought from the CP during the time I have had the privilege of sitting in this House. Not once have I seen them come up with responsible plans; nor have they been able to come up with a single plan to the benefit of South African farmers. It is quite clear to me that the CP does not have the ability to come up with any solutions. [Interjections.] The best solution its members can offer is to spread gossip among the farmers of South Africa and to take advantage of the emotions of our farmers who are battling financially. That is why the only plan they can tout around is to tell farmers that they will write off their debts. [Interjections.]

However, they do not say how they want to do this and on what basis. Nor do they say that everyone in the country will have to pay higher taxes to cover these debts that they want to write off. No, they see only how many votes they can canvass and how much dissatisfaction they can stir up during a period in which our farmers are struggling.

This irresponsibility is doing the farmers of South Africa a disservice. Everyone who wishes to be of service to agriculture in South Africa should see to it that South African agriculture is served in its entirety. Such a person will have to be involved in organised agriculture—where one’s every action for South African agriculture is done free, gratis and for nothing and where one serves one’s fellow-farmer for love of the cause. On the Government side I see quite a number of hon members whom I have encountered in organisations in which I have been involved over the years. I have not yet encountered any hon members of the CP, or any of the PFP, there. The CP had better stop gossiping and making false promises to farmers. That is not service to agriculture in South Africa.

Although so many relief schemes already exist, there are unfortunately still a few categories in which serious problems are being experienced. Many farmers whose liabilities exceed their assets are being put back on their feet by means of settlements and consolidation reached with the Department of Financial Assistance. Many farmers, whose asset-to-liability ratio is still sound but who can no longer readily obtain credit and whose ability to pay is still good, are also assisted through consolidation by the DFA.

There is a group of farmers, however, whose assets still exceed their liabilities but who cannot obtain any more financing from outside organisations because their position has become too risky. According to standards set by the DFA, their repayment capabilities are adequate. Private creditors do not want to reach a settlement because at market value they still have adequate security at their disposal, and they will therefore get their money back on dispersal. A settlement through the DFA means that their repayment capabilities are inadequate and I think this assessment is correct. The dilemma of these farmers is that the DFA does not assist them; nor do the banks. They therefore have to wait until high interest charged by banks has placed them in the position in which they are obliged to reach a settlement.

My earnest appeal is that we should examine these cases urgently. There are possibilities, but I believe the DFA and the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply will have to come up with something here which is at the same time feasible. As long as we practise agriculture we shall have to make plans to provide relief in times of distress in this risky industry. As long as disasters occur, we shall have to come up with plans. Every disaster differs from the one before and we require different schemes. It makes no difference whether the disaster is too much or too little water.

At the moment our farmers are faring very badly, but the time will come when agriculture will prosper again. This fact will not depend on how many seats the CP wins, even if its members think so. It will depend on the grace of our Heavenly Father.

The image of agriculture, and specifically of farmers, has changed and will change even more in future. Our farmers are becoming better and better equipped against challenges awaiting them, but the CP has obviously not discovered this yet. That is why they are only advocating that debts be written off. At the moment we are merely trying to get our farmers through these crises, and this is only right, but I know the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply is planning for the future and its challenges on a continuous basis. One of these is the way in which the Government should be involved in agricultural financing. I want to state that there will have to be special involvement on the part of the Government if we want to succeed in our objective of establishing young farmers in agriculture in ways other than through their forebears. In the open market there is insufficient financing which can adapt to the uncertainties of agriculture.

I want to illustrate only one aspect of this, which is interest rates. Only the Government, by means of the Land Bank and the DFA, is able to provide a steady interest rate under all circumstances. Our co-operatives are the instruments which are exceptionally suited to carrying out the function of liaison and control.

Our farmers’ management skills and the keeping of accounting records are improving rapidly and adapting to modern business principles. At the same time it will also be necessary for the Government to make credit available on a very much firmer basis in future. The information will therefore have to be very much more reliable by means of accounting records which should be available on a continuous basis to the provider of credit and capital. Many of our agricultural co-operatives are already equipped to furnish this essential service to our farmers by means of computers.

Future financing of farmers will have to take their quality into account. The way in which they farm will have to be thoroughly assessed and monitored. I think it would be very meaningful and in the interests of all if the DFA could be linked to this type of information. This will enable the DFA to make timely adjustments in the case of each individual, as the need arises. We need therefore not wait until a crisis arises. The DFA will be able to render a far better account of the money it lends. The DFA will itself be able to note if a negative trend is developing in agriculture, and in this way farmers can therefore be assisted in good time. Co-operation in this regard between farmers, their co-operatives and the Government holds enormous advantages for agriculture in general. In consequence, I wish to request the hon the Minister to provide this idea with momentum.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to be able to follow the hon member for Ladybrand. I must compliment him on the quality of his speech. It was positive, and I found it refreshing to hear such an excellent contribution from one of the new arrivals to this establishment.

I also want to express my congratulations to Dr Heyns, the new Superintendent-General, on his appointment. We know he is a highly qualified person and I certainly look forward to working with him in the interests of agriculture.

I would also like to commend the hon the Minister on his announcement today. I too will obviously require time to study the recommendations as he has submitted them, but I must say that I do gain the impression that the Government is at last getting to grips with the financial problems of the agricultural sector and is giving effect to many of the pleas that those of us in the opposition benches have made in the past.

The hon member for Wellington also made an interesting speech, and I want to associate myself with his comments in regard to the Agricultural Credit Board and to the agricultural credit committees.

I am somewhat concerned, however, about the increasing veil of secrecy being drawn over the decisions that this board takes. I accept the principles of confidentiality, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to gain access to information which might be of assistance to many of the applicants.

On this occasion I want to express my sympathy to those many farmers who suffered such considerable damage during the recent floods in Natal and Free State. This has brought to light one particular and very important point, namely that the farming community must realise that they must take greater precautions to offset financial losses which might take place as a result of disasters of this nature. Farmers must become involved to a far greater degree in insuring their various assets which could be detrimentally affected by flooding.

It is quite obvious that the effects of the recent floods and the subsequent damage will be felt for many years to come. I also want to commend the hon the Minister for the prompt action that he has taken in initiating assistance schemes.

The damage falls into many categories, but I wish to turn my attention to one specific aspect, namely the physical restoration of the natural environment. I appreciate the colossal task that this involves. As we all know, millions of tons of productive soil have been washed into the sea and lost forever. The scars of this disaster will be a frightening reminder for years to come. It is essential that these large areas of land which are now sterile as a result of the floods be restored as quickly as possible, bearing in mind that this will require assistance and that it will take years before the productivity level can return to what it was before the flood. The restoration of these areas will result in considerable pressure on an already understaffed extension service.

I appeal to the hon the Minister, as a matter of extreme urgency, to give consideration to the immediate introduction of short-term assistance measures to prevent further soil deterioration from wind and other inclement weather conditions which many areas will have to contend with during the winter months. There is no time for delay, Sir. These measures might involve a departure from the prescribed norms and procedures, and the hon the Minister must have the courage to implement these on a district to district basis if necessary and allow greater flexibility in the granting of financial assistance related to the restoration of the natural habitat.

I must warn that the department must also ensure that the restoration of all field work is carried out in strict conformity with soil conservation procedures in order to minimise any possibility of further damage recurring in the future. It is therefore necessary for extension services to be deployed in priority areas so that departmental control is evident at all stages of flood restoration work.

This is also a good opportunity for an assessment to be made regarding farming practices that have been applied in the past, with a view to assessing whether these were not responsible in any way for so much of the destruction that has resulted.

The extension services are going to be put under extreme pressure and I wish to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to the increasing trend towards—if I may term it so and use a much publicised word—the privatisation of extension services. There is tendency whereby private sector has been playing an increasing role in agricultural extension, while the State’s activities have diminished. Privatisation of services does not always conform to ecological suitability and respect for the correct utilisation of natural resources. One only has to see the manner in which many so-called marginal agricultural enterprises have been developed which centred around the irresponsible exploitation of natural resources in many areas. The country is now confronted with a situation where a rescue operation must be undertaken not only to rescue farmers from financial ruin, but also to initiate ways and means of restoring the pattern of agricultural production to conform more closely to existing natural resources.

I wish to point out that the Government must not lose sight of the fact that the State is the guardian of the country’s natural resources, and it is a responsibility of the government of the day to ensure that all natural resources are not only protected but are also used responsibly without destroying their essential ingredients.

In the few minutes that are left to me I wish to touch briefly on a point that the hon the Deputy Minister raised in his speech. I wish to turn to this R400 million assistance scheme that has been widely debated today. In spite of the hon the Deputy Minister’s statements, I wish to point out that there has been general disappointment among the farming community that this scheme failed to get off the ground. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in following up on the previous speaker, the hon member for Mooi River I wish to make a few remarks. I am very glad to hear that he took pains to study the report of the department we are discussing in this debate. I really do hope he will also study and restudy South African politics and the circumstances in which he finds himself. That will give him time, after he has studied our South African politics, to decide with which party he should side in the future.

Am I still a nice old man?

He is a very nice old man, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] The hon member for Mooi River is a very kind old gentleman. [Interjections.]

As the hon member for Mooi River has said, the extension services find themselves under severe pressure, as did his party. We are really sorry— and we sympathise with him—about the fact that his party has gradually phased itself out of South African politics after such a long time. [Interjections.]

*Nevertheless I also want to comment briefly on what the hon member for Middelburg had to say during the debate. Unfortunately he is not in the Committee at present. Incidentally, I note that at least one more member of the Official Opposition is present. At one stage there were only four members of the CP, the Official Opposition, in this important debate on agriculture. [Interjections.] There was a miner, a rugby player and two members of the legal fraternity, but agriculturalists are scarce among them.

It is a pity that the hon member for Middelburg is not present here now. I hope I misunderstood him when he spoke about agricultural credit committees and about certain irregularities which he thought were taking place there. I hope I misunderstood him and that my feeling that he might have been referring to major irregularities in some of these committees was unnecessary. This really gives me great problems. I think it is an evil day when we start casting reflections on the integrity and high principles and orderliness of the people who serve on these committees and on the committees as such. It is specifically our agricultural credit committees and our soil conservation committees—the local committees which have to represent and serve our communities at grass-roots level—which have to support our department in the execution of its functions and which have to be the watchdogs of organised agriculture, agriculture as such and the Government. I hope I misunderstood the hon member. [Interjections.]

I cannot help deviating from the usual procedure a little by saying to my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, that I really do not know whether the two beetles he imported will be able to devour all the prosopis trees. I do not know whether they will get beyond Kenhardt.

I want to say something about agricultural training. A previous speaker has already broached this matter, but I want to comment on it briefly. We are concerned because it is estimated that approximately 40% of those taking up agriculture receive no formal post-school agricultural training. Information indicates that 2 303 applicants had to be turned down by the agricultural colleges of the department between 1975 and 1988. There may be other reasons for this, but the actual cause is twofold, namely the availability of facilities and inadequate qualifications for admission. The availability of facilities does not necessarily mean only the availability of training facilities, but possibly also the availability of boarding facilities. Perhaps we should consider whether it would be possible for us to admit day-scholars to such institutions. As regards inadequate qualifications for admission, I would suggest to the hon the Minister that this situation should receive serious attention. In the case of people who are inadequately qualified to obtain admission to agricultural colleges, and consequently cannot receive post-school agricultural training, we should see whether we cannot offer package courses during holidays; that is to say, short courses of two to three weeks extending over a period of a year or even two or three. During these courses people should accumulate enough credits to receive a qualification at the end of the period so that they would be trained in some direction or other in agriculture. We could offer that training by means of introductory courses, followed by advanced courses.

Co-ordination between the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply and the Department of Education and Culture should also be examined.

Agricultural tuition at school and the requirements set by Agriculture and Water Supply for admission should be capable of such adaptation that agricultural tuition at school can provide a better preparation toward qualifying for courses in post-school agricultural training.

I think that the idea has the support of organised agriculture. Periodic training, such as I am discussing now, could also result in existing facilities being put to better use. Those entering practical agriculture, as well as agricultural extension, should be skilled at various levels. The optimal management of scarce production inputs in the country, such as land, capital, labour and management, requires this. Training of agriculturalists, as well as of technicians, should as far as possible be directed at practical skills so that the academic training does not become suspect among farmers as being economically impracticable.

Various factors indicate how important the role of agriculture is in South African society. I shall mention only one or two of these because this is not a new thought. The report of the EAC on the rebuilding of agriculture spells out the importance of agricultural technological development, along with that of training. We have experienced difficult years in agriculture, and it is still going through a difficult period. Prospects for agriculture are better because droughts and the entire situation related to the economy of agriculture have particularly drawn our attention again to what the value of training in agriculture should be. Agricultural entrepreneurs at all levels who are capable of linking up with modern technology will have to be taught to do this. The proposed centres for acquiring skills mentioned by the hon the Minister, which will also make use of computerisation, agricultural programmes and optimal natural resource planning and utilisation, are all aspects of agriculture which will have to be included. We shall require trained agriculturalists, agricultural technicians and agricultural workers to be able to cope with this new technology.

If one proceeds from the assumption that an agriculturalist’s productive career is 40 years, we require 1 500 new agriculturalists per year to support 60 000 farmers in this country. We have five agricultural colleges, one technikon and four university faculties which offer agricultural training. Only 14% of farmers in this country have professional training, and 20% receive agricultural diplomas from colleges. Thirty-five per cent of agricultural entrepreneurs have matriculated and 31% have lower qualifications. We should therefore examine this situation. Agricultural training is necessary at workers’ level too. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon the Minister when he was furnishing details of the special drought relief that was going to be given to specific areas. If I understood him correctly, it sounded to me as if he intended it only for crop-farmers in crop-farming areas because he mentioned only crops or combinations of single crops as norms or yardsticks. He mentioned this as the yardstick of how losses would be determined, according to which the relief furnished to farmers would in turn be determined. I merely want to ask: What about stock-farmers? I want to state that in certain areas, especially in my part of the country, no planting or crop-norms can be used to determine drought damage or serve as any norm in respect of drought-losses. I also want to ask this question in respect of vegetable-farmers and fruit-farmers.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that the drought was not limited only to crop-farming areas. I want to go further by saying that it would take a stock-farmer longer to recover than a crop-farmer. It will vary from case to case and will depend on the number of the stock he withdrew and the number he ultimately retained. It would require great capital outlay to replace a herd. Stock-farmers, vegetable-farmers, cropfarmers and fruit-farmers should not be forgotten when it comes to relief occasioned by the drought. The drought we experienced in the Soutpansberg district in particular, which I represent, is just as great a disaster as that caused by water in some areas.

The second aspect I should like to discuss with the hon the Minister is the flood damage caused in the Limpopo valley in particular. There are farmers in the Limpopo valley whose losses were as great as those of farmers in other areas, but it was not declared a disaster area. I am making enquiries with the hon the Minister dealing with this, but I doubt whether it will be declared a disaster area. It does not appear to me that Agricultural Credit or Financial Assistance will really help those people. The problem is apparently that disaster relief is not granted in regard to a crop in the ground or damage to plants. A farmer qualifies for disaster relief only if a machine, a tractor, a lorry or some similar implement has been damaged. I accept that the argument here is that damage to crops, fruit or vegetables in the ground cannot be determined. I believe, however, that it can be determined in that one can calculate the farmer’s inputs such as fertiliser and seed purchases and the payment of wages, one can seek advice from agricultural officers and, in the case of an established farmer, study the pattern of his activities in good seasons when he did not suffer that loss. I therefore request that attention be paid to this matter.

I now want to address the hon the Deputy Minister, in particular, on the politicising of agriculture. I really think we should not be petty and childish. When we elect a person somewhere, the current fashion is to say that the CP is politicising agriculture. When the NP still manages to get a person onto a directorate or the board of a co-operative or an agricultural union here and there, it is an NP victory. That is their mentality. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister says we should not bring politics into agriculture, but what politicking did I not experience in my constituency from the hon the Deputy Minister, his Nationalists and the previous Minister? At the beginning of 1987 or the end of 1986—I am not sure when—I wrote to the hon the Minister that the drought situation in my constituency was such that I considered a visit from him to be warranted. I am speaking under correction, but I think I wrote the letter before the election was announced. We did not know about election plans which were being fashioned in inner chambers. The hon the Minister wrote to me that as a result of the widespread drought conditions and problems in the North-West and adjacent areas, it was absolutely impossible for him to visit my constituency. When his reply reached me, the election had already been announced. I received his letter just before or after a report appeared in the newspaper that the same hon Minister, together with the NP agent, who was later designated as their candidate, would visit that area on holiday. The NP chairman of the district agricultural union accompanied them and appeared with the hon the Minister on the platform.

What did the hon the Minister who is sitting there in the front benches say about me at Messina? He told the farmers of Messina that it would not help them to talk to me because his door was supposedly closed to me.

Yes, you are asleep!

Oh please, just keep your mouth shut, because you do not know whether you are coming or going. [Interjections.]

He is as fast asleep as old Alex.

We then arrived at the DFA meeting to find the hon the Deputy Minister there too. His presence there did not matter to me, Sir; he is of no importance there in any case.

Why was I there?

To talk to the Nationalists.

Why was I at that specific meeting?

You were there by chance, but then you sniffed around there. His little agent then invited agricultural associations to hold discussions with him. Oh, it leaves me cold, but I think it would have been better, and in the interests of agriculture, if he had told me he was going there to take a look round at what was happening in the constituency. What did he do, however? That little agent of his then telephoned a secretary of a farmers’ association and told him he was not welcome at that meeting with the Deputy Minister because he was a member of the CP.

Just like Fanie Botha!

That is how they do it, Sir! That is their style! That is the pettiness of their mentality as regards this matter.

Concerning the appointment of members to agricultural credit committees, the hon the Deputy Minister must not tell us that it is not done on a political basis. It is done like that. He must simply be consistent. He consults NP MPs on whom to appoint to agricultural credit committees, and CP people have been removed from those agricultural credit committees. If he wants to be consistent and honest, he should state as a matter of policy, that either all MPs will be consulted in appointments to such offices or no MP will be consulted, action being taken exclusively on the advice of district agricultural committees. Then he would be honest and consistent and then the Government would set an example as regards the non-politicising of agriculture, and I challenge the hon the Deputy Minister or the hon the Minister to state that this will be their policy in future. I challenge them to say this. They will not do so, however, because they are too fond of their petty-politicking.

You are hurting!

Sir, where am I hurting? What am I getting hurt about? Oh, good heavens!

You spoke about a little agent.

Sir, he is a tiny little agent. That is what he is.

Mr Chairman, while time remains, I wish to speak about another matter. I want to express my greatest appreciation toward the officials of the Directorate: Financial Assistance of this department. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply and the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for their contributions to the stabilisation of agriculture in South Africa. Since 1981, certain agricultural sectors in the Eastern Cape grassland region have been experiencing financial crises as a result of periodic droughts and increasing input costs and interest rates.

Rising interest rates played a far greater role than we realised. Certain banks misused the financial dilemma our farmers were experiencing, and interest rates of up to 32% were charged, while interest rates were at their peak. In this way the debt burden of many farmers doubled in three years.

The Land Bank and the Directorate: Financial Assistance set an example with reasonable interest rates.

I want to dwell on the Land Bank for a while. Mr Chairman, I am aware that it falls under the Department of Finance. The Land Bank has 24 branch offices in the RSA. These offices are located in the most important agricultural economic areas in South Africa, and each office is run by top personnel and field officers. In the Eastern Cape we have three fully-staffed offices, namely in Port Elizabeth, Cradock and George.

Each office has scientifically trained field officers who work closely with Land Bank valuers. When a property is valued, the production capability and potential is determined on a scientific basis. The Land Bank has now installed a computer for the valuation of farming units. The Directorate: Financial Assistance has seven field officers in the Cape Province and 11 in the Transvaal, while the total surface area of the Cape Province is larger than that of each of the other provinces and the Cape Province is exclusively dependent on agriculture.

However, I now have a problem with regard to the location of field officers in the Eastern Cape. The Eastern Cape is served by its offices in Aliwal North and Beaufort West. In the agricultural and grassland regions of the coastal areas of the Eastern Cape, as well as the irrigation regions of the Fish River and the Sunday’s River valleys and the Gamtoos, there is one of the largest dairy co-operatives that supplies milk to as far afield as Durban, Cape Town, Lesotho and Windhoek when there is a shortage. A vital citrus industry is also situated there. This region produces 80% of the Republic’s pineapples and 100% of its chicory crop. The Republic’s mohair industry is also situated here, while we have an excellent network of offices of Agricultural Technical Services in almost every town, providing an excellent service with regard to information and research. Yet we do not have an office of the Directorate: Financial Assistance in that area at all. Therefore, I should like to request the Directorate: Financial Assistance to consider the establishment of a branch office in Grahamstown in order to serve the Eastern Cape grasslands.

Liaison between the farmer and the Department of Agricultural Credit has always been a problem. Therefore it is necessary for the directorate’s network of field officers to be expanded in order to advise the directorate with regard to each individual application. At present one cannot serve on the local credit committee if one has a loan from the Directorate: Financial Assistance. The result is that a large group of our outstanding farmers now no longer qualify for service on a credit committee. In certain parts of the Albany constituency agronomy is the main form of farming, and a large percentage of these farmers have had to approach the Directorate: Financial Assistance at some stage or other. As a result the present credit committee consists exclusively of stock-farmers.

We are reforming and renewing every day. My request to you is that we renew this department as well, that we open offices in those regions where the greatest farming activity is taking place, that we follow the Land Bank’s example of the provision of service and appoint our most qualified farmers to serve on these committees.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Lichtenburg, who had the floor just after my previous speech, asked to be excused for his absence from the House. As far as he is concerned, he is involved in a very important matter—the by-election in Randfontein tomorrow. [Interjections.]

We are going to win! [Interjections.]

Yes, Mr Chairman, we shall wait for the results before we address each other on the matter. [Interjections.] That is not the subject of the debate.

Nevertheless, I want to tell the hon member for Lichtenburg in his absence that the question of the judge’s verdict, to which he referred in his speech, is a matter that one should, by its very nature, handle very carefully. Of course one does not easily criticise the verdict of a judge, but the fact remains that some of our judges hold certain opinions which they express through their verdicts. That is why it is no doubt also my privilege to be able to react, in my capacity as Minister of Agriculture, to the opinion expressed by the judge in question. I shall do so on an occasion when the hon member for Lichtenburg is also present because he issued a challenge in this regard which I shall examine very thoroughly.

Once again the hon member raised the matter of politics being dragged into agriculture, into agricultural credit committees and so on. By virtue of my daily observations in agriculture I can say that the general opinion, in the ranks of both the farmers themselves and the SA Agricultural Union, about the politicising of agriculture is that it should be avoided at all costs.

I myself shall do everything in my power to avoid it, because it is not good for agriculture.

The hon members of the Official Opposition accuse us, and in particular my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister, of wilfully appointing people without any merit to the agricultural credit committees merely because they hold a particular political opinion or are, as they say, Nationalists.

Yes, that is true.

The CP’s chief spokesman on agriculture, the hon member for Lichtenburg, is not present, but I want to ask the hon members of the CP a question. They brought forward evidence, but if I were to bring forward evidence of the interference in and politicising of agriculture in certain fields, would they consider it? Do they agree with me that we should keep agriculture out of politics?

Bring along the evidence.

Shall I bring it to the attention of the CP? [Interjections.] Good. That is an arrangement and I shall do so.

Then we shall bring you …

The hon member must bring it along; we shall then be able to debate it here. [Interjections.] It is no use flinging accusations at one another. [Interjections.] We shall bring along the evidence.

And all the Government departments!

The CP will then agree with me that we should keep party politics out of agriculture as far as possible. There are certain people who hold positions in agriculture simply because they are members of the CP.

You see, that is what they say …

I shall bring along the evidence; that is an arrangement. The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition said he accepted it. We shall bring it to subsequent debates, and then we can discuss it here and see whether it is possible to rise above ordinary everyday party politics in order to place agriculture on a healthy footing, because this industry is in trouble. [Interjections.] We need people. We need representation in the various agricultural organisations that is truly based on merit. That is my approach—it has always been the approach of the NP and of my predecessors—and the hon members agree with that. We shall debate this matter again. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Wellington made a very interesting and important speech about the development and improvement of the administration of the Directorate: Financial Assistance. In referring to the old Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, it always bothered me that people outside spoke about the Department of Agricultural Regret (Landbouverdriet). It is not a pleasant name because this institution deals with the tragedies in agriculture. It deals with farmers who would not, under normal circumstances, be financed by the other financial institutions, and as a result this directorate is concerned with the so-called category-three farmer. We must, therefore, be very careful not to disparage this institution.

I now want to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister to whom this matter was delegated, and place it on record that he did an exceptionally good job here, with the support, inter alia, of his department heads. While I am on this point, I should like to join in the praise that was directed at Dr Heyns, the Superintendent-General and head of this department, for the ability he displayed in solving this problem to a large extent.

Certain steps were taken. Bonus systems were introduced, especially when we saw that we would receive a large number of applicants. Overtime remuneration was paid. A recruitment bonus is being paid in order to get good and suitable people on the staff. The average personnel utilisation is more than three times greater as a result of the strong personnel control that was implemented.

Work study investigations and other control measures were implemented. Certain officials went on pension ahead of time as a result of negative attitudes. We undertook a small mopping-up operation as well.

What was achieved? I think it is important that an average personnel utilisation of 107% was reached. Although certain sections are still not up to standard, work is still being done in this regard. The level at which officials are productive, in proportion to their remuneration, is 100%. We think we have made a great deal of progress in this regard.

The work backlog has decreased substantially, and with the exception of the emergency relief division and the debit division, divisions are up to date on a daily basis. Serious attention is being given to the emergency relief division which, mainly as a result of the increasing number of applications, is one or two weeks behind. A further example is that the disposal of settlement applications, from the date of receipt until an offer is made to the applicant, now takes three weeks, as opposed to the six weeks or longer that it took before. Of the 36 applications for settlement that have been received in 1988 so far, the Agricultural Credit Board has already reached a decision on 33 of them.

Disposing of emergency relief applications can take up to two months from the time of application by the farmer until payment is made. Everything is being done to shorten this period as well. Processing of production-loan applications now takes 10 days instead of the 21 days that it used to take.

With regard to future planning, computerisation of all records is being considered. Of the 115 terminals, 17 are already in operation, and the firm is presently installing the remaining terminals. Training of personnel in the use of the system has nearly been completed. The computer firm is still testing programmes. The firm has indicated that the system will be fully operational by 1 May 1988.

General training of personnel is being given preference. Work study investigations are constantly being carried out in order to promote efficiency. A deputy director who is experienced in work study techniques has been appointed to carry out this task on a full-time basis. Motivation of personnel is enjoying constant attention. Finally, it is the aim of the department to determine the processing of daily incoming work within one day.

In this way we are upgrading this department and its functions. We are examining its entire post structure in order to include a greater variety of specialised people in the department to successfully implement these 28 schemes, as well as the 29th scheme that I introduced today. The importance of this department has increased tremendously, and we are examining it seriously.

The hon member also referred to the housing of workers. I think it is a social activity that takes place on every farm today. A farming unit is a social unit in its own right. It is not like a factory to which the workers must be brought from a place of residence each morning. A farmer’s workers live on the premises on which he produces. On those premises housing facilities, recreation facilities and even education facilities must be created for the worker. The development of the social standards of our workers on our farms is definitely receiving further attention. Various discussions have been held in this regard, especially on the question of housing. The SA Agricultural Union held discussions on the possible incorporation of farm-housing into the National Housing Fund. That is a possibility that we are considering. I agree with the hon member that the R10 million that is made available annually for this purpose, is insufficient if one takes into account that there are approximately 1,3 million workers involved in agriculture. Ten million rand for housing purposes definitely does not appear to be sufficient. We shall have to give this matter further consideration.

However, I think new possibilities are developing in this regard as well, to which we shall have to pay attention. If we were to establish the proposed rural councils, which would be representative of rural White communities and especially of farmers and which would afford greater representation on the regional services councils in this regard, I think regional services councils could play a far more important role in future with regard to the rural areas and the upgrading of welfare and health services.

In fact, I am aware that at present a certain agricultural organisation is negotiating with regional services councils on the establishment of committees. They were promised, inter alia, that every cent that was made in agriculture would be ploughed back into agriculture.

We think that with the establishment of rural councils we should move further afield than merely dealing with housing. We are thinking of including health services, the upgrading of roads, etc. I know of the system which exists in the Western Cape and which must now be replaced by the regional services councils. I think that by means of negotiation one can improve that system as well.

The hon member for Bryanston made certain observations about the general grazing conditions.

†He said we should try to convince people rather than to prosecute them as far as soil conservation offences are concerned. I fully agree with the hon member. I do not think one can achieve all one’s goals as far as soil conservation is concerned in terms of the Act by prosecuting people. We have very strong measures which we can use, but I do not think we will be able to convince people that way. We should rather seek their co-operation in achieving our soil conservation goals.

*I shall return to that later when the opportunity presents itself. I just want to tell the hon member that I think we have an excellent Act, the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, which contains all the elements to enable us to do far more about soil conservation than we are doing at present, if we apply it properly.

We are talking about the disposition of the producer. In the past few years, during which we have had drought problems over a large area, the people who should have administered and applied soil conservation were in a terrible state. They did not think about soil conservation. They were financially and economically unsettled. They were trying to survive in the process. Allow me to admit that to the hon member. I think that perhaps we have neglected soil conservation somewhat over the past five, six or seven years. I am being honest with the hon member. We shall have to take a serious look into the directorate concerned with this. It is most likely that we shall have to create a personnel body to manage the implementation of the Act.

The hon member for Aliwal spoke about natural grazing and its deterioration and said that one had to be very careful with regard to the directives that one issued for the improvement of the grazing strategy.

I want to agree with the hon member that it is a very complicated situation, because the carrying capacity of the soil and the grazing varies from farm to farm, depending on the camp system and the location of the watering-places. Therefore, one will have to consider the matter thoroughly before certain regulations are laid down. However, we make no secret of the fact that if malpractices with regard to overgrazing were to take place, which would destroy this extremely important asset, namely natural grazing in agriculture, it would be the function of local farmers’ associations to bring this to the attention of the department so that we could take specific steps in this regard. I am thinking, in this respect, of the old Soil Conservation Act, the 1946 Act. Members of the farming community served on the soil conservation committees, and they had what I could almost call powers of prosecution. That was one of the reasons we changed the Act. We said it was an unhealthy situation, because farmers do not enjoy prosecuting one another. We changed the Act, but that does not mean that study groups, farming associations and people who are aware of specific malpractices, should not bring them to our attention as soon as possible. It should be done as quickly as possible, and I can give the assurance that something will be done about it.

The hon member for Middelburg apologised for his absence. He spoke about the importing of rice as opposed to that of maize. I want to tell the hon member in his absence that we can talk about this again when we discuss my other vote, as it is a matter more relevant to agricultural economics and marketing. I think he mentioned the importing of certain oils and chicken as well. We have the means to control the import of these commodities. I want to tell hon members immediately that certain of these oils are specialised oils, in other words, not vegetable oils. We have to import these oils from time to time. However, we are watching the situation closely. When this specific matter is debated later, we shall discuss this again.

The hon member for Sasolburg spoke about the consortium.

Did he apologise for his absence?

Yes, I know why the hon member is absent. I excuse him.

The hon member asked certain questions. I agree with him that we are looking forward with great expectation to the consortium’s plans to contribute to the consolidation of the farmers’ debt. However, the hon member made another statement as well. He spoke about the question of the writing-off of bad debt and how it was being dealt with. I want to say at once that I think we should be very careful when we talk about the writing-off of debt in agriculture. If one constantly speaks of the writing-off of debt in agriculture, one makes people turn against agriculture. One makes financial institutions reluctant to undertake the financing of agriculture, which is already a great risk under the present circumstances. As proof of this I can give the hon member several examples in which financial institutions capitalised interest rates to as much as 28% and 30%. Some people can easily talk about the writing-off of debt, but imagine the Government also having to write-off debt. However, the Government provides agricultural finance on the grounds of the farmer’s capacity to pay, in other words on the grounds of the agricultural value of his land. These people provided finance on the grounds of the market value, which is much higher than the agricultural value.

On top of that they capitalised the higher interest in order to accommodate their risk. I want to tell hon members that we should be very careful when we speak about bad debt. It will mean that some debt in the private sector will indeed have to be written off. However, after the private sector has written off its debt, it will still have its interest and its capital, because this accumulated over the years. Therefore, the writing-off of debt is a very sensitive area, and I want to ask hon members to approach this subject very carefully.

The hon member for Witbank spoke about the inflation rate. I want to tell him that the fact that the inflation rate is decreasing to about 13% at the moment, is very promising. Those of us in agriculture are particularly pleased about it. It will undoubtedly be to our advantage. The hon member should be patient. Despite everything, we are not such a bad Government. [Interjections.]

Do you really think so?

The hon member for Delmas spoke about the terrific price increases in the fertiliser industry. If one examines the various increases in the fertiliser industry and compares them to the price increases and other inputs needed in agriculture, one sees that increases in the price of fertiliser were not as drastic as some other price increases. I am not lodging a plea for this industry, because they can state their case themselves. There was a stage when all was well in this industry. At one stage they were so prosperous that they planned for an annual growth rate of more than 8%. The result is that we have a production capacity in the fertiliser industry that is sufficient to last until after the year 2000.

With the collapse of agricultural prices, and the drought conditions, these people produced far less than their capacity and wanted to recover a part of their lost fixed costs in another way. They also discovered that the sales traffic could carry only a certain amount. Therefore there was a stage in which the rise in fertiliser prices was slower. Some companies even went bankrupt. I am sure the hon members are aware of that. It is one of the disturbing aspects of the agricultural industry, and my colleague, the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, is looking into that situation. It is disturbing that there might eventually be only three or four big companies. The hon member spoke about competition, but if there were two or three large companies that had to provide this important element, I am not sure that effective competition would always be possible. Therefore, this whole position is being examined very carefully.

The hon member mentioned another very important aspect. He spoke about VAT, or value added tax. I can tell the hon member that the uniqueness of agriculture and agricultural inputs has necessitated that the Committee for Taxation Expertise—such a committee exists—look into how VAT is going to affect agriculture. I shall give hon members an example. In other words, agriculture will have to pay VAT on its inputs. During a specific tax period it will have to pay VAT on its inputs, but the return will be received after a longer period because the production cycle is slow. Therefore, there is a VAT cost at the beginning, but it takes a number of years before a return is received. These various facets of this taxation system will be thoroughly investigated. It has been brought to the attention of the hon the Minister of Finance, and he is considering it.

The hon member mentioned another important facet which I should like to dwell on for a moment. I am referring to the question of interest rates. None of us doubts that the situation in which agriculture finds itself at present is extremely sensitive to drastic increases in interest as a result of weak climatic conditions and external financing in which interest plays an important part.

When one studies and evaluates most of the aid-schemes it appears that most of them aim at the subsidising of interest rates to a value as low as 4%. The Agricultural Credit Act authorises us to lower interest rates even further. Therefore we have the ability to adapt interest rates as required by existing circumstances. The lower interest rates become, the greater the demands to be able to finance them, but we are paying attention to another matter.

Mr Chairman, I want to know from the hon the Minister what the Government is going to do about the fact that, at the moment, more than 50% of the financial aid to farmers is provided by banks and co-operatives. I fear an increase in the interest rates on those loans and not necessarily an increase in the Land Bank’s interest rates.

I am coming to the hon member’s problem. We shall have to pay renewed attention to the Usury Act which determines a certain maximum loan amount of R60 000 or R70 000. I am not sure of the exact amount. The Act is rather old and the opinion is held that the higher this amount is, the better the chances of the person who is borrowing the money to compete on the capital market for better interest rates. Under the present circumstances we shall have to re-evaluate this amount and make it considerably higher, because as I have just said, many financial institutions demand interest rates of 28% and 30% or even more. They must prove that the particularly high interest rates that they demand are bona fide and not mala fide. They are advised by law advisers before they determine these interest rates, particularly on farmers’ accounts. At the moment, we are negotiating to establish whether we can apply the Usury Act to limit these unnecessarily high and militant interest rates in agriculture.

The hon member for Caledon spoke about research in agriculture and referred to the apple industry. He said there had to be good coordination between research and that particular industry. I agree with him that we shall have to move increasingly towards obtaining funds for research with regard to the particular industries from the various marketing councils. Research will then be directed at specific commodities, for example apples, cattle or milk. The various research programmes can then be partly financed by the marketing councils. That is the direction in which we are moving. That type of financing does not appear in the budget, but we are giving attention to that matter.

†The hon member for Durban North was answered thoroughly by my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister.

*I am not going to reply to him any further.

The hon member for Ladybrand also spoke about the writing-off of debt, and I stand by the statement that I made about it being very dangerous. The hon member made a very good speech and referred to the fact that the CP had not investigated the various schemes properly. They choose one scheme and then attempt to cause an ugly stigma to attach to it.

Allow me to say something about the R400 million-scheme. That scheme was devised in cooperation with the SA Agricultural Union. Secondly, the R400 million-scheme is an emergency scheme, in the same way as the scheme that I announced today is an emergency scheme. Why is it an emergency scheme? The answer is that we negotiated with organised agriculture for months. We did not devise this scheme on our own. The number of farmers and the amounts involved are figures that we received from organised agriculture, including agricultural co-operatives that work with these cases. Now why this terrific hullabaloo about the R400 millionscheme? The R400 million-scheme is going to continue, Sir, because it is still an emergency relief scheme! The scheme that we implemented today, is not going to take over the function of the sequestration scheme, or call it the R400 millionscheme; it already has so many names. If we have to rescue 118 or 120 farmers from sequestration again, we are still going to do it, as we did during the past year. Therefore, that scheme remains intact, and it is a good scheme, but it was devised for a specific reason and we shall use it again.

The hon member for Mooi River also spoke about soil conservation and was particularly worried about the damage caused by the tremendous floods. He then suggested that we should implement short-term measures and break away from the prescribed norms. I do not know which norms the hon member referred to, but I want to agree with him that one should determine one’s norms according to the specific circumstances prevailing in a specific area. I think one’s norms in a flood area will differ from the norms in a drought area. They are different norms. For example, one will have to look at the topography, and I think that in this regard we shall probably have to make a study. I agree with the hon member that we shall have to modernise and adapt our norms with regard to soil conservation.

The hon member also said that there was a tendency to privatisation in the agricultural advisory services. The recommendations following the investigation by the Kolb Committee could not be implemented for certain reasons. They had certain constitutional implications. The idea was that according to the Kolb Committee Report, one had to form an agricultural development council. Under the circumstances we felt that it was not relevant at the moment, and we are studying the Kolb Committee’s report and reevaluating certain recommendations which we shall try to implement in any event in order to co-ordinate agricultural extension.

One of the reasons why agricultural extension fell behind the private sector to a certain degree, was the fact that people were drawn away by the private sector to do counselling for purposes of sales and profit, but I think the situation in agriculture has changed considerably, and we can now consolidate in this region as well. In fact, we are succeeding in reappointing extension officers and agricultural experts who left our department.

I think that at this stage I should let that suffice. I could not reply to all the hon members’ questions. Those that I did not reply to I shall try to reply to in writing.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to speak after the inauguration of the hon member for Bokkeveld. I want to extend a hearty welcome to the hon member and I also want to congratulate all the visitors from Bokkeveld on the wonderful struggle in which they engaged in order to ensure such an overwhelming and sound victory for the LP. I want to extend my sincere congratulations to the hon member for Bokkeveld and to the voters of that constituency. [Interjections.]

I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to a few other aspects. The first is apartheid education. Educationists throughout the world agree that educationally irrelevant factors such as social class, economic status, nationality, sex, religious affiliations, race and geographic location ought to have no influence on the child’s right of access to a school. Clear differences in intelligence, performance, talent and their interests are educationally relevant factors and may be used as criteria for differentiation at school. No one has any objection to that. On the other hand, educational differentiation on the basis of educationally irrelevant criteria has no place in education.

People who advocate the retention of separate schools with organised contact across colour lines, are advocating apartheid education.

They are pleading a poor case which cannot be scientifically justified. There are no educational arguments in favour of forced racial classification in education and in society. It is a party-political ideology of people like the hon members of the CP. Those are the political arguments of those on the far right, and they are being used in South Africa. We know that thousands of Afrikaners— and we know who they are—reject race as an educational criterion.

We concede that social recognition has been given to the existence of ethnic and cultural diversity throughout the world. It is only in South Africa, however, that schoolchildren are forced into separate schools in terms of a law. It is only in South Africa that discrimination is practised on the grounds of the colour of a pupil’s skin. In South Africa people confuse culture with race.

Allow me to cite an example: A boy who is classified as Coloured but who shows strong Afrikaans cultural tendencies in every respect and who is of the Calvinist-Protestant religion, is denied access to a culturally Afrikaans school, which is reserved for Whites—and he is denied because of racial discrimination and not because of cultural differences!

As a member of the South African Army during the Second World War, I was often the victim of discrimination on the grounds of race and colour—and that was outside the boundaries of South Africa. Despite that I am a proponent of a broad representative and universal South African culture which all South Africans can share. The system of education based on forced racial separation in our schools is not the answer to the strict requirements of relevant educational criteria and, with all due respect, I cannot support it.

I want to discuss another aspect which is relevant to this debate. It is the incidence of child abuse. One often hears gruesome stories about how, in unhappy parental homes, babies are hurled against the wall, about how children are compelled to give in to their parents by means of brute force. From time to time the public expresses anger at child abuse in one form or another in our community. Unfortunately, South African welfare organisations are a little backward when it comes to the early identification and neutralising of child abuse and neglect.

The abused child needs acceptance and love, and that is what our schools have to provide. That is why the married female teacher is so valuable in our system of education. Auxiliary welfare services have to combat the problem of child abuse and identify it early. I am grateful that the hon the Minister has made funds available for the spiritual scars left by child abuse to be identified and for these children to be rehabilitated in order to bring some happiness into the lives of these abused children.

The teacher in the classroom has the important responsibility of identifying child abuse. If a child is often late or absent, it is possible that his domestic circumstances are unhappy. In those cases abused children are often aggressive towards other children. Those children need a lot of love and acceptance, however.

Another factor in our community which I should like to refer to, is the poverty in the community. Poverty exerts a destructive influence on our already backward community life. Job opportunities require more attention. The Public Service demands First World standards and qualifications when employees are appointed. When our young people look for work, they are always told that they have too little of this and too much of that, because they do not have the necessary qualifications. I know, for example, how the hon the State President, when he was still a member for the George constituency, used to create opportunities for White girls and boys so as to ensure that they were appointed in the Public Service. In this way the poor White question was resolved to some extent. We request those same opportunities so that we do not always have to take second place, and so that our girls and boys can also join the Public Service. Our children are very strictly graded, and many of them do not pass this grading process. The time has come for a parliamentary committee to investigate the creation of job opportunities in the Public Service for our young people. Shortly after we entered Parliament, we formed a parliamentary committee on which the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development, the hon member for Mamre, and some other hon members and I served. We addressed that particular matter at the time and even negotiated with the Commission for Administration. I think the LP should once again form such a committee so that our children can join the Public Service.

I am pleased that the question of the study bursaries has been resolved. Our children are urgently in need of those bursaries; they cannot study without them. Many of the children’s parents have no other income apart from old age pensions with which they barely manage to keep body and soul together. I am glad that the students have been instructed to return to their colleges and that the disagreement with regard to study bursaries has been resolved. Many of the students who cannot continue their studies drop out and seek refuge in instigating unrest, in gangs, and in other anti-establishment actions. We cannot afford that. [Interjections.] If we want our young people to make progress, we shall have to see to it that they are able to pursue happy and carefree studies. Racial preference in the allocation of careers in the Public Service should be eliminated completely, because our children are exposed to so many temptations. One of the greatest temptations is drugs. If one were to talk to school principals, they would deny that drugs were being taken and smuggled, but they deny that because they want to protect the honour and good name of their schools. Our teachers, however, have to deal on a daily basis with pregnancies, divorces, the consequences of drunkenness in the home and drug addiction.

Then there is the worried pupil—he finds no peace at home—who does not make the necessary progress at school. He then seeks refuge in drugs. All these things are the consequences of the wrong friends, uncertainty with regard to career matters, idleness and even an unhappy parental home.

Mr Chairman, I should like to tell the hon the Minister that the money he is spending on welfare, the money he has allocated for the combating of these evils, is money that has been well spent. Nothing should stand in his way when it comes to spending money on guidance by teachers and welfare workers in the interests of the child. Seeing that the hon the Leader of the LP, who worked so hard during the by-election in Bokkeveld, is still here, I should like to relate a story about one of our Black world leaders, who had to withstand pressure and difficult circumstances in respect of this kind of spitefulness and racial hatred and who only achieved success through prayer. I want to quote from Dr Martin Luther King’s Stride toward Freedom but I should like to read from the recent Afrikaans translation. I quote from page 84 of Tree na Vryheid by Randall van den Heever.

All that appears on p 84 of Tree na Vryheid by Randall van den Heever.

Mr Chairman, I want to use this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to the LP of South Africa, the Ceres branch and the Peninsula region for the confidence they showed in me by putting me up as a candidate in the by-election.

I also want to thank my hon colleagues here in Parliament, my fellow party members in the President’s Council, Ministerial representatives, other branches and MECs for their help and assistance during the by-election. In particular, I want to thank the voting public in the Bokkeveld constituency for the high number of votes they cast in favour of the LP so that we could win this opposition seat. [Interjections.]

I should also like to thank the farm owners for having granted leave to their employees to come and vote. I understand the position of those farm workers who could not come to vote. I am personally aware of a farm with 500 workers who had to work until 9 o’clock every evening because of the busy harvest season. As a result of that they could not vote.

I have already thanked my hon colleagues for their help and assistance, but I should like to single out three hon colleagues to whom I owe a special thank you. First of all I should like to thank the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare for having shown so much interest. He assisted me at every public meeting.

Secondly, I should like to thank the hon member for Hanover Park who acted as my electoral agent. He launched my election campaign with a wealth of practical knowledge and experience. That was definitely one of the factors that destroyed my opposition.

Finally, I also want to express my thanks to the hon member for Addo who assisted the hon member for Hanover Park and myself on a full-time basis over the past three weeks.

I also want to issue a serious warning this afternoon to the owners of a firm in Ceres who are opposed to our participation in the parliamentary system and who dismissed one of my voluntary workers from their service.

That is scandalous!

I want to tell them that there are 320 farms and 20 000 voters in Ceres, and if this type of intimidation and victimisation continues, that business will soon be bankrupt. [Interjections.]

I come from a rural area and my people are poor. I briefly want to outline a few of the problems that are being experienced in my constituency. We are experiencing a housing crisis in Ceres and Bella Vista because there is a shortage of approximately 300 houses. At present there is a family in Bella Vista who have been evicted from their home. Their furniture is standing on the sidewalk and is being ruined by the sun and the rain, and the man has to sleep next to the family’s possessions on the sidewalk at night in order to protect them.

Many farmers would like to make better and more residential homes available to our farm workers, but they cannot afford to do so because the current aid from the Government in this regard is inadequate. I want to appeal for consideration to be given to whether financial assistance cannot be made available to them in this regard, because they are prepared to provide housing for my people.

Moreover, many farmers have already started nursery schools for preschool farm children. They are requesting State aid in the form of teaching aids and subsidies so that they can render a more teaching-oriented service. The standard of education at our schools is considerably lower than that under the control of the other two Houses. One of the factors responsible for this is that our children are not school-ready when they turn up at school. The nursery schools and the pre-primary schools make our children school-ready and equip them with the abilities to fulfil the expectations of the schools. It is our underdeveloped communities in particular which have a great need for aid to the preschool child. I want to appeal for aid to be given to nursery schools on farms, not just in my constituency, but also throughout the country wherever a need for such services exists.

That is how a Labour Party man should talk.

At Prins Alfred Hamlet and Koue Bokkeveld application has already been made for residential areas for the so-called Coloured communities. I want to express the hope that these residential areas will soon be proclaimed. Furthermore, I hope that these residential areas enjoy high priority, not only because they are situated in my constituency, but also because, on the one hand, the communities are poor and underdeveloped, and, on the other hand, the people have been waiting for decades to be able to own an own home in their own area.

Touws River is not only a town with all kinds of social problems. The community of Touws River also has a cultural treasure. Touws River’s community, however, requires a suboffice for welfare services.

Apart from that there is also a squatter camp where there is no water, no shower facilities and no toilet facilities for the squatters. This situation is indeed a breeding ground for disease and poses a serious health threat to the residents of Touws River.

Touws River’s brass band is a cultural treasure and we cannot simply allow it to disappear. [Interjections.] The band has already been transferred from the SATS to the Touws River Municipality. I want to make an appeal for us to preserve this cultural heritage and for us to expand it by means of a subsidy. [Interjections.]

In the recent by-election the LP stood out like a mighty lion devouring its little lamb—the UDP— limb by limb. [Interjections.] I heard from the party’s workers in Touws River that when the result of the by-election became known, the leader of the party and the party’s candidate cried out of sheer despair and disappointment, while the other members had already fled to the Koue Bokkeveld early that afternoon instead of supporting their man in Ceres. [Interjections.] With such a poor performance from those in the ranks of the opposition, I am convinced that the LP is going to destroy the UDP completely in the forthcoming by-elections. The LP is going to swallow the UDP up completely, and I wish my hon leader every success in this process. [Interjections.)

Where is Pieter Marais? [Interjections.]

To the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council I convey the friendly greetings of the voters in my constituency. We pledge our unconditional support to his leadership. I bring him a very clear mandate from my constituency: Continue with confidence in the direction in which you are going; we give you our full support.

Mr Chairman, it is an honour to speak after the hon member for Bokkeveld. On behalf of the Official Opposition I want to congratulate him sincerely on his election and give him the assurance that we shall support him when he raises his voters’ problems in the House. I want to tell him briefly why we lost the election. [Interjections.] On the mountain where I was working, we waited from 7 am to 11 am. During this period three people came to vote. Towards 11.30 am our kombi arrived; the driver stopped with a flourish and four people got out. We looked through the voters’ list, but not one of the four people’s names was on the voters’ list. They then left and at approximately 2 pm the driver returned. He wanted money for petrol. I told him to park the kombi, saying that he had been busy from 7 am and that by that time, 2 pm, he had not yet brought anyone to us. [Interjections.] I told him to park the kombi. Not long after that our tent fell over. [Interjections.] I wanted to know where all these people had come from, causing our tent to fall over. I had not seen these people all day. I want to congratulate the hon member sincerely and welcome him in our midst.

Then the UDP fell over.

Sir, I do want to say that it took the LP 21 years to win that seat. We have been in the field for only six weeks. They must watch out! [Interjections.] Sir, I told the LP in Ceres that we had given them a good fight, because we came second.

I want to come to more serious matters now, however. I am grateful to the hon the Minister of the Budget for the explanation of the figures in the Budget. The increases that vary between 72,36% and 110,85% are spelt out clearly in the Budget. These figures are like magic words. When the hon the Minister made his speech in the House, we could see what progress we were making.

†However, Sir, today I do not want to concentrate on alleged achievements as set out in the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech. His speech was a big bluff. I want to show this House that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has failed it.

But look at his opposition.

I also want to show the House that the hon the Minister of the Budget has failed this House. I want to show the House that the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture has failed this House. [Interjections.] Because of the doctrine of collective responsibility I also include the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. I want to prove today in this House that we have all been victims of a political fraud perpetrated by the Ministers’ Council. I want to prove today that for the past four years hon members in this House have been taken for a ride.

You too.

Yes, I have also been taken for a ride. As far back as 18 April 1986 hon Ministers in the Ministers’ Council were in possession of documents—I have a copy with me—which clearly spelt out in detail the money allocated for the financial year 1985-86 to each of the departments which those hon Ministers in the Ministers’ Council serve. I can even give hon members the figures for next year’s budget because this goes as far as 1989-90. These figures are in respect of the hon the Minister of the Budget’s own portfolio, that of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, the portfolio of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and that of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture.

When did you get the documents?

[Inaudible.]

I am pleased the hon member said that. I am going to believe what the Ministers’ Council tells us. I want to continue my speech, however.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon member wants me to, I can even give him the reference number of this particular file and he would find it in the Ministers’ Council’s …

All the way from the White House.

No, Sir, they do not come all the way from the White House. I invite that hon member to come and examine the documents so that he can see for himself that the information comes directly from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and from nobody else. [Interjections.] The reference number of this document is HJH/CM 4-10-64. I have a copy of the document with me and it discloses the following. It sets out the moneys allocated from 1985 until 1990.

I want to start with the money that was allocated to the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. In 1985-86 the sum of R205 791 000 was allocated to the department. In 1986-87 the sum allocated was R342 516 000. In 1987-88 the allocation increased to R569 826 000. The sum allocated for 1988-89 is R711 719 000; and, for the benefit of those who still want to plead their case here, the allocation intended for 1989-90 is R787 959 000. What has happened, however, to the allocated amounts? We received the money that was allocated for the 1985-86 financial year. So, too, we received the money allocated for 1986-87. What has happened since 1 January 1987, however?

Of the R569 826 000 allocated for the 1987-88 financial year, only an amount of R393 598 000—I am quoting the hon the Minister in this regard—was utilised. Now I want to know what has happened to the other R176 228 000 which was allocated.

*I want to discuss this with those hon members, Sir. We want to know today where that money is.

†An amount of R711 719 000 was allocated for the 1988-89 financial year, but according to the hon the Minister’s figures we have an amount of only R429 408 000 as the allocated amount. I want to know what has happened to the other R282 million.

We have it in our back pockets.

No, the hon members have absolutely nothing.

†I want to come to the Department of Education and Culture. An amount of R726 247 000 was allocated for the 1985-86 financial year, and an amount of R869 501 000 for the 1986-87 financial year. That money was indeed spent. What happened during the 1987-88 financial year, however? The sum of R1 000 089 336 was budgeted for.

You must start reading the figures correctly now.

I am reading them correctly. The amount is R1 089 336 000, of which only R1 009 731 000 was spent. Where is our R79 million? We want an explanation. [Interjections.]

That is not the worst of it. An amount of R11 195 568 000 was allocated for the 1988-89 financial year—that is more than R11 billion— and an amount of only R11 081 540 000 was recorded. Where is the other R87 million?

We shall show you where that money is.

The hon member does not know where it is.

I shall show you.

Where is it?

We shall show you where it is.

Those hon members sit here year after year; they want to come and clear their chests and scream for improvements in their constituencies, but this package was worked out long before we came here to voice our needs. [Interjections.]

†That is why I said those hon members were taken for a ride.

*I want to go further and get to the other section. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare said that if there was no equalisation of pensions within the five-year period he would resign. That is what he said. Do hon members know why he said that? He said that, because an amount of R403 946 000 was voted in the 1985-86 financial year. That is money that we received. An amount of R467 394 000 was voted for the 1986-87 financial year—and we got that money too. [Interjections.] An amount of R569 826 000 was voted for the 1987-88 financial year.

There was a reduction, however. That figure should read R640 722. Only R549 787 of this amount was spent. This amounts to a shortage of almost R90 million.

You are simply looking for attention!

I am not looking for attention. Those hon members want attention, whereas their constituencies are being neglected. That Ministers’ Council negotiated a five-year programme when they came here at the beginning of the new parliamentary dispensation. All the amounts were set out including exactly how much money was to be allocated every year. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Fish River must please behave himself.

The Ministers’ Council, through the hon the Minister of the Budget, stated the following, and I quote in Afrikaans:

Order! Does the hon member for Fish River want to put a point of order or ask a question?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Did you hear what the hon member for Border said? He said I was mad in the head. Is that permissible? The hon member asked whether it was I who was talking or someone else.

Order! The hon member for Fish River must please sit down. Did the hon member for Border say anything in that vein?

Sir, that is precisely what I said.

Order! The hon member must please withdraw those words.

Sir, I should like to explain. With reference to something the hon member for Northern Cape said on a previous occasion, I asked whether the hon member for Fish River or the hon member for Northern Cape had said it. Unfortunately the hon member for Northern Cape is not here, and that is all I meant by saying what I did.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Border entitled to argue with the Chair?

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Border may proceed.

What are the blatant untruths in that statement made by the hon the Minister? In one department the need …

That is simply a lot of hot air.

It is not; I have the documents to prove what I have said in front of me. The LP had the whole package, but as a result of the activities of that Ministers’ Council they let millions of rands slip through their figures to the detriment of all members who request improvements in their respective constituencies day after day. [Interjections.] That is a fact. [Interjections.]

†This shows the inability of the Ministers’ Council to negotiate. It also shows gross negligence on their part and complete disregard for the plea of hon members of this House for improvements and facilities in their constituencies. It shows that for the past two years this Ministers’ Council has not had the interests of the people at heart, hence the sum of R720 million has gone through their fingers—money which could have been spent to alleviate the housing shortage which the hon member for Bokkeveld referred to. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, some R720 million was…

Hold your tongue!

Order! The hon member for Mamre must please contain himself. The hon member for Border may proceed.

Sir, it shows that for the past two years this Ministers’ Council has not had at heart the interests of the people they purport to represent. This mismanagement is not confined to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. This mismanagement that I am accusing the Ministers’ Council of is applicable to every department.

Let us examine briefly the monetary allocation for the Department of Education and Culture. In the 1985-86 financial year the sum of R726 257 000 was allocated to this department, and this money was spent. For the 1986-87 financial year the sum of R869 501 000 was allocated. That money was spent as well. The Ministers’ Council must account to the hon members here for the R1 billion and for the shortage of R79 million. [Interjections.]

*Hon members can make as much noise as they like, but the truth hurts.

Carry on with your speech!

The people say the hon member for Ottery is not worthy of that seat; the LP won it. [Interjections.] That is what the people say. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member a reasonable chance to continue his speech. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we go further, however, and look at the Education and Culture Vote, we see why bursaries have suddenly dried up and why there have been problems in our schools. The amount shows a reduction.

†A sum of R1 308 330 000 has been allocated for the coming financial year. That is the money we must get for next year.

Mr Speaker, can the hon member tell us what document he was quoting from, and can you determine whether or not it is an official document? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I shall show you the document with the greatest of pleasure.

Order! It is not necessary for the hon member to show the Chair the documents. He need only inform the House which document he was quoting from, if he is prepared to do so. The hon member is under no obligation to identify the document. If he wants to, however, it is within his discretion to do so.

If the hon member for Mamre is interested, he can come to me and I shall show him the whole set of documents. I have them in my hand. I am not making this up; I have all the documents.

†Let me come back to the various departments. Housing affects every hon member sitting here today.

*There is a shortage of housing in every constituency. Since we came here, every hon member has got up to wail and moan about housing. This was confirmed by the hon member for Bokkeveld today, who mentioned the housing problem in his maiden speech. There is no doubt that there is a significant shortage of housing, but what does the Ministers’ Council do? They lose R426 million which could have been spent on housing. [Interjections.] Since the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council went swimming last year, they have cut off the supplies, and that swim cost our people R720 million. I can give proof of every cent. [Interjections.]

†That is a fact. I have all the facts and figures at my disposal. If hon members want to challenge me, they can debate this matter with me on any platform and I will prove to the community that we have lost R720 million as a result of that episode. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I have to reply, but one moment the hon member says R400 million and the next R700 million. I do not know what to believe.

Mr Speaker, I shall give the hon the Minister a copy of all the figures. He can check them himself, in case I am giving an incorrect figure.

Order! The hon the Minister merely asked whether the hon member would help him by telling him which figure he should consider in his reply—a figure of just over R400 million or a figure of just over R700 million.

Mr Speaker, the R700 million was appropriated at the beginning of the 1985 session. At the beginning of my speech I said that the package had been calculated when we got here.

Just an answer; not a speech.

Sir, it is my turn to make a speech. I am entitled to do so. That Ministers’ Council never discussed these aspects with members. We were part of the LP when these figures were considered.

This was not discussed by any hon member at any stage, except of course for a few selected members. I want to come back to the question of housing. It is one of our greatest problems. Hon members can talk until they are blue in the face— the programme has been worked out already. If hon members’ constituencies did not appear in that programme, they are wasting their breath in asking for housing in their constituencies, because the programme has been worked out already.

Why did the Ministers’ Council not take us into their confidence? The Ministers’ Council is supposed to act on behalf of this House. Why did the Ministers’ Council not take hon members into their confidence? Why not? I shall tell hon members why not. It is because the hon the Minister negotiates! Hon members have to hear every year that they negotiate and negotiate. They have allowed us to believe that they negotiate for more money. Do hon members know the truth? They have never negotiated! They have never negotiated since they have been here! The officials drew up these figures when we came to Parliament. This package was worked out in 1984. What has happened since then? Instead of more negotiation, money was lost. Thus far R720 million has been lost as a result of the Ministers’ Council’s mismanagement.

The hon the Minister of the Budget boasts with figures. In his speech he said officials had been appointed from Coloured ranks, whereas only 5% of Whites were appointed. If one reads the whole speech, however, and one analyses how many Whites were promoted, one finds a percentage of 22%. Those in the department who received grants amount to 27%. Playing around with percentages can be used to one’s disadvantage too.

In his speech the hon the Minister referred to the increase in funds that were allocated in comparison with last year’s allocation. When one thinks about the Department of …

The hon member is confused.

There is plenty of time. Hon members can sit still and be patient. When one comes to the question of housing, one sees that there is a deficit of R176 228 000 during the 1987-88 financial year—and that applies only to that specific department. When I recently spoke about the amount of R57 million which had been given back, Press statements were issued. Statements were broadcast all over the country. It was said that that money had been returned to a revolving fund. That is quite correct. The money was returned to a revolving fund, but can the hon the Minister tell me whether or not this amount of R176 228 000 was also returned to the revolving fund? Or was it returned to the Treasury? Yes, it was returned to the Treasury. It is lost to this House, therefore.

Let us look at the figures for the 1988-89 financial year. In his speech the hon the Minister said that we would receive only R429 408 000. The hon the Minister boasted about that and said it was an improvement upon the previous year. If the true figures were known, it was a loss of R282 311 000. The hon the Minister did not negotiate for the figures he gave us. That is the first point I want to make. This package was worked out in 1984. The only thing these figures prove is that there has been an annual loss.

I already have the figures for the next financial year. I want to know whether or not we are going to get that money. Is the hon the Minister going to start negotiating now? For the past four years he has been able to spell that word, but not do anything about it. I want to know if the hon the Minister is going to get the figures that have been set out here so that the people can benefit. I want the voters to see that the hon members they elect and send here to represent them are doing their work properly.

There are dissatisfied people in this House. They have been sitting in this House for four years. They will have been here for five years and still nothing will have been done in their constituencies.

Absolutely nothing will be done in their constituencies, because the Ministers’ Council that is sitting over there maladministers the financial affairs of this House. I use the word “maladminister” in the sense that money is lost. [Interjections.] I read the speech made by the hon the Minister. I have knowledge of every word he said. I want to quote from the hon the Minister’s speech:

That is what they say. They have made attempts to eliminate the backlog, but if they got this package at the beginning and did not make full use of the money that was allocated, how on earth can they say that purposeful attempts have been made to eliminate the backlog? They allowed the money to be lost.

I am going to teach him a lesson.

The hon member can teach him a lesson, but these are facts and this is the truth. We are not in the inner circles, after all. That is why I have quoted these figures, so that the people in the inner circles can come forward and prove that what I am saying here today is not the truth. If it is the truth, those hon members must be man enough to say so. [Interjections.] †It is so remarkable that when this whole reform initiative was initiated, for the first two years we received the money which was allocated.

*When the reform initiatives encountered problems after the swimming episode and the other events of last year, however—I do not even want to go into any detail—the supply lines were cut.

Your leader is swimming in liquor.

Order! The hon member must please withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Then, Sir, in an act of foolish bravado the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare threatened the hon the Minister of Finance. I want to say what utter folly. What utter folly! At the beginning a package deal was worked out and the Ministers’ Council—they were the only ones who knew about this package deal—failed us, because they were not able negotiate for the money which was allocated as far back as 1985. What an indictment!

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Border is undoubtedly one of the most wonderful characters in this House. He is always making the oddest statements. I want to tell him today that in all countries of the world budgets are worked out over a period of five years and more. All budgets are subject to the economic conditions in the country. He was present when the Director-General—I think it was Mr Wronsley—explained to us how budgets worked. He was in ecstasy about it in the caucus. He said: “Goodness, but the White people are clever—they know what they are doing.” [Interjections.]

The hon member for Border said that the Ministers’ Council should explain how they misspent that R720 000. I know that the hon the Minister of the Budget will inform them very nicely that there was no misspending.

However I think that the UDP owes this House and all South Africans an explanation. They must tell us today why they are back in this House. [Interjections.] They gave the hon the State President an ultimatum and they must explain to us today whether the hon the State President has complied with their request.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: No ultimatum was ever presented to the hon the State President.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member may proceed.

They still owe us an explanation. We were informed that the leader and deputy leader of the UDP were involved in a fight somewhere. [Interjections.] They must tell us whether that is the truth.

The hon member for Border stated that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare said that if pensions were not equalised, he would resign as Minister. Mr Speaker, that hon member really does not seem to know yet that the hon the Minister has already equalised pensions. War veterans receive precisely the same pensions. [Interjections.] It is time those hon members stopped playing games in this Parliament. They will have to learn to go and do their homework. However, I shall leave it to the hon the Minister of the Budget to settle the hash of those hon members as we have already done in Ceres.

I now wish to come back to those points in my speech that I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister this afternoon. In Rapport of 27 March 1988 the following report appears under the heading “Bus-vete duur voort”:

Order! The hon member for Wuppertal must resume his seat. The hon member for Riversdal may proceed.

I quote further:

Mr Speaker, the owner of this bus service can dismiss these complaints as rubbish, but I should like to tell our hon Minister of the Budget today that there is no smoke without fire. Many of the complaints are common and many are well-founded.

In Rapport of 11 January 1987 Mr David Maritz writes as follows:

Die volgende klagtes daaroor is deur ouers en leerlinge onder my aandag gebring:

Mr Speaker, there is a saying: Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings. I have in my possession a letter from a young girl who also travels to school by bus. She writes as follows:

1. 1. Ons het drie keer laat by die skool aangekom a.g.v.:
   1. (a) die bus se remme het vasgebrand omtrent 20 km van die skool af …

There are still two byelections left.

Yes, that is how I deal with the Opposition. I learnt from the hon member for Bokkeveld how one should deal with the Opposition. [Interjections.]

The letter goes on:

1. (b) Die bus het sonder diesel omtrent 35 km van die skool af gaan staan.
2. (c) Die bus het skielik geruk en dit het ons vertraag.

Die volgende klagtes is omdat ons laat tuisgekom het:

1. 1. Op 8 Maart 1988 het die leerlinge ontdek dat die bus se wiele besig was om af te blaas naby Ruiters Padkafee in Zoar. Toe moes die werktuigkundige van mnr S Klink nog nuwe bande gaan koop het in Ladismith.
2. 2. Op 18 Maart 1988 het ons net ’n kapgeluid gehoor. Ons het egter aangery, maar later was dit te erg en ons het gestop. Ons het ontdek dat daar rook by die agterste linkerkantse band uitkom. Die bestuurder het aangery. Toe ons by Hoeko kom …

That is where C J Langenhoven was born.

Listen to this, Mr Speaker. She goes on to say:

Sir, I have also noted from reports in Die Burger the problems experienced by pupils and parents at Heidelberg and Swellendam. This state of affairs cannot continue. It must be stopped. [Interjections.] Our children are our most precious possessions and their safety must be our top priority. I am aware that the department investigates every complaint, because pupils safety is truly of the utmost importance. I know that it is one of the department’s rules that pupils must be transported in comfort. I know that the department does not condone overloaded buses; and yet these things still occur. There are individual officials who fail the department, Sir. There are individual officials who unnecessarily cause the hon the Minister and the department the utmost embarrassment. Individual officials are responsible for the Administration: House of Representatives being blamed for the problems that now occur.

That is true.

Investigating officers must not tell pupils who want to tell people about the conditions on the buses, “Be quiet, you are trying to be clever.” Investigating officers must not let the contractors know in advance that they are going to investigate complaints. However this does happen; and when that investigating officer approaches the headmaster—after having let the contractor know—he asks the headmaster: “How are things going with the bus service?” The headmaster then replies, “It is going very well.” That is the report that the investigating officer then sends to head office.

Sir, parents and children are made to look like liars when certain individual officials submit their reports. Investigating officers should not intimidate pupils who want to speak about the problems that they are experiencing with certain transport contractors and drivers. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister today to see to it that when a complaint is received, the investigating officer will investigate the matter that very day and first establish from the headmaster what the service is like. Pupils must be afforded the opportunity to state their case before the headmaster. Parents or bodies with complaints must also be able to put their case to the headmaster. In this way a solution may be found for the complaints and problems.

I also wish to make an appeal to the hon the Minister and ask that the department seriously consider not awarding tenders for transport contracts to companies. We have approached this House to help our people become economically strong. We have come here to help our people share in the wealth of the country. We have come here to strengthen our people financially. The individual does not have a hope against the tender prices of companies. Some companies receive Government subsidies and accordingly are able to submit cheaper tenders. The department must seriously consider distributing the millions of rands budgeted for the transportation of pupils more equitably among individual contractors. Transport tenders should be awarded to contractors within a certain area. In this way even more individual contractors will come to the fore and thus more individuals will be economically strengthened. I can assure hon members that if there is competition, a better service will be rendered.

In the same breath I should like to ask the department to consider awarding not more than six routes to one contractor. We know what happened last year when a contractor who had bus drivers on several routes took the department to court. We know what the court’s finding was. We must give more individuals the opportunity to enter the transport market. Moreover, transport contractors must be permitted to use a bus twice to convey 120 pupils on routes shorter than 15 km.

The department’s requirement is that 120 pupils must be transported on two buses. We know how much a bus costs. Pupils are conveyed at a certain tariff, a tariff per child per kilometre. Let us assume the transport contractor tenders for the transport of 120 children, at say three cents per kilometre over a period of 20 kilometres, return, for 200 school days. His tender price will then be R14 400. If such a tenderer could be permitted to convey these 120 children on two journeys using one bus he will be able to make a living because on his second journey his only overheads will be fuel and wear and tear. However, if he has to provide a second bus he will never make ends meet on R14 400 per annum.

No, never.

At 50 kilometres per hour the pupils will only be on the road for 12 minutes if the distance is 10 kilometres. If that particular school starts at 8 am, the first pupils can be picked up at 7 am and the second group at 8.30 am. By 7.45 am all 120 pupils can be at school. I appeal to the department to lend a more sympathetic ear to such contractors.

I quote again from Rapport of 27 March:

Sir, this body will be none other than the department itself. I want to make the appeal today that finality be reached sooner when applications are made for routes or for the extension of routes, as this man mentioned.

Our children in the rural areas are not all as well clothed as the children close to urban areas. The income of rural parents differs considerably from that of parents close to urban areas. If headmasters, particularly in the Karoo regions of our country, apply for the expansion of school facilities, the department must know that such applications have merit. After all, we are all acquainted with the climatic conditions in the Karoo. The summers are warm and dry; the winters are cold and sometimes long. The Karoo has a climate of extremes. Owing to these climatic conditions, headmasters apply for the extension of transport routes so that the pupils who live furthest away are not exposed to severe weather conditions. If the one White child who lives furthest away can be fetched, the same can be done for the poor Coloured child.

The department ought to be more sympathetic towards these pupils and they ought to take decisions more promptly. The excuses to the effect that finance is limited are not acceptable to me. If general affairs can be permitted to exceed their budgets, own affairs can too. [Interjections.] Additional appropriations are submitted for approval every year. If people say that finance is a problem, then I say that that is not acceptable. There is R370 million in the House of Assembly that is not being used. If there is R370 million that they are not using, they can transfer it to our own affairs so that we can look after the children in the Karoo.

They lack nothing.

Oh really, Sir, that hon member is principal of the Std 2 class of the evening school. [Interjections.]

I also wish to ask that the contracts of transport contractors be suspended immediately if it appears that there are irregularities in regard to the completion of claim forms. If a claim form indicates that more pupils are being conveyed than is really the case, such a contractor must not be permitted to tender again. Such a contractor is not worthy of serving the House of Representatives. Such dishonesty cannot be tolerated. This must be stopped without delay.

I wish to thank all the transport contractors who have rendered a sound and satisfactory service and I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of the entire House of Representatives. They must continue with their outstanding service. They must have our children’s convenience and safety at heart. Remember that our children are our most precious possessions.

Mr Speaker, before I express my support for this Budget, I want to make use of the opportunity of thanking the numerous voters who came from the Bokkeveld and Ceres to be present in the House here today.

Order! Hon members are not allowed to refer to members of the public on the gallery. I have no objections to what the hon member has said until now. I appreciate his good intentions, but I wish to point out to the member that he should be very restricted in referring to members of the public.

I only want to express my thanks to the voters who voted for the hon member for Bokkeveld. I am sure that my friend, the late Mr Y Rhoda, the former hon member for Bokkeveld, has peace in his last resting place today. The candidate who was chosen is a worthy successor.

†Mr Speaker, I was accused by the hon member for Border of withdrawing and keeping away from this election in Bokkeveld. I had every reason to do that. On the day I attended the funeral of my dear departed friend, I was approached by a number of people who were supposedly candidates for this election. Since that was a moment for grief and mourning, it was not opportune to discuss elections, voting and candidates. When I was approached, I decided that because of the limited resources of this fairly new party, I was not going to oppose the LP. I did not have the financial means, the manpower …

Or the sense!

… or the necessary support in the Bokkeveld area. Even before the election, I wished the LP well—and they did just that! [Interjections.] It is amazing, therefore, that the hon member for Border can get up here today and make these allegations and revelations. Whether they are true or untrue, I do not know.

However, it is amazing that this hon member remained on that side of the House for two and a half years. He was part and parcel of every decision they took, and he must have been aware of the allegations and revelations which he has made in this House today. I want to say that his actions are those of a coward.

Order! The hon member may not accuse the hon member for Border of being a coward. He must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. It is an act of cowardice on his part to have waited for two and a half years to build up the courage of his convictions and to sit there knowing all these things—whether they be true or not—and then to wait another year before making the revelations he made today. If he had the courage he could have done so many moons ago. I cannot associate myself with the remarks made by the hon member. [Interjections.]

In speaking in support of the Budget, as presented to this House by the hon the Minister of the Budget last week, and bearing in mind the still high rate of inflation prevailing in our country today, the low exchange rate of the rand, the high rate of unemployment in our country and the Government’s intention to improve the country’s economy, as initiated by the hon the State President, coupled with the very real threat of continued economic sanctions from our western allies, this budget must indeed be the result of very hard bargaining by the hon the Minister and his department.

The latest budget, as presented to this House by the hon the Minister of the Budget, indicates a tremendous increase when compared with the first budget of 1985, irrespective of the allegations made by the hon member for Border. [Interjections.] However, the question which comes to mind immediately is whether we—the so-called Coloured people of South Africa—are better off in real terms when we compare our quality of life with that of the other sectors in the tricameral system. It is vital at this point in the history of political reform and economic reform and growth that people of colour, especially, must take a more active and meaningful part in bringing political and economic reform on the proper path leading to political and economic stability in this country.

I want to quote what Mr Kurt von Schirnding, the Director General of the South Africa Foundation, said in the Business Day of 15 March:

I now want to quote from the editorial of the same Business Day. The editor writes:

What does Dennis de la Cruz say?

Mr Speaker, I am on record in this House as having said that the ordinary person of colour in South Africa is not interested in revolution or toppling the present régime in South Africa. Our people out there are caught up in a socio-economic quagmire. Our people out there want to see the fruits of socioeconomic reform in South Africa. Socio-economic upliftment is what they desire. That entails better living conditions, tarred roads, pavements, electricity, better houses, better schools and more recreational and cultural facilities. Our people out there are poor, and the countless housing estates on the Cape Flats are in many instances glorified squatter camps where many of our people are terrorised over the weekends. Our citizens are terrorised, they are molested, they are robbed and they are maimed by gangs against which even the police, at times, are powerless.

Here in the Peninsula, through the ungodly implementation of the Group Areas Act, decent, settled communities have been disorganised and moved to the sandy wastes of the Cape Flats. We have been moved from Sea Point, from central Cape Town, from District Six, Woodstock, Observatory, Newlands, Claremont, Harfield, Diep River, Kalk Bay, and Simonstown—to mention but a few. Hundreds of thousands of people were moved to the many “behuisingskemas” of the Cape Flats such as Hanover Park, Bonteheuwel, Netreg, Manenberg, and Mitchell’s Plain.

These people were moved away miles from their homes, their places of employment, their churches and all the grand cultural facilities of the mother city.

I would also like to know from the hon the Minister whether the millions set out in the budget before us are going to be enough to offset the backlog in our housing requirements to some extent. There is a waiting list of over 20 000 for the Parkwood area in the Ottery constituency and this waiting list has been in existence for over 20 years. Can an amount of R429 million reduce the backlog? It is vital that more and better housing be provided and that existing houses be upgraded immediately. One wonders how much of the amount of R429 million will be used to offset the vast housing backlog in the Peninsula.

For many years the City Council boasted about Mitchell’s Plain. We waited for it for many years, and now that we have it, Mitchell’s Plain is already bursting at its seams. The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture and his department are now busy with Blue Downs. However, while they are working on the grandiose Blue Downs project, what is happening in our local areas at Parkwood, Ottery, Touws River, Laingsburg, Beaufort West and Citrusdal? I have been to some of these places.

*Our people stay at the back of beyond, where the tarred road ends. They stay in places where there are no lights in the evenings and where there are no existing facilities. Those residential areas must be upgraded. Is there money for such a scheme?

†How much money would be used to upgrade the existing facilities? We are finding ourselves in a socio-economic quagmire. We need socio-economic upgrading and the upliftment of our people in this country. We are going to reach our people and we are going to defeat the radicals and the revolutionaries in South Africa by looking after the socio-economic needs of billions of impoverished people who voted to get us into this Chamber so that we could fight for them.

I saw the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture about two years ago, together with the chairman and senior members of the Grassy Park Management Committee, in regard to the terrible conditions of the untarred roads in vast sections of Grassy Park. After two years nothing has yet been done in Grassy Park, so Grassy Park continues to become a natural pond in winter. In the rainy season water stands naturally in that area. Every winter the untarred roads in the area become streams of mud. Despite useless efforts of the Management Committee in that area, which is now fighting the Western Cape Regional Services Council after having fought the old Cape Divisional Council for 20 years, little or no improvement has taken place in Grassy Park.

As I have said, we have a waiting list for over 20 000 houses in the Parkwood area. At least three families live in each flat. [Interjections.] The subeconomic area in Ottery, which is a part of my constituency, is known as the “skurwe flatse”. The subeconomic flats that border on the Strandfontein and Klip Road in Ottery are unkempt, dishevelled and impoverished in appearance. Die “skurwe flatse” is an apt name for these flats.

It is a disgrace that people are still living under those impoverished conditions in 1988, the fourth year of political reform, while we in this House have been fighting for equal living conditions.

The people living in the area of “die skurwe flatse” call that area “die grens”. On weekends this part of Ottery—“die skurwe flatse”—is called “die grens”, because then it is taken over by rival gangs. The streets become like the border. Now I want to know from the hon the Minister how much money will be used to upgrade “die skurwe flatse”. I repeat my question to the hon the Minister: How much money will be used to upgrade those “skurwe flatse” in my constituency? Those flats are an eyesore, a humiliation, a disgrace; and there is nothing that I can do when the countless people come to me at my advice office in Parkwood Estate and ask me: “Meneer, wat kan jy doen omtrent die skurwe ‘flatse’? Wanneer gaan hulle hierdie plekke skoonmaak, Meneer? Wanneer gaan hulle hierdie plekke opgradeer?” There is nothing that I, as the MP for the area, can say in answer to those questions. I want to say, however, that we need money also to upgrade existing areas and in that way to enhance the quality of life of people of colour in South Africa.

It is a fact, Sir, that we entered this Parliament to negotiate a better deal. It is also a fact that we are getting a bigger slice of the economic cake in 1988 because of our participation in the system. I should, however, like to put this question to the hon the Minister today: Are we not just administering our own poverty? Bearing in mind the allegation of the hon member for Border, are we really doing what we are supposed to be doing for our people? Are we really getting and using what we are supposed to be getting and using? Or are we just administering our own poverty? We need just look around our various constituencies to see …

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

No, Sir, I have no time to answer a question now.

I need to clarify something, Sir.

Order! Unfortunately, the hon member is not prepared to take a question. The hon the Minister will have to put his question to the hon member when he replies. The hon member is not prepared to assist the hon the Minister. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, my time is running out. As I was saying, we need more money for housing, because we inherited large backlogs when we took over as own affairs administrators.

I have been to many towns, Sir, and I want to reiterate that tremendous socio-economic upliftment is needed. We need proper sewerage and proper power supply systems in many of our towns, and I want to ask the hon the Minister how he is going to divide this year’s allocation so that the various centres and towns will be upgraded.

You should write a memorandum.

I now come to education and the amount of R1 000 108 000. The large amount of money set aside for the education of all the population groups, especially the money allocated to our people, must be welcomed. When, however, I consider the amount of R4 million that is to be spent on culture, I feel that, despite the big increases since 1984, the allocation is still a drop in the ocean. After all, it is R4 million that is to be spent on almost 4 million people. Our so-called Coloured people can still be regarded, as I said before, as cultural paupers. For how long must we rely on coon carnivals, Malay choirs and Christmas string bands as the major cultural activities and outlets?

Let us compare the R4 million allocated to Coloured culture in 1988 with the millions spent on White cultural activities. A tremendous disparity still exists. How many of our rural schools are still farm schools and for how long will they remain farm schools? For as long as the vast disparity on the per capita expenditure exists between Coloured and White education I shall continue to strive for equality and parity, because these inequalities and disparities are based on the colour of one’s skin. Separate educational facilities and institutions can never and will never be equal. I nevertheless want to wish the new hon Minister of Education all the best in ridding our schools of those individuals—lecturers, students, pupils and teachers—who are not there to improve their educational standards or qualifications, but to sow confusion and unrest. They have to be removed from these institutions.

An amount of R735 million is to be spent on health services and welfare. We welcome this vast increase, but when one bears in mind the socio-economic dilemma in which people of colour find themselves, and the fact that there is still a difference in the various pensions and grants paid out to Whites and Coloureds, one feels that there is indeed cause for concern. In this economic situation of today I cannot find a single reason why disparities must exist between the pensions of the various race groups on the basis of colour. I want to quote from the Sunday Times of 27 March 1988:

Why, in heaven’s name, do we, in the fourth year of political reform in SA, still have this gap between the various race groups? At present White social pensioners get the pittance of R218 per month. I want somebody to come here today with a political permutation or equation to show me how anybody, regardless of race, colour or creed, can exist in SA’s present economic situation on R218 per month, and that is what a White pensioner gets.

What does Lapa say?

I do not know what once made the former Minister of Health Services and Welfare say one could live on R20 a month. It was a ridiculous statement. Indian and Coloured pensioners are still receiving R167 per month in 1988.

African pensioners receive R117 per month. This type of figure, this type of situation—disparities, inequalities, differences based purely on skin colour—is indefensible both outside and inside South Africa. I do not know how these poor people can exist on R167 per month. Yet when our hon Minister gets up here and he comes forward with a meagre increase, he is stopped in his tracks. Is it not possible for our own Minister, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, to implement increases so that that gap—that immoral, unacceptable, racist gap, which causes disparity—can be narrowed or eliminated? This side of the House wishes to urge the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare to continue pressing for his proposed monthly increase for so-called Coloured pension payouts. Equal pensions will be a tremendous political breakthrough as far as political reform is concerned, as well as for the hon the Minister and his department. We need to achieve this equality in pensions, housing, education and the abolition of the Group Areas Act in order to gain credibility, not only outside this Chamber but also overseas. [Interjections.]

As long as we have such disparities in South Africa the credibility of this system will remain in doubt. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, once again I am happy to take part in this debate. I am not known to praise or pass accolades to Ministers. However, after looking at this budget, I felt that in this case I could definitely praise and pass accolades to the hon the Minister of the Budget. [Interjections.]

†Although I do not have much time at my disposal I would like to deal with various aspects of this budget.

Firstly, I would like to deal with education. I agree with everything the hon member for Ottery said, which is absolutely correct and true, and which is the same as many other hon members said from time to time in debates in this House. However, when I said I wanted to pass accolades to Ministers I meant I would like to say a word of thanks, particularly as far as education is concerned. It is most important and it is my belief that our children, our scholars and students, should be educated to the highest possible level, because that is, in my opinion, the only way they can achieve the best and the highest in our country. I therefore thank the hon the Minister for that.

I would also like to say thank you for the fact that our administration has provided for teachers’ salaries, bursaries, etc in our neighbouring states, the so-called TBVC states, Zululand and whatnot.

In Ciskei—I think the hon member for Border will agree with me—we pay for our own Coloured teachers. They are employed on a non-racial basis, in non-racial schools and they teach Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. Our department is responsible for that. I wish to thank the hon the Minister for giving us the opportunity of showing our people that we care for them.

*I now come to pensions. All of us admit that Coloured pensioners receive less than White pensioners.

Why?

The hon member could well ask why, but he should ask the hon the Minister. He should not ask me! [Interjections.] It was, however, better than last year.

†I want to give hon members one practical example. The pensioners are going to receive a R60 bonus at some stage.

*Do hon members know what one can buy with R60? I shall tell hon members, because I have the practical experience. It would buy at least two bags of maize. What could one do with two bags of maize? It would feed a family with six children, plus the parents. [Interjections.] It would help to feed them. That is why I think it is a good idea that bonuses and increases should be welcomed.

†An hon member spoke about the improvement of the quality of life. I feel that education and the quality of life are most important issues, because they affect all of us.

* We must upgrade the quality of life. That is what we should do. The only way in which we could do that, would be if every hon member in this House would advocate it. I wish to thank the hon the Minister of the Budget.

†I wish to thank him for visiting the disaster areas during the recent floods. I know from personal experience that he went to inspect the areas. He is very active in helping our farmers and people who have suffered as a result of the flood. He is assisting them with transport. He is helping them in their … what is the word?

I think the word that the hon member is looking for is “distress”. [Interjections.]

Thank you, sir. I want to thank the hon the Minister for helping those people in the flood-stricken areas.

*I want to refer briefly to a few other matters.

I know I do not have much time, but there is one matter which I should like the hon the Minister of the Budget to go into. He must find out what happened to the “Forty Years' Money”. I want to quote from a book that I have here. The piece that I am quoting was written by a former member of Parliament, Mr L D Gilson …

What is the name of the book?

It deals with the Griquas— the hon member’s people. [Interjections.] I quote:

†That is Gen Louis Botha, a former Prime Minister—

’According to my own knowledge of the “Forty Years’ Money”, the Coloured farmers in the Free State were taken away or bought out. Sir Peregrine Maitland and Sir Harry Smith—two Englishmen—decided that the people have to move from there and go to Griqualand East. [Interjections.] At that time the people hoped that that money would be their compensation, but when I worked there 40 years ago the people still came to ask me where their money was and what had happened to it. [Interjections.] After making a few enquiries I found out that there were so many descendants that they could not ascertain to whom the money should be paid.

†That money was taken and paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

*I now wish to ask our hon Minister what the interest on that money would be if it was paid in forty or fifty years ago. What is the amount? Could it not perhaps be used for a bursary? It is our people’s money. [Interjections.]

There were a few more matters to which I wanted to refer. From that money two farms were bought, Dawn and East Wills.

Where were those farms?

There in Griqualand East. Who, however lives on those farms today? Those farms were given to the former department handling Black affairs. There is hardly a single Coloured living there, but it was bought with Coloured money.

In the last instance our people—the Griquas— expected that they would get 300 000 morgen of land in the Free State. However, they got nothing back.

The Griquas were taken for a ride.

I read here on p 184:

I really believe that the matter must be examined and I ask our hon Minister to find out what really happened there. If the money is in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, they should have records of it. If interest has been paid on it they should know about it. I conclude with this remark.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

In terms of the Abolition of Development Bodies Act, 1986, which came into force on 1 July 1986, 13 development bodies, four of the 38 divisional councils in the Cape Province and the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas (TBDPA) have already been abolished. Even more significantly, almost 32 000 employees of these bodies have since been placed in the service of the provincial governments, State departments, the Industrial Development Corporation and regional services councils.

I therefore wish to express my thanks and appreciation to everyone who contributed to carrying out this enormous task successfully.

At this stage it has not been possible to place the personnel of the TBDPA finally as a result of investigations which first had to be completed. In this respect, however, it gives me pleasure to announce that the Cabinet Committee for Constitutional Affairs has decided:

• — that the functions and personnel of the TBDPA be kept in the “pending account” under the control of the Administrator of the Transvaal and that the enquiry into the transfer of personnel and functions of the TBDPA, as well as the enquiry into the classification of local government functions into own and general affairs, must be completed by 31 March 1988; and
• — that if the implementation of the allocation of the local government functions takes longer than was initially planned, the allocation of the functions of the TBDPA will not be kept in abeyance as a result of this, but will be dealt with separately from the local government function.

I would also like to appeal to these employees to perform their new task with enthusiasm and dedication and to ensure that the rendering of services to the community takes priority over any personal inconvenience which they may have experienced.

†Due to the nature of the services they render, most of the personnel of the TBDPA will be placed with the Administration: House of Assembly.

One of the main purposes of the principal Act is to bring about rationalisation of bodies which render services at local government level. Certain practical and legal problems and deficiencies have been identified with the abolition of the bodies concerned and the transfer of personnel, functions and assets. This necessitated the amendment of the principal Act.

In terms of section 2(2) of the principal Act the development bodies could only be abolished until 30 June 1987. Due to the extent of the task, however, it was impossible to complete it timeously. The 34 remaining divisional councils in the Cape Province, the Natal Development and Services Board and seven regional water services corporations in Natal will still be abolished in terms of the Act when regional services councils are established.

The Act is therefore being amended to provide for the above-mentioned development bodies to be abolished after 30 June 1987. The desirability of replacing the existing divisional councils in the Cape with regional services councils as soon as possible was agreed upon in the standing committee. It was also agreed that a time limit should be introduced in the Act and consequently the proviso inserted by the standing committee requires that divisional councils be abolished before 30 June 1990.

*In terms of existing legislation, local areas and management committees situated within the area of jurisdiction of the divisional council cease to exist when the specific divisional council is abolished. An amendment has been introduced which stipulates that local areas such as Melkbosstrand, for example, and management committees such as Atlantis, which were previously situated in the Cape Divisional Council, will continue to exist as if the relevant divisional council had not been abolished.

It is essential to ensure that the rendering of services to these communities continues undisturbed and that the local authorities can continue to exist.

This amending Bill was submitted to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs on two occasions. A section of the component of the House of Representatives was not present when the amending Bill was considered on Thursday, 21 January 1988. On that day the standing committee approved the amending Bill, as introduced, with one minor technical amendment to the short title relating to the date of commencement of the Bill.

At the request of the members of the House of Representatives, the Bill was not discussed in the respective Houses, but was referred back to the standing committee. The Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives pointed out on the standing committee that with the abolition of the first four divisional councils in the Cape Province, certain own affairs government functions were transferred to the Ministers of Local Government in the various Ministers’ Councils without the accompanying financial resources. This resulted in the Ministers not being able to meet their financial liabilities towards the Western Cape and Algoa Regional Services Councils, which act as agents in performing these functions on their behalf, and it has a negative effect on the ability of the regional services councils to provide services to communities and perform their primary task of providing infrastructure in less developed areas.

In the standing committee great understanding was shown for the financial difficulties raised by the Minister of Local Government. The same problems were also experienced by the other Ministers of Local Government. It was pointed out to the members of the standing committee, however, that the standing committee, which forms part of the legislature, was not the correct forum for raising financial problems which were experienced at executive level. The acceptance or rejection of the amending Bill cannot solve financial issues. These must be raised and considered in the appropriate forum for dialogue created for that purpose, such as the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government Affairs.

On Friday, 25 March 1988, the full Co-ordinating Council met under my chairmanship in Port Elizabeth and the entire issue in respect of the abolition of divisional councils and the establishment of regional services councils inter alia was discussed in depth. All the interested parties were present, including Mr B J du Plessis, Minister of Finance, and senior officials of the Department of Finance, the three own affairs Ministers of Local Government, the Administrators and MECs responsible for local government, and the chairmen of regional services councils.

The final issues were fully discussed by the Coordinating Council and agreement was reached on the correct procedures which would be followed to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.

The primary reason for the rejection in the standing committee of clauses 2 to 6 of the amending Bill by the members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates therefore fell away.

Because the acceptance of the clauses which were rejected was necessary for the further implementation of the principal Act, and since the underlying reason for their rejection had been resolved at executive level in the meantime, I intend moving after the Second Reading that the amendments appearing on the Order Paper be considered in Committee of the whole House.

The respective clauses, as they appear on the Order Paper, will now be dealt with briefly.

Clause 2 of my proposed amendment amends section 3 of the principal Act in order to enable the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to entrust the assets, liabilities, rights and obligations, or part thereof, to one or more than one public authority.

When the 13 development boards were abolished, for example, it was necessary to transfer their assets to various public authorities.

The assets, or part thereof, of a body which is to be abolished can therefore be transferred to various appropriate public authorities, depending on the nature thereof. Persons involved in housing will be transferred to the relevant department of housing, therefore.

This amendment brings about more flexibility in dealing with the assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations of a body which is to be abolished. In clause 3 of my proposed amendment the Administrator is authorised, subject to certain conditions, to transfer an employee who is in the service of a regional services council to the service of another public authority. This is necessary to provide for the personnel who are temporarily transferred from development bodies to regional services councils, but who at a later stage have to be transferred to another appropriate body which renders a service. This is also an essential amendment because regional services councils render services of a general nature.

In the process of abolishing the divisional councils in the Cape Province, staff of the divisional councils performing own affairs functions by sheer necessity had to be transferred temporarily to regional services councils to ensure the uninterrupted rendering of service to communities. These services are currently rendered by the regional services councils on an agency basis for the own affairs administrations. As soon as own structures have been established to take over these services, these functions and the personnel will be transferred to the newly established structures.

In clause 4 of my proposed amendment provision is also made for the division of powers and assets under certain circumstances upon the transfer of assets to a public authority.

In this way assets can be transferred to a regional services council, for example, while the authority to decide upon the relevant function may be vested in the own affairs Minister of Local Government. The regional services council may then render services temporarily on an agency basis on behalf of the Administration concerned.

The amendment of section 5(4) by clause 4(b) provides that the State President may by proclamation transfer the implementation of an Act and the own affairs functions of the bodies which are being abolished, to a Minister in one of the Ministers’ Councils. The own affairs functions thus identified can, for example, be transferred from the divisional councils and from the former Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas to the respective own affairs administrations.

In the case of Ennerdale, which was controlled by the TBDPA, the functions could be transferred to the Administration: House of Representatives.

Provision is also made in clause 5 of my proposed amendment that, with effect from the date of the abolition of a development body, any reference in any Act or document to the relevant development body be deemed to be a reference to the authority to which it was transferred. Any reference to a person in the service of a development body is interpreted as a reference to a person in the service of the public authority to which he has been transferred.

Clause 6 of my proposed amendment provides that a new section 7A be introduced in the new principal Act which authorises a public authority, which also includes a Minister, administrator and regional services council, to further delegate certain of its powers conferred on it in terms of this Act. A public authority will also be able to authorise another public authority to perform certain functions on an agency basis on behalf of the aforementioned public authority.

†In terms of section 7 of the Constitutional Affairs Amendment Act, Act No 104 of 1985, general elections will be held for all local government bodies on Wednesday, 26 October 1988. Clause 1 of this Bill requires divisional councils in the Cape Province to be abolished before 30 June 1990. Although no-one wishes to extend the life of a democratically elected body unnecessarily, the standing committee showed understanding for the fact that it would be inappropriate to hold elections for divisional councils in October 1988 if they were to be abolished soon. Clause 7B as set out in the proposed amendments will result in divisional councils not holding elections during October 1988. The life of the divisional councils will thus be extended to not later than 30 June 1990. In terms of the proposed clause 8, this Bill shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 1986. This is necessary to ensure that matters already dealt with in line with the proposed amendments, are legalised.

Mr Speaker, despite the fact that these amendments are of a technical nature, it must at all times be kept in mind that we are not only dealing with the allocation or placement of buildings, trucks, tables and chairs, but also with people. Some of these employees have had a long-standing association with bodies which have already been abolished and those which might still be abolished in future. Some of these bodies have had a proud record over the years and the abolition of these bodies is therefore a traumatic experience for the personnel and councillors.

*The Government understands this only too well. These amendments are considered essential for the transitional process as a whole to proceed as smoothly as possible with as little inconvenience as possible for those serving in these structures who are dependent upon the services of these bodies. I am convinced, however, that one and all will realise that it is necessary in the interests of rendering a better service and providing a more democratic base for all communities in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I rise in conditional support of the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill. I say “conditional” because the adoption of the Bill by this House is still subject to an amendment which the hon the Minister will move later in the Committee Stage. Firstly, I want to voice my objection to the way in which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is also the chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dealt with the Bill in question. Initially the Labour Party moved certain amendments which were unacceptable to the hon the Minister and led to the Bill’s being voted down at committee level. Today a substantive amendment has been moved on the Order Paper.

The reason for this laborious process is that the NP component in the standing committee refused to accept the LP’s proposed amendment. That is why they rejected it. It was not, however, rejected because we had fundamental objections or objections in principle.

I want to dwell briefly on a further point, namely the existence of an increasingly nonchalant attitude on the part of certain Cabinet Ministers regarding the way standing committees function. I have a profound understanding for that because these Cabinet Ministers never had the exposure which we as ordinary MPs have on the standing committees today. The system of standing committees is one of the best aspects of this dispensation, however, for the very reason that people sit around a table, negotiate, and listen to different points of view. In the course of debating in standing committees, new perspectives arise. This may seem like a laborious process, but in fact it results in a very good Bill.

From my representations it would appear that the time has come for more Cabinet Ministers to receive exposure at committee level, so that they can see what processes proposed legislation has to go through in the new dispensation before being approved by Parliament. The LP moved certain amendments in the standing committee which deal with certain fundamental and justifiable objections about the implementation of the Bill under discussion. Some of our proposed amendments would, in the practical implementation of the Bill, have had serious implications for the own affairs Ministers of local government. Clause 2(a) and (b) of the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill provides inter alia that the Minister of Constitutional Development may, by notice in the Gazette, transfer certain assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations of a former development body, such as a divisional council, to various State institutions or public authorities. Atlantis, for example, previously fell under the Western Cape Divisional Council. A regional services council has been established in the area. The consequence of the amendment is that the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives has taken over the dormitory town of Atlantis, and that Silwerstroomstrand and the industrial area of Atlantis have been transferred to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] This also applies to Macassar, where the industrial area has been transferred to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works in the House of Assembly, whereas the housing component has been transferred to our hon Minister.

The transfer of functions to two State bodies did therefore cause fundamental problems for us, because—this will be indicated in my proposed amendment later—we are not prepared to manage our people’s poverty in isolation. [Interjections.] The effect of our amendment is that the financial implications have to be fully investigated first in the case of the transfer of functions, which were previously exercised by a divisional council, to various public authorities in order to ensure that the eventual package that is transferred to our hon Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is not a bankrupt package.

I have indicated before that one of the biggest mistakes made with Black local authorities was the fact that they received legislative powers to establish a local authority, but were not supported financially in order to implement those legislative powers in a positive way, to the advantage of the people whom they wanted to serve. That had disastrous consequences. The present spate of unrest which this country is experiencing arose because of legitimate problems concerning excessive rent and tax which exist at local authority level in the Black communities in respect of excessive rent and tax.

We therefore do not see our way clear to increasing taxes excessively in former divisional council areas such as Atlantis and Macassar. We supported the concept of regional services councils and the abolition of development boards such as divisional councils because we were told that we would pay less for basic services such as water, electricity and sewerage.

Briefly, the new clause states that the Minister of Constitutional Development exercises the powers granted to him in subsection (2):

The effect of this amendment is that our hon Minister now has the legislative authority to refuse to accept such a transfer of functions, liabilities and obligations, unless he can come to an agreement with the Minister of Finance concerning the financial package.

In 1986 this House approved the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill, Act 75 of 1986. In section 2 of this Act we inserted a date, namely 13 June 1986, by which time all development bodies, which included all divisional councils in the Cape Province, were to have been abolished. This date was not attainable, however. The effect of such a date was that no divisional council or development body could be abolished after 30 June 1987.

The LP insisted, however, that the standing committee should insert another date, namely 30 June 1990, into the Bill. The purpose of a date is to ensure that one can progressively reach a point where these development bodies, such as divisional councils, can indeed be abolished.

At present these bodies find themselves in a position similar to that of someone who knows he is about to die and is in the process of winding up his estate. These development bodies know that they are going to be abolished and consequently they have no incentive to do any effective work. They are still levying taxes among our people, however. Consequently it is of fundamental importance to us that they be abolished as soon as possible—especially in the Cape Province. That is how I should like to put it to the hon the Deputy Minister.

The Bill also excludes divisional councils from the local authorities elections on 26 October 1988. We support this step, because it is pointless to call an election for a body when it is to be abolished shortly in any case. We support this step, provided that the divisional councils are abolished, between today—or whenever the Bill is promulgated—and 30 June 1990.

I want to put one thing straight. The hon the Minister said that one would not like to grant democratically elected bodies a postponement in an election. The divisional councils are not really democratically elected bodies, however, because they consist only of Whites. I shall support a referral of this Bill to the committee.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Lockey dealt very thoroughly with the details of the legislation.

†However, I would like to deal with the attitudes of certain hon members of Parliament. People will have to accept that we are all equals in this Parliament, that we are an equal component of Parliament, and that we are not going to be fooled or bullied into submission by anybody.

I want to say, without any fear of contradiction, that in principle neither I nor my component have any objection to this legislation. It is necessary to abolish the existing divisional councils and those peri-urban councils that are still in existence in the Transvaal. We therefore have absolutely no objection to the principle of the Bill.

However, the moment one goes through the exercise of accepting the principle of a piece of legislation, one exposes oneself to all kinds of exploitation. It will be a sad day if this country is governed by the President’s Council with all legislation being referred to them. The President’s Council should not become the law-making body of South Africa. We therefore insisted that the compromises that were proposed, be dealt with first.

Adamancy did not win the day, because on the one hand the hon the Minister did not concede to our request that these amendments be included, and on the other his insistence on passing the legislation did not meet with our approval. Therefore, at the end of the day we sat with no legislation. We sat with the status quo, which meant that divisional councils would remain in existence indefinitely, because there was no legislation which provided for the abolition of divisional councils.

Initially an unrealistic date was set for the abolition of divisional councils. That deadline could never be met. But in this new spirit that prevailed in Parliament and because of the enthusiasm of the hon the Minister, we anticipated that it might be a possibility. When it was realized that that deadline could not be met, a need arose for this legislation. That was just as well, because if the deadline were met the poor hon Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in this House—the same would have applied to the hon the Minister with the same portfolio in the House of Delegates—would have inherited insolvent bodies, because all negotiating or bargaining processes would have been removed. Fortunately, because we insisted on certain amendments here, the bargaining power of all three hon Ministers responsible for local government and housing has become stronger. They can now go as absolute equals to the hon the Minister of Finance to bargain for a fair deal at local government level, across the board.

It is unfortunate that one has to mention these things, but owing to a crisis which existed in this Chamber and in Parliament—I do not want to repeat the details—we did not attend the meeting at which this Bill was passed initially. The first time it went to the committee it was passed, but we were not going to consider it here and we were certainly not going to approve it here. However, the hon member of the Official Opposition, who was present there and who was bulldozed into submission, brought this to my notice. Sad to say, however, when the issue was again raised at standing committee level, he was either not there or not making a contribution.

I was afraid that he was not even going to be here during the debate. I want to welcome him, because I appreciate his presence here. It is absolutely necessary that when we make a compromise, we make it as a complete unit, a component . When we support this Bill—if the amendment is included—we will do so in unity.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member Mr Lockey and the hon member for Toekomsrus for the conditional support that they have given this Bill in this Second Reading debate, and for their contributions.

The hon member Mr Lockey referred here to the standing committee. I want to agree with the hon member that standing committees play, and must play, a very important role in our Parliamentary system. He expressed the thought that Ministers, too, should be more exposed to the activities of standing committees.

I want to tell hon members that I am sorry that I do not have the experience of standing committees that hon members of Parliament have today, because I believe that that is the place where one can meet around a table. There a Bill can be very fully discussed and hon members can come up with amendments and new proposals. I believe that the standing committee is the place where good legislation can be produced. There ought not to be any overhastiness.

Every clause may be examined in depth and it can be thoroughly studied. What we in South Africa need is good legislation for orderly progress and prosperity in our country. I want to say this afternoon that I trust that standing committees will in future, as in the past, continue to do their work in this way and to produce that product, namely good legislation for South Africa.

The hon member Mr Lockey referred to the transfer of assets, inter alia to Atlantis. He rightly referred to Atlantis as a dormitory town—that is in fact true—and said that it had been entrusted to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. I just wish to say that we have received a letter from the hon the Minister in which he has stated this problem. We are now asking that the demarcation board examine this matter in depth. I believe that we should add not only the industrial area to the residential area but, as the hon member Mr Lockey said, the beach resort as well. However, we must also look into the matter of more land for future expansion. Therefore the borders of Atlantis will have to be extended.

We are going to make it an open beach.

Yes, I think that in this regard we can expect that action will be taken and that the whole issue of Atlantis will be rectified. I understand that the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is in an extremely difficult position in that he has to administer Atlantis merely as a dormitory town without having the financial resources to do so. In my opinion that is an impossible task.

This afternoon the hon member Mr Lockey mentioned a very important facet here, namely that there must be financial support if any town or local authority wishes to succeed. Without the necessary finance, it is impossible. This was a tremendous difficulty on Friday when we were attending the meeting in Port Elizabeth of the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, at which the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture was himself present and stated this case. The Ministerial representative, Mr Erasmus, was also there, as were other members of the ad hoc committee, such as Mr Nash and others who also stated the case very strongly. As I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, the hon the Minister of Finance was also present. It was an in-depth and very interesting discussion. As the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture said to me this afternoon, it was like a Parliament in session and I think that many hon members of the co-ordinating council learnt a great deal from that discussion, as I did myself. It was there that the hon the Minister of Finance gave the assurance that he can now be approached so that the various bodies responsible for these things can budget timeously so that provision can be made for these things. After all, one cannot simply transfer responsibilities without having money. One cannot simply accept responsibilities without having money. In that way there will be no progress. It is like a farmer who can dream the most beautiful dreams about development, but who lacks the money to build a dam, construct fences or whatever. In our homes, too, it is true that we cannot buy certain articles if we do not have the money. The same goes for local authorities, and in such a case a Minister’s hands are completely tied. I think that the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture will agree with me that we really learnt something when we held discussions with the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs. I urge hon members to drop in should this council hold a meeting nearby. Their discussions are really very interesting and of a high quality.

The hon member for Toekomsrus as well as the hon member Mr Lockey referred to divisional councils. I have received several calls on this matter today. Divisional councils themselves are in a hurry to be phased out. There are members who no longer want to serve on the councils. Some of them say they have reached the end of their period of service, others say that years are passing, while others have health problems.

I told the people who contacted me that I believe that the Association of Divisional Councils must negotiate with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. However, I believe that by 1990—that is the date that is now envisaged—divisional councils will be phased out. Councils want this to happen as soon as possible. The hon member for Toekomsrus is quite correct. The date we envisaged was probably unrealistic. Hon members know that these bodies have existed for more than a hundred years. They have come a very long way. I know, for example, that the hon member for Dysselsdorp maintains very good relations with the Little Karoo/Langkloof Divisional Council at Oudtshoorn. In addition, these councils have meant a lot to society, and have done a great deal for society. In this regard I have in mind in particular the work done by the Little Karoo/ Langkloof Divisional Council, and what they are still doing at Dysselsdorp. However, I believe that the councils have reached the end of their term and we must finalise their abolition as soon as possible.

I agree one hundred per cent with the hon member for Toekomsrus in his reference to equal treatment. The three Houses of which Parliament is comprised are equal. They are full-fledged components of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. When people ask me how the tricameral Parliament is working, I reply that I believe it is functioning well. In the nature of the matter there are growing pains. It is a new institution and there is nowhere we can go to ask for advice. However I believe that despite difficulties, possible disappointments and matters that are sometimes not handled correctly, we are making a great success of the tricameral system.

At this stage I want to tell the hon member Mr Lockey and this House that although it is not on the Order Paper, I am going to propose that section 3 of the principal Act be amended by substituting subsection 3. That is the amendment of the hon member Mr Lockey, but for technical reasons laid down in the Rules, he may not move it and accordingly I shall do so. The amendment will read as follows:

It is a matter of the consent of the Minister entrusted with own affairs. It is a very good principle that when there is a transfer to a Minister entrusted with local authorities, he is able to negotiate with the Minister of Finance. They can discuss such a matter. I want to repeat that it is pointless to receive something and not have the finance to make a success of it. I shall move the amendment of the hon member Mr Lockey at the appropriate time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

New clauses to follow clause 1:

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

Amendment of section 3 of Act 75 of 1986

2. Section 3 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for subsections (2) and (3) of the following subsections, respectively:

Amendment of section 4 of Act 75 of 1986

3. Section 4 of the principal Act is hereby amended—

Amendment of section 5 of Act 75 of 1986

4. Section 5 of the principal Act is hereby amended—

1. “(1) The administration or exercise of any power or right conferred or duty imposed which is assigned by any law to—
   1. (a) a development body referred to in section 3 (1) (a), shall on the date mentioned in that section pass to the Administrator concerned, and shall thereafter, in so far as the administration of the law has not under section 98 (3) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act No. 110 of 1983), in relation to a population group been assigned to a Minister—
      1. (i) pass to the public authority referred to in section 3 (2) (a), on the date mentioned in that section; or
      2. (ii) if the assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations are transferred to more than one public authority under section 3 (2) (a) and in so far as the power or right conferred or duty imposed relates to any asset, liability, right, duty and obligation which thus passes to a public authority, pass to such authority: Provided that where in the last-mentioned case such power or right conferred or duty imposed does not directly relate to such an asset, liability, right, duty and obligation, the Minister may determine to which public authority concerned in the said transfer, the administration or exercise of such power or right conferred or duty imposed, shall pass;
   2. (b) a development body referred to in section 3 (2) (b), shall on the date referred to in that section, subject to the provisions of regulations made under section 5 (4) (b), and in so far as the administration of the law is not assigned to any Minister by such regulation—
      1. (i) pass to the public authority referred to in section 3 (2) (b); or
      2. (ii) if the assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations are transferred to more than one public authority under section 3 (2) (b), and in so far as the power or right conferred or duty imposed relates to any asset, liability, right, duty and obligation which thus passes to a public authority, pass to such authority: Provided that where in the last-mentioned case such power or right conferred or duty imposed does not directly relate to such an asset, liability, right, duty and obligation, the Minister may determine to which public authority concerned in such a transfer, the administration or exercise of such power or right conferred or duty imposed, shall pass.
2. (1A) A regional services council shall not in consequence of a transfer referred to in subsection (1) acquire the power to levy any tax on immovable property.”; and
   1. (b) by the addition to subsection (4) of the following paragraphs, the existing subsection becoming paragraph (a):
      1. “(b) The State President may under paragraph (a), if he deems it expedient, make regulations assigning to a Minister of a Ministers’ Council the administration of any law which conferred functions upon an abolished development body, in so far as it relates to any matter referred to in section 14 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983.
      2. (c) The State President may make any such regulation only on the ground of a decision taken by him in terms of the directions of section 16 (1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, as if that section applies, and the provisions of section 18 (2) of the said Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to such decision of the State President.
      3. (d) When any regulation contemplated in paragraph (b) is made, it shall for the purposes of section 84 (1) of the Provincial Government Act, 1961 (Act No. 32 of 1961), be deemed that Part IV of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, has under section 98 (3) of the said Constitution Act been declared to apply to the provisions in question.”.

Amendment of section 6 of Act 75 of 1986

5. Section 6 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection, the existing section becoming subsection (1):

1. (a) any development body abolished in terms of section 2 (2) shall be construed as a reference to the public authority concerned as contemplated in section 5 (1) (b); and
2. (b) any person in the service of such development body shall be construed as a reference to a person in the service of the public authority to which the Minister has transferred him in terms of section 4.”.

Insertion of sections 7A and 7B in Act 75 of 1986

6. The following sections are hereby inserted in the principal Act after section 7:

7A. (1) A public authority may in writing authorize—

1. (a) any person in his service; or
2. (b) a committee of persons designated by that public authority,

Elections for development bodies

7B.

1. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7 of the Constitutional Affairs Amendment Act, 1985 (Act No. 104 of 1985), no election as contemplated therein shall be held for a development body referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘development body’.
2. (2) Unless a development body referred to in subsection (1) dissolves for a reason other than the expiration of the period for which it was elected, the development body shall continue up to the day immediately preceding the date determined in terms of section 2 (2) in respect of the development body concerned, and, unless his membership is terminated for a reason other than the expiration of the period for which he was elected as such a member, it shall be deemed that every member of the development body was properly elected as such for the period ending on such day.”.

Construction of certain proclamation

7. Regulation 2. A of Proclamation No. R.110 of 1987 shall with effect from 29 June 1987 for all purposes be deemed to have brought about, and to bring about, the legal consequences which it purports to have brought about and to bring about.

Agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 7:

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

8. This Act shall be called the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Act, 1988, and shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 1986.

Agreed to.

Title:

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

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Constitutional development in South Africa is an evolutionary process and the South African Government is committed to a gradual extension of political participation in order to give all population groups a say at all levels of Government in decision-making affecting their interests. The Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill of 1988 constitutes another step in the process of balanced social, economic and constitutional development. Since the passing of the Regional Services Councils Act of 1985, sixteen regional services councils have already been established to supply services to all communities on a regional basis as multiracial local government bodies. After the establishment of the first regional services council on 1 July 1987 it became clear that there was a need for certain improvements and refinements. That, then, is the purpose of this amending Bill. The proposed amendments are aimed at facilitating the administration of specific matters and eliminating certain limitations experienced in the establishment of regional services councils. The amending Bill also contains amendments with a view to further promoting community participation, effective and efficient community government and the supply of services, as well as the development of additional financial resources to promote local decision-making and regional development. Provision is therefore being made for inter alia the participation of local area committees, local councils and rural councils, the establishment of executive committees for regional services councils, arrangements for the delegation of powers to committees, certain arrangements for the promotion of the financing of regional services councils and confidentiality of the affairs of those liable for the payment of levies.

In view of the Government’s accepted policy of the broadening of democracy, it is proposed that the definition of management bodies in the Act be amended so that local area committees in Transvaal may also enjoy representation on regional services councils. The definition of a local authority is also being extended to include local councils that are to be established in terms of the Local Councils Act (House of Assembly), 1987.

Rural councils

During 1985-86, in the course of the investigations carried out by the Co-ordinating Council into the future of specific development bodies, it was found that a shortcoming existed at local government level in regard to the representation of rural communities.

Accordingly an investigating committee under the chairmanship of Mr P J Loubser, on which all interested parties were represented, unanimously recommended the establishment of rural councils.

In order to afford rural communities democratically elected representation on regional services councils, the amending Bill now makes provision in clause 15 for the establishment of rural councils. These councils are primarily intended as elected mouthpieces for rural inhabitants and will not require any bureaucratic infrastructures since services to rural communities will be provided by the relevant regional services councils. It is emphasised that rural councils will accommodate organised agriculture as well as all other rural inhabitants. Rural councils will also mean that the structures of organised agriculture need not be used as a basis for representation in constitutional bodies.

The Ministers responsible for local government matters for the various population groups will be responsible for the establishment of rural councils. If rural communities in any region were, however, to prefer a rural council that included all the population groups, the relevant Ministers could by agreement, jointly establish such a rural council. As soon as the amending Bill has been passed, the intention is to transfer the power in regard to rural councils for Black communities to the various administrators. The object of a rural council as defined in clause 15 is to promote the welfare and the interests of the rural inhabitants of a particular region.

Self-governing areas

Participation and co-operation across boundaries in the context of regional services councils is also being facilitated. The amending Bill provides that by way of agreement a local body, institution, or person within the area of jurisdiction of a self-governing territory may be deemed to be part of the area of a regional services council. A regional services council may provide services to such a local body, institution or person, and it may gain representation on a regional services council.

Participation

By means of these steps effect is given to one of the underlying guidelines of the Government’s reform steps, namely that every person, individually or in the group context, must have a say in those matters affecting his interests.

Currently representation on regional services councils is determined by the extent of the services that a local body purchases from a regional services council. The principal Act provides that every local body represented on a regional services council may nominate one member from its own ranks for every 10% or section of the total number of votes to which it is entitled.

If a local body does not make use of any tariff services, it makes no contribution and consequently can obtain no representation. Members of “representative bodies” do not, however, utilise only regional services for which consumption tariffs have to be paid; they also utilise services for which consumption tariffs cannot be calculated, such as health services, roads and civil protection.

In the amending Bill provision is now being made for every local body to be able to nominate at least one member of the regional services council even though it makes no contribution for “services purchased.” When the administrator is of the opinion that the determining of voting strength cannot be calculated on the basis of the “purchasing of services” by a specific local body, he may, with the consent of the relevant Ministers, lay down a different basis in order to achieve a fair result. This ensures that no body is excluded from the important voting process and appeal mechanism.

Members who obtain representation on a regional services council by way of an agreement are only, however, entitled to cast the number of votes agreed to, and then only in respect of a matter to which the agreement refers. Any lack of clarity as to who is to determine the equitable apportionment of the voting strength of the members of a specific local body, is eliminated in clause 8 (b). That is the function of the chairman.

Executive committees

An executive committee is essential in order to expedite matters. A regional services council may have an executive committee but if the administrator requests it, one must be appointed. When there is an executive committee, it consists of the chairman of the regional services council, who is also chairman of the executive committee, the deputy chairman and not more than six other members of the regional services council, provided that not more than two members may be from the same local body.

This will ensure that more local bodies are represented on the executive committee and this will of course further limit domination by large local authorities. The powers of the executive committee are also spelt out. Basically, these powers correspond with those contained in provincial ordinances with regard to local authorities.

Delegations to committees

The principal Act provides that powers could be delegated to members of committees. The intention was to delegate powers to a committee. This is now being rectified. The amending Bill makes it clear that committees may now also obtain delegated powers in terms of section 11 (a).

Provision is also made for powers to be granted to both the executive committee and the chairman of the regional services councils. The principal Act provides that specific powers may not be delegated.

The amending Bill now provides that the appointment of committees may also not be delegated to a committee or an officer of a regional services council.

Decision-making

The amending Bill amends section 11 that determines the procedure in respect of decision-making when the required majority of votes is not obtained. In this way a shortcoming in the Act is being rectified. When, in the case of an election of a deputy chairman and members of committees, the required majority is not obtained at a subsequent meeting, they are elected by a simple majority of votes of members, ie the voting strength present at that election.

Provision is also made for a deputy chairman of a regional services council to be elected on a basis of rotation. As regards other matters concerning which the required majority is not obtained and a decision cannot therefore be taken, the matter is referred by the chairman to the appeal board, as envisaged in section 11 (3) (a), for a ruling.

Such an appeal board consists inter alia of the Administrator and the various Ministers of Local Government in the three Ministers’ Councils.

†Promotion of financing

The Bill also contains measures to promote the financing of regional services councils.

In terms of Section 12(l)(b) of the Act, the Minister of Finance may, after consultation with the Administrator and the regional services council and with the concurrence of the Ministers responsible for local government affairs, by notice in the Gazette determine the manner in which the regional services levy and the regional establishment levy are calculated and paid.

Section 12(l)(a) authorises the Minister of Finance to carry out certain acts after such notice. This Minister’s authority in terms of the latter provision is now being extended. It is intended that the Commissioner for Inland Revenue assist the regional services councils in collecting the levies. The Minister of Finance is thus empowered to authorise the Commissioner to inspect the records of any person liable for a levy, to audit such person’s business and to instruct a regional services council to asses a levy payer in cases where levies were underpaid.

In order to ensure a uniform interpretation of legislation by regional services councils, the Commissioner may also be authorised to provide councils with binding decisions or directives. Furthermore, the Commissioner may also be authorised to take such steps as he may deem necessary to ensure that all levies payable are, in fact, paid.

In order to eliminate uneconomical recoveries, a regional services council may be authorised to allow persons liable for levies to pay levies of smaller amounts only once a year.

Provision is also being made for a person liable for a levy, who is dissatisfied with the decision of a regional services council or the Commissioner, to appeal to the Special Court for the hearing of income tax appeals instituted in terms of the Income Tax Act.

Section 12(10) of the Act provides that interest becomes payable in the event of the payment of any levy being overdue. In future the rate of interest will be the same as that payable on income tax which is overdue. At present, however, the Commissioner has the power to remit the interest. This subsection is amended to authorise the relevant regional services council to remit interest in deserving cases.

Secrecy

Section 14(1) of the Act provides that every person involved in the application of the Act shall observe secrecy in respect of the affairs of persons Hable for levies. In terms of section 14(3) a person who does not observe such secrecy is guilty of an offence and when convicted will be liable for a fine not exceeding R5 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months, or both.

Section 14 (2) also provides that no person may take action in terms of the Act unless he has taken an oath of secrecy. The real sanction against the disclosure of information is contained in the penalty provision of subsection (3). The taking of an oath causes additional administrative work and does nor really make any contribution. The obligation to take an oath also creates problems as many people object on religious grounds to taking an oath. This requirement is therefore scrapped.

Taxes of divisional councils

In clause 19 it is specifically stated that the obligation to pay divisional council taxes lapses from the date on which regional services levies become payable. The whole issue regarding the financing of regional services councils is dealt with in the discussion on the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill as a result of the abolition of divisional councils in the Cape Province.

*Devolution

The important objectives of the extension of decision-making autonomy at lower government levels and the taking into account of regional differences are further promoted in that the principal Act is being amended in such a way that it is no longer required in the Act that at least ten days’ written notice of a meeting of a regional services council be given to members.

Every regional services council can now itself specify in its standing rules its method of giving notice of meetings to members in accordance with the special needs of each.

Conclusion

Mr Chairman, the regional services councils already in existence have already achieved a great deal in improving the provision of service to backward areas and in achieving a better understanding and attitudes amongst community leaders at the local level. The system entails considerable benefits for all the communities, but the establishment of the system is not a simple process.

Specifically with a view to resolving further administrative problems that still arise, the new section 15 (a) is being incorporated in the principal Act. To ensure that the provision is utilised with circumspection, the standing committee has inserted two provisions: The power can only be exercised with the concurrence of all the Ministers of Local Government; and regulations made in terms of the provision are not only to be tabled in Parliament, but can be disapproved of by Parliament.

Finally, Sir, it is evident from the above that the proposed amendments are aimed in particular at extending political participation, promoting good local government and improving the financing of regional services councils.

Mr Chairman, now I can also understand why our officials are unable to finish their work; they write terribly long speeches!

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister complained about the long speech he had to read out today, and I would like to mention that the hon the Deputy Minister has covered just about every conceivable aspect of the detail of the Bill. I will not bore the House by repeating all the details which he has recounted.

I would just like to mention a few things. Firstly, this Bill, the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill, and the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill are twin pieces of legislation—the one goes with the other. One cannot institute regional services councils without first abolishing the bodies existing at the moment. So, in that sense the hon the Deputy Minister is right when he talks about gradual change.

I would also like to mention—the hon the Deputy Minister did mention this—that after the introduction of regional services councils in 1985, certain restrictions appeared, and it is to be expected that with the introduction of a totally new concept in third-tier government and the enactment of such a concept in law there would be flaws. For that reason it is not surprising that there have been amendments to this Act already and that we have these current amendments as well. We can expect, of course, that the Act will be amended again at a later stage—possibly next year.

I would like to repeat my congratulations of last week to the hon the Deputy Minister. Having said that, I would like to remind him that the clock is still ticking.

He still has three days in which to get into the history books by doing something about that Act for which he has become so notorious in this House.

Having said that, there is something else I should like to mention. It was the hon the Minister himself who saw to the abolition of bodies like the divisional councils, the peri-urban boards, the Development and Services Board in Natal and the Water Board in Natal, and it was he who conceived the regional services councils in the first place, and so I find it terribly disappointing that he could not make it here today. Having come all this way with his conception the hon Minister disappoints us by not being present in this House today for the enactment of this conception and the changes to it. I take exception to the fact that the hon the Deputy Minister has been given the task of seeing these two Bills through this House, because it is known that he always has some difficulty when it comes to the Group Areas Act. We expected it of the hon the Minister to see this legislation through this House himself.

Sir, there is just one comment I should like to make in connection with the detail. It is that I particularly welcome the creation of rural councils, especially in the light of what has been happening in Bokkeveld over the years. I am taking Bokkeveld as an example because it is relevant to today. We heard today that there are something like 320 farms in Bokkeveld, yet there are just two management committees in that large region. Up to now the farm labourers have not been represented as far as third-tier government is concerned. The creation of rural councils under the auspices of the various hon Ministers, with the concurrence of our present hon Ministers, is definitely something to be welcomed. One can expect, therefore, that there will be tremendous progress in rural areas, particularly areas like Bokkeveld, which is an extensive area. That is one aspect of this Bill I felt I had to refer to, even at the risk of repeating myself.

Finally, Sir, the hon the Deputy Minister spoke about gradual change, about incremental change. I should just like to refer to something in this regard. When the concept of regional services councils was arrived at and a Bill was launched through the Houses of Parliament in this regard in 1985, it reflected the taking of an immediate decision after some research had been done. In other words, that represented a quick change; and the result of that can be referred to as gradual change. What I am getting at is that it is only once a decision has been made—a decision that has been based on the needs of the total population of South Africa—that one can look at gradual change as in the case of the Regional Services Councils Act. The decision was made in 1985 and an Act was promulgated. Now, as the Act is applied, certain flaws are being corrected.

That does not mean, however, that one should take an existing Act and tinker with it until one eventually phases it out. That is why it is so necessary for us always to plead with this hon Deputy Minister to look at that Group Areas Act. It requires that a decision be made; and then, after the decision has been made, one can gradually take away all the parts. Within a short time after the decision has been made, we can be completely rid of the thing. Essentially, therefore, it is a matter of making a decision and afterwards looking at gradualism. It should not be a case of perpetuating gradualism. Other than those few comments, Sir, I should just like to indicate that I have tried to speak in favour of this Bill and that we give it our full support.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning gave a very full explanation of a highly technical piece of legislation. Although the officials drafted a very lengthy Bill, they at least did so comprehensively by elucidating every detail.

I should like to focus on two aspects of this legislation with which I am experiencing certain problems. I, too, should like to lament the fact that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is very seldom present in this House when Bills which fall within his portfolio are debated. The subcommittee on Constitutional Development went to speak to the hon the State President at one time. I learned through reports in the Press that when the Official Opposition went to tea with the hon the State President and his four provincial leaders, reference was made to the fact that Cabinet Ministers are wary of coming to this House because of the kind of treatment they receive here. That is regrettable, because the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is also the chairman of the standing committee that dealt with this Bill and he—I am not reflecting upon the hon the Deputy Minister now—could have debated the facts of this Bill with us in more detail. However, I shall let the matter rest there.

Clause 2 of the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill [B 1B-88] provides that if a local body refuses or fails to comply with a directive, the Administrator may perform the act himself or may cause it to be performed, and recover the costs from that local body. We experienced problems with the local body, because in terms of the definition of a local body, management committees and local committees, which have no executive functions but merely advisory functions, are also included. At the insistence of the LP, “local body” was scrapped and replaced by “local authority”, which excludes management committees and local affairs committees. I should like to thank the department for their assistance in this regard.

I now want to focus on the provision with which I am actually experiencing problems, viz the amendment to section 4 of Act 109 of 1985, the Regional Services Councils Act, as amended by section 4 of Act 78 of 1986, the Regional Services Councils Amendment Act, with particular reference to section 4(c)(2A).

Section 4(4) of the Regional Services Councils Act, No 109 of 1985, provides that:

Section 4(a) of the Regional Services Councils Amendment Act, No 78 of 1986, provides as follows:

1. (ii) that local body, person or institution undertakes to exercise or perform any regional function or part thereof on behalf of the council and may claim a levy contemplated in section 12(l)(a) on behalf of the council.

The new insertion in section 4(c) of Act 1 of 1988, the present Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill, reads as follows:

1. (2A) Any arrangement referred to in the first proviso to subsection (2), may provide that none of the assets, powers, duties, rights and obligations in question shall be so transferred or so devolved or that they shall only in part be transferred or devolved.

My problem relates to the words “in part be transferred or devolved”. This is a fundamental shift in emphasis from the initial motivation and intention in respect of the Regional Services Councils Act, No 109 of 1985. The original intention was to remove all 22 of the functions that are referred to in Schedule 2 of the Regional Services Councils Act from the existing White city councils and to transfer these to the multiracial regional services councils. The result of this proposed amendment is that only some of these functions are now being transferred. This has a fundamental effect on the future administration of regional services councils.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s motivation in implementing regional services councils was to bring about a redistribution of wealth at local authority level. An example that was cited in the standing committee some time ago was that the Durban City Council built up tremendous reserves in their electricity fund over the period of a few years by selling electricity at a high profit to residents in the surrounding Indian, Coloured and Black residential areas and never ploughed these reserves which they built up in the funds back into the infrastructural development of the undeveloped areas.

The idea behind regional services councils was to spend all the reserves which the local authorities had built up in their execution of the 22 functions set out in Schedule 2 of the Constitution. Those reserves would then be spent in areas where the need was greatest. The effect of the amendment of clause 4(c)(2A) of the Bill under discussion, however, is that virtually none of the reserves or functions will be referred to the regional services councils for infrastructural upliftment. The words “none of’ were scrapped at our insistence, which meant that the Act no longer provides that none of the assets or functions can be transferred; but when one considers the words “part thereof’ from a legal-technical point of view, one sees that R100 can also constitute part of R20 million. What is taking place here is basically a cosmetic change, because although the Act provides that some of the assets and also some of the functions may be transferred, R100 can also constitute part of such a reserve fund—as was the case with the Durban City Council—whereas the fund may contain a lot more than R20 million. Compromises are also being made through the large-scale and efficient rendering of services by the regional services councils in order to keep costs as low as possible.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister, however, what has happened to the rationalisation which he spoke about in a previous Bill. The Government is now creating two bureaucracies which are going to have to carry out the same functions alongside each other at local authority level. The Algoa Regional Services Council which was established in the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage area is a good example. This regional services council, as well as all the local authorities within the area of jurisdiction of the regional services council, have to maintain fire brigade services in that area. Instead of services becoming cheaper, they have become more expensive, because everything is being duplicated. The local authority is still carrying out its own functions, but the regional services council has been added and consequently those functions are being duplicated. Everyone has a small part. We initially supported the Regional Services Councils Bill because we thought that the 22 functions set out in Schedule 2 of the principal Act would all be taken away from the exclusively White municipalities and vested in a multiracial regional services body which would administer these functions on a larger scale. Because they would have been administered on a larger scale, the services would have been cost-effective and people would have paid less.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member is too stupid to understand what I am talking about. [Interjections.] The effect of the amendment thus has a fundamental impact on regional services councils.

Order! Will the hon member please withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir, otherwise I would have to do so tomorrow. This ostensibly technical amendment has thus brought about a fundamental shift in emphasis. I cannot stress this enough, because I think it simply amounts to fraud. It seems as if we are moving back to the initial intention of the legislation pertaining to regional services councils, because White municipalities are exerting great pressure on the Government. Elections are going to be held and the CP is organising itself at local authority level. Now we are going back on the initial honest and sincere intentions. For this reason I feel that I am not in a position to reject the Bill in its entirety because of this problem. I should nevertheless like to ask the hon the Minister to see to it that effect is given to the initial intention in respect of regional services councils, viz to transfer the 22 functions completely to multiracial regional services councils. When we agreed to the Bill initially, I said that we did so without fear, because one cannot deceive people when it comes to a constitutional system.

The test for a constitutional system lies in its working and its practicability. That is why we are having problems with areas like Atlantis and Macassar, as well as with Port Elizabeth. I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning to give us the assurance that the Government still intends to refer all these functions to regional services councils. If he cannot give me that assurance, I shall raise the matter again during the discussion of the Budget Vote of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Mr Chairman, once again I want to thank the hon member for Wentworth and the hon member Mr Lockey for their substantial contributions to this afternoon’s debate and in the standing committee. In listening to their contributions, one could see that they had the background. This proves once again how advantageous it is to serve on the standing committee.

I want to apologise for the absence of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Hon members know that Parliament’s programme is quite rushed, but this afternoon he had other appointments which had been made quite a while ago with people from Natal, which he could not cancel at short notice. Consequently I am here on his behalf. It is a pleasure to pilot these two Bills through this House, though I should like to submit my apologies for his not being able to be present.

The hon member Mr Lockey said that the legislation was very technical. That is correct. He also referred to clause 2, in which the definition “local body” has been replaced by “local authority”. I think it is important that he mentioned that the words “or any part thereof’ are relevant here. The hon member asked that the assurance be given that the original intention in establishing regional services councils would be met. The use of the words “or any part thereof’ is merely a practical arrangement; in other words, the transfer in its entirety cannot take place immediately. When I went through the Bill during this past weekend, it still did not sound right to me. I requested the officials to explain to me exactly what was meant. I received the assurance that this was merely a practical arrangement, and that in cases where one cannot transfer services in their entirety to regional services councils, for example, a part thereof could be transferred, the rest to follow subsequently.

I therefore want to give the hon member the assurance that that remains the original intention of the regional services councils. If things do not move in that direction, I myself shall be very sorry. I think the regional services councils will be able to take over and control these services and I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member as far as the fire-fighting services are concerned.

I think duplication merely causes tremendous expenditure and eventually the consumer has to pay up. When the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning opened the fire station in Uitenhage recently, he referred to the fact that the time had come for fire-fighting services to be transferred to regional services councils. I want to agree with the hon the Minister. Perhaps this cannot take place as a whole either, but it can take place partially or systematically. I want to agree with the hon member Mr Lockey that if we really want to anger our people we must let different bureaucracies—he said two bureaucracies—operate side by side. I do not think South Africa can afford that. We do not have the capital to maintain such a system. In addition I am of the opinion that it is totally unnecessary. I believe there must be one effective fire-fighting service for a town or a region.

I want to give the hon member Mr Lockey and all the other hon members the assurance that the intention is for all 22 functions to be transferred eventually, even though this will take place systematically or partially. I think that once regional services councils have been established, all functions in all regions will be transferred to regional services councils.

I myself cherish high expectations of regional services councils. I believe that they will continue to render a better service to South Africa.

The hon member for Wentworth referred to rural councils. I am grateful that we have arrived at a point of agreement, so that these rural councils can be established. I want people on the farms to become voters. I want them to have the right to serve on regional services councils. I am not talking about the rural areas which are administered by another Act and which have their own management councils. That is being eliminated by the establishment of regional services councils throughout the country and once the rural councils become operative as well, everyone in South Africa will eventually have the right to vote for a regional services council. They can also get representation on regional services councils through their councils.

This afternoon I want to express the hope and faith that hon members will support the establishment of regional services councils wholeheartedly. I hope this will be a great asset to South Africa, which will contribute to making all communities in our country happier.

Mr Chairman, I took my leave of hon members on a previous occasion and I am not going to do so again.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the Friendly Societies Amendment Bill was agreed to unanimously by the Standing Committee on Finance. The Bill before the House contains amendments to the Friendly Societies Act of 1956 and the Insurance Act of 1943. As hon members will notice in due course, amendments are being introduced to sections which should have been amended 30 years ago.

At the moment there are many friendly societies with more than a million members and a turnover of approximately R147 million. The members of friendly societies, which are also known as mutual societies, are poor people. They are needy people, and it is therefore necessary that the money which is received from them should be properly looked after and judiciously invested.

There have been cases of friendly societies which were founded—and before members knew where they were the society was bankrupt and its founder had vanished. Unfortunately it is true that Black people in particular are being defrauded in this fashion. It is therefore necessary to exercise control, and this is exactly what the Bill makes provision for.

Clauses 1 and 2 seek to exempt friendly societies with an income of less than R100 000 per year from most of the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act. This is a very welcome step, because friendly societies play an important role in entrepreneurship. This is the start of capitalism, albeit in the form of small funeral policies. These clauses also obviate overregulation and bring about the creation of more such bodies. From now on we shall witness selfregulation as a result of the personal interest of the people. Consequently bookkeeping, annual reports and annual meetings will also be kept up to date.

Most significantly, however, the Registrar of Financial Institutions will henceforth have less work, but the control over these friendly societies will remain excellent.

Clause 3 makes provision for a friendly society to be converted into a company in order to be registered in terms of the Insurance Act of 1963. However the standing committee was given the assurance that the Registrar would retain the discretion if he did not want to register a prospective friendly society.

Furthermore clause 4 makes provision for the release of relevant documents by a friendly society to any of its members. Although our own select committee supported this clause, we nevertheless feared that societies would charge a high fee for something like a photocopy in order to withhold information from their members in this way. Clause 5, however, grants the Minister of Finance the power to make regulations for the purpose of the imposition of penalties for the contravention of regulations.

Meanwhile clause 6 makes provision for the increase of fines which may be imposed in terms of the Insurance Act. These are the changes which should have been effected 27 years ago, because the fines are still given in sterling and we changed over to the rand as early as 1960.

Clause 7 seeks the increase of benefits which friendly societies may afford to its members. With inflation in mind it is proposed that the benefits be increased virtually fivefold to a maximum annual amount of R720 or, in the case of the death of a member, to a lump sum of R5 000. The poor people especially will benefit tremendously from this adjustment.

South Africa is known worldwide for its excellent financial legislation and consequently we gladly support the Bill before the House.

Mr Chairman, the other House spoke about the “friendly Bill”. Since the hon member Mr Douw dealt with the Bill so comprehensively and it was accepted unanimously by the standing committee I feel that if I were to start speaking about it all over again, I would merely be holding matters up.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I want to express my thanks to the hon members who participated in the debate on my budget. Whilst the contributions have been outside the province of the own affairs budget, I shall endeavour to elucidate to some extent the points raised by the various hon members. An issue often raised was section 84(a) of the Constitution Act.

I would like to apprise the hon members of this House as follows: The formula in terms of section 84(a) of the Constitution, as based on norms and standards which will form the basis for annual statutory transfer payments from the Exchequer Account to the Revenue Account of the three own affairs administrations, has been a hot potato for over three years. It is fair comment that the absence even today of agreed formulas is an embarrassment. The truth is that the complexity and contentious nature of these formulas were grossly underestimated by the Department of Finance and the drafters of the tricameral Constitution. It is certainly the intention of the hon the Minister of Finance to implement the formulas as soon as possible. However, it is fruitless for hon members to lambaste the hon the Minister of the Budget for the tardy implementation.

In the relation to the R K Khan Hospital, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has already given an explanation of the intended provision of the hospital at Phoenix. I can confirm that negotiations are under way between the province and ourselves and in relation to the site itself, agreement has been reached that the province will transfer the land to the House of Delegates. At an earlier opportunity my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, intimated to the hon members in this House that we will build a hospital to meet the needs of the community in the area. If, in terms of needs and norms this means building a hospital of 350, 500 or even 750 beds, these norms would dictate the hospital to be in that area. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare will look at the hospital in that context.

I would like to say a few words concerning the point raised by the hon member for Stanger in respect of recruitment of personnel in the House of Delegates. Recruitment is handled as part and parcel of personnel administration, and this is provided as a service by my department for the total administration. The provision for recruitment is based on (a) the necessity for an official at a particular level of work execution, (b) the personnel administrative standard for that work, (c) the availability of candidates within service, and (d) the availability of funds to extend services. The position of automatic promotion has come to the fore in this House before, and again in this debate. The hon member for Laudium queried promotion, or rather he said: “Promotions are not automatic”. I would like to clarify the situation. Higher grade posts are advertised and candidates are selected on suitability and post presentations. Unfortunately, members of the Indian population group very seldom apply for posts outside the scope of their own department. However, I would like to reiterate what I said before, and what my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council have also said, namely that any posts advertised in the public service are not exclusive to any population group.

Merit is the criterion and therefore I think we should abandon the thought that public administrative posts are not available to people of colour. My colleague, the hon the Minister in the State President’s Office entrusted with Administration and Broadcasting Services, has repeatedly stated both inside and outside Parliament that as far as the Commission for Administration is concerned all applications are considered on the basis of quality and qualifications.

Mr Chairman, would the hon the Minister tell us whether the advertisements— if that is the correct name for them—are circulated in the media throughout the country or whether they are placed only in certain media? In other words, does the entire spectrum of the population get to see these advertisements for vacancies in the Public Service?

Fairly wide coverage is given to the vacant posts advertised and they are advertised both internally and externally, that is to say both within and outside the administration.

Mr Chairman, I should also like to apprise this House …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware that according to a document of the Commission for Administration which I have in front of me, 24 Coloured and Indian officials have, since the inception of the own affairs system, successfully applied for transfers to general affairs administrations?

I must confess that I am not aware of the number of people who have applied for transfers.

Mr Chairman, I want to apprise hon members of certain facts in relation to the Budget itself and the manner in which the ultimate printed figure comes before this House. The Budget is estimated in terms of expenditure on a certain basis. It is done on the basis of what was expended during previous years and what is expected to be expended during the forthcoming year.

A very important committee, namely the State President’s Committee on National Priorities, has a very large say in the preparation of the Budget and ultimately is the final authority in relation to the Budget. Priority growth is one of the factors that dictate a budget. Treasury guidelines also have to be considered when Budget estimates are made. Moreover, the House of Delegates’ additional requirements are considered. After that there is a Treasury summary on the matter, whereafter the figures are submitted to the Cabinet and the Cabinet grants approval to the Budget. Thereafter the members of the Ministers’ Council who, through their officials, have already had the opportunity to express needs and desires in respect of their particular Votes have to decide upon the estimates. Those estimates then come to this House for approval. After they have been approved by this House, the Budget is executed and implemented.

Therefore, when I presented the Budget, I made special reference to, and highlighted, the additional amount over and above the previous year’s amount. I said that for the 1988-89 financial year we have been given an amount of R841 509 000. If hon members again look at the Estimates mentioned in my speech, they will see that I in effect said that we can spend—if this were possible, particularly in relation to housing—R1,15 billion, which is certainly an improvement on the previous year’s Budget.

Last year the question was put to me as the Minister of the Budget, when I presented an amount of plus-minus R750 million, whether in the execution of the Budget there would be the need for an additional appropriation. The mere fact that I asked for R34,6 million more this year is a clear indication that whilst we have presented to hon members this estimated figure of plusminus R841 million, there will perhaps be—I cannot commit myself to this issue at the moment—a need for an additional appropriation early next year when Parliament assembles, for any expenditure over and above R841 million.

I will now refer to the various contributions by hon members. I would like to start with the hon member for Stanger. It is the stated policy of the Ministers’ Council, as well as the stated policy of every hon member of this House and of extra-parliamentary institutions, that our aim is integrated local authorities. We aim to have municipalities and local authorities, wherever they may be, functioning on an integrated basis. Colour should not play any role in relation to local authorities.

In relation to the devolution of power to local authorities, hon members of this House serve on the parliamentary committees which deal with this. If devolution of power means the establishment of ethnic local authorities, then we in the Ministers’ Council and as members of this side of the House are totally opposed to it.

The hon member for Stanger referred to the Group Areas Act and said that he believed that group areas would become an own affairs matter. Just as much as this news was a surprise to the hon member for Stanger, so it was to us. We have not heard from our Cabinet colleagues that group areas will become an own affairs matter, for implementation or execution of the Group Areas Act. However, I do want to say that the Ministers’ Council assures this House that if moves are made for group areas to be own affairs, we shall be opposed to it, and certainly there will be need for joint discussions between the parties here in relation to any suggestions that are made to this House.

I now want to refer to the hon member for Laudium. In the preamble to his speech he said, and I quote:

I have no problem with the hon member for Laudium when he says this because naturally the hon the Minister of Finance has to include the expenditure for the various Houses in his Estimates. What he does not do, however, is to spell out how the globular sum is to be spent. When I present my Budget in this House I give details of the different Votes. This House cannot simply rely on the fact that the hon the Minister of Finance has made a certain amount available, without having the facts and figures available as to how the money will be spent. That is why I believe it is the duty of the Minister of the Budget in this House to spell out how the money will be spent.

I think the hon the member for Laudium should have known from his own experience that high priorities are placed on the Votes. He also referred to the R60 bonus or, as he called it, the one-time bonus to pensioners. As has been the case in the past two years, this bonus of R60 is payable to all pensioners across the board, irrespective of race. I concede—and so does the Ministers’ Council—that there is a disparity in the means test and the payment of pensions to the White community in comparison to the people of colour. As I said in one of the debates here, the Ministers’ Council is giving attention to this aspect. My colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare has already pointed out that he is in the process of doing all that is possible to bring about parity. What we must realise, however, is that when we ask for parity the factor known as the “one factor” is put into operation. The “one factor” means that those at the bottom of the ladder are brought up while those at the top, if not actually brought down, are levelled out at the level of the “one factor”.

I think I was misunderstood when I spoke of the reduction in relation to pensioners. I did not refer to people reaching the pensionable age of 60 years or more. What I spoke of was the improvement of the quality of life of people so that when they reach the age of 60 they should not be dependent on a State pension but should be able to live on their own accumulated funds without State assistance. That is what I meant. It was never the intention of the Ministers’ Council…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister if he is now implying that a frugal person who wants to save must be penalised in his later years?

The hon member for Allandale needs to realise that frugality is not at issue here. A common criterion to be used in relation to all the people is that if a person can stand on his own feet in his old age he should not be entitled to a State pension.

The Kathradas and the Oppenheimers are not entitled to a State old age pension. What I have been trying to say is that it is people who are deserving of a pension who should be entitled to it.

South Africa is not a welfare state in any Case.

My hon colleague has just reminded me—and I think I have said this before and I want to reiterate it— that South Africa is not a welfare state, unlike some other countries of the world. However, here I say in unison with everyone else that those who need to be assisted in their old age need to be assisted at all times.

The hon member for Laudium also did not read my speech quite correctly. When I spoke of students at the colleges of education who will be qualified at the end of the year and who need to be considered for positions in the Ministry of Education, I was not referring to the intake of students at these colleges.

The hon member for Springfield also spoke on the formula and the quantum that he wanted to see spelt out in this House, particularly in my Budget, and I think my earlier statement clarifies the position. In the light of what I have said about the formula it is unfair to say that the basis of appropriation of funds from the hon the Minister of Finance should be based on the 4:2:1 formula. This is not so. I said earlier that the formula has not been worked out as yet and the constitutional experts are still grappling with this situation.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether this total amount allocated by the hon the Minister of Finance in the House of Delegates is allocated arbitrarily or whether it is the amount requested by the Ministers’ Council?

Mr Chairman, for the information of the hon member for Camperdown I have said earlier that the Estimate is based on our requirements. Therefore if one takes a growth factor like any business one plans in anticipation of what one would expect the expenditure to rise to. These factors are considered by the Director-General, my director and others—the other directors and personnel—in our department.

With regard to what was claimed by the hon member for Springfield to be useless expenditure, I want to assure this House that notes have been made in this House and that the Director-General, the chief director, the man from the Treasury, etc, were present and the Director-General and the officials will surely be looking into what was described by the hon member as useless expenditure.

My colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture will perhaps in his Vote deal further with the matters raised by the hon member for Springfield in relation to what he called professional teachers. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has dealt with some of the questions raised in this House.

I want to go on to the hon member for Brickfield and I want to say that the points he made with regard to the Debs’ Ball and Friday school closure will be dealt with, and attention will be given to it, by my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. He will also speak on the Group Areas Act.

I do want to say—and I want to repeat—that these are matters for the main Cabinet to deal with and I think these issues would be pertinent to the Votes when the general affairs Ministers are present in this House.

I need to express a special word of appreciation to the hon member for Cavendish who, I think, grasped the message in my Budget Speech. I fully agree with him that it is important that attitudes should rather develop into happy, healthier relationships than degenerate. The pertinence of that particular point made by the hon member for Cavendish has been well taken by my hon colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. I also want to say to the hon member for Cavendish that we are certainly a land hungry community, and the Ministers’ Council is doing everything possible to identify more land for the needs of our community.

The hon member for Isipingo, when he speaks, speaks straight from the heart. I need to assure the hon member for Isipingo that the market site is a matter the Ministers’ Council has dealt with very seriously. This morning there were discussions between the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the Durban City Council and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. We should very soon have some results of those discussions.

It is indeed sad that Isipingo lost out on Prospecton. Prospecton certainly generates a great deal of money from rates, and Isipingo could have done very well with some of the rate returns in the area.

You should then reverse that decision.

It is not for this House to reverse any decisions.

It may be possible. Send that pundit to Maritzburg.

I want to refer to the hon member for Havenside. He said the Budget should not be seen to show any racial prejudice. I want to agree with him that the own affairs Budget does not show any racial prejudice, but I do go along with him in that it is a historical fact that there has been disparity in pensions with regard to people of colour. I think this is a matter that is receiving our attention and I see my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance is here. We are certainly working in the direction where we would like to see parity with regard to pensions. We need to exercise patience and tolerate the economic situation obtaining at present but, all being well, we should achieve parity.

The hon member for Havenside also discussed the R K Khan Hospital. He and hon members here are aware that extensions are being built there, namely an additional clinic and housing.

I want to thank the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture for his contribution and I want to assure him that in relation to his particular portfolio he has my understanding for his responsibilities, and he will have my support.

The hon member for Red Hill discussed the economic situation, and whether the economy would be able to withstand the increases that are being demanded. I think my answers to other hon members should have put this matter into the correct perspective.

The hon member for Lenasia Central spoke about the Lenasia South Hospital, which is lying idle, and which is a general affair. Until such time as the Lenasia South Hospital comes under the purview of the own administration—that is the Administration: House of Delegates—it will remain within the fold of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. I agree with the hon member for Lenasia Central that in order to run that hospital we would need about R3,3 million—that would be just to maintain the hospital each year. Only when this matter is settled will the House of Delegates be able to attend to the take-over of the Lenasia Hospital.

As regards the incorporation of Lenasia into the Johannesburg municipality, my colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture has this matter in hand.

I wish to extend my thanks to the hon member for Montford for his contribution. He is certainly justified in calling for an increase in sporting amenities in areas under the jurisdiction of the House of Delegates. We shall be giving attention to this and, in fact, attention is being given to it at the moment.

He referred to the ministerial representatives, and in this regard the services of the ministerial representatives are being fully utilised by the hon Ministers.

[Inaudible.]

As regards the speech by the hon member Mr Seedat, I think that in the general reply that I have given I have covered the points he raised in relation to pensions, as well as the other matters that he raised.

The hon member Mr Razak spoke mainly about Lenasia Hospital and the need for an increase in pensions, and I have replied in respect of those points.

I wish to say to my hon colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture that when I said in the course of my speech that the relocation of the homes in that area prone to flooding may be the only solution, I quite rightly used the word “may”. I should say, however, that I agree with my hon colleague that there is a technical committee that was established to look into the whole issue, and we await the report with interest.

I also agree with my hon colleague that the forthcoming local government elections are going to be important, and an appeal must be made to all concerned to participate in the elections.

Again, I concur with him that there is a need for land for houses, and the Ministers’ Council will do everything possible to identify more land for our people through our colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

I think I have covered most of the points raised by the hon member for Allandale, and there is no need for me to repeat what I have said in relation to pensions etc.

I wish to thank my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare for his contribution.

The hon member for Actonville referred to Warmbaths, national resorts etc. In this regard I want to say that this is not within the purview of own affairs. This is a general affairs matter, and when the Minister in charge of national resorts is present, the matter can be brought to his attention.

As far as the hon member for Southern Natal is concerned, I think I have explained the formula in relation to section 84(a), and subsections (b) and (c) follow on that. Therefore I do not know what the hon member is referring to when he speaks of a “foreign matter” in relation to the formula. Nevertheless, at one time I did say here that possibly race was the consideration in relation to a population. I said earlier, however, that this matter of the formula in terms of section 84 was still on the drawing boards.

I think the hon member for Southern Natal again referred to the scarcity of land for Indian housing, which I have already covered.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills, who unfortunately is not present, made certain points which were well taken by myself and other members of the Ministers’ Council. I do understand that whilst he did not hold a brief for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in relation to the recent trip overseas by the latter to speak out against disinvestment in South Africa, I want to say that the hon member for Rylands did something which he very seldom does. He indulged in rhetoric. I can understand the frustrations of the hon member at having lost the chairmanship of the House, but that should not necessarily cloud the issues that we are discussing in this House. If anybody, irrespective of whether he is a member of the Opposition or not, stands up for his country, one needs to applaud that person who speaks for his country and for his people. Certain hon members of the Opposition in the House of Assembly have gone overseas on these trips simply to put across to people who advocate sanctions and disinvestment that that will not solve the problems in South Africa. Therefore, when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went over with this delegation, he was performing a duty to his country and to his people.

I would also like to mention that the hon member for Rylands referred to my speech made in May last year. The circumstances were such that, similar to what he did the other day in this House, I had to perform that duty and responsibility at the time.

Fluctuating circumstances.

There were fluctuating circumstances obtaining at the time. However, if the intention of the hon member for Rylands was to put in wedges and isolate me from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, then that was a dismal failure.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister trying to suggest that under fluctuating circumstances the charge which he levelled against the hon member Mr Abram was true or untrue?

Mr Chairman, I said: “The circumstances obtaining at the time.” I will stand by what I said at that time against the present Chairman when he was still a member of the Opposition.

Mr Chairman, my simple and reasonable question to the hon the Minister is: Regarding this statement which he made at the time, is that fluctuating now or not? Does it still stand as a correct statement?

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Rylands is once again indulging in rhetoric.

I have said that I stand by what I said then. That should amply cover the question raised by the hon member for Rylands.

What Gilbert and Sullivan said is true, namely that a policeman’s lot is an unhappy one, or perhaps a happy one. I would like the hon member for Rylands also to read For King and Country, which details what a citizen of a country is expected to do for the king or, in this case, what it is expected of South Africans to do for the hon the State President and for the country.

In speaking about the lot of the policeman, I do not want to be misunderstood. The hon the Minister of Finance is the one who is in charge of the finances of the country and he appropriates these funds to each House. We play the role of a policeman. We are the Ministers of the Budget in each of the three Houses and therefore our lot is not a happy one. We have to remain within the parameters of the hon the Minister of Finance's appropriation.

We grant you that.

Thank you.

That rule we grant you, but not the fluctuating circumstances. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I also want to thank the hon member for Central Rand for his contribution, as well as the hon members for Merebank, North Coast, Phoenix and the hon member Mr Thaver. I think the hon member Mr Thaver raised a very important point when he said that this was a budget within a budget, that is to say within the framework of the hon the Minister of Finance’s requirements. I think that gives a true picture of my budget.

I want to tell the hon member for North Western Cape once again that although we did not hear him out fully during the last debate he will certainly have an opportunity to make the points he wishes to raise when my hon colleagues present their Votes.

In conclusion I want to thank all members once again for their participation in the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, before I proceed I want to record the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, which has not yet been distributed to this House. I want to read this report for the purposes of the record. It reads as follows:

1. 1. In terms of Rule 43 the Standing Committee on Finance deliberated on the Appropriation Bill on seven days and heard evidence on the general policy motivating the proposals of the Minister of Finance in respect of proposed expenditure, revenue to be levied and loans to be raised.
2. 2. Officials of the following institutions gave oral evidence before the Committee: Department of Finance; South African Reserve Bank; Internal Revenue; Customs and Excise; South African Prisons Service; Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing; Department of Defence; South African Police; Department of Foreign Affairs; Department of Education and Training; Department of Trade and Industry; Commission for Administration; Department of National Health and Population Development. Regrettably the constraints of time did not permit the hearing of evidence from other departments.
3. 3. Some Ministers and Deputy Ministers attended the discussions together with officials from their Departments and furnished important information to the Committee, which is much appreciated.
4. 4. Explanatory memorandums were submitted by certain Departments, which were of great assistance to the Committee.
5. 5. The Committee received written submissions from a number of institutions and heard oral evidence from the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa, Life Offices’ Association of Southern Africa, Association of General Banks, Association of Merchant Banks, South African Association of Clearing Banks, South African Federated Chamber of Industries, Chamber of Mines of South Africa, South African Co-ordinated Consumer Council, Association of Building Societies of South Africa, and others.
6. 6. The Committee makes no recommendations on matters of a political nature or in respect of which consensus was not found, but the following matters do deserve mention:
   1. 6.1 The Committee notes the intention of the framers of the Budget to curb inflation and to control Government overspending, while it is hoped that the call on the private sector to cooperate in this regard will bear fruit.
   2. 6.2 The Committee emphasises the importance of a positive and active export promotion programme. Further steps to advance this are regarded as desirable, and the Committee recommends that the present investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry be expedited.
   3. 6.3 The Committee takes note with concern of the high level of tax evasion which still exists and urgently recommends that the Office of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue should be alert to new tax schemes when they become apparent, so that not only in-depth measures can be taken speedily to deal with malpractice, but that, where necessary, urgent legislative measures can be taken to deal with unacceptable and socially undesirable—even though technically legal—schemes.
   4. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the fact that 26,4% of prisoners cannot be utilized productively while serving their sentences. This is ascribed to insufficient staff and the Committee recommends that the matter receives attention.
   5. 6.5 The Committee notes with concern that the personnel complement of the S A Police Force is insufficient and recommends that the following receive attention:
      1. 6.5.1 the remuneration package measured against the total number of working hours (overtime included) is exceptionally low;
      2. 6.5.2 the current examination costs as determined by the Technicon RSA is high and serves as a disincentive to qualify;
      3. 6.5.3 the compulsory retirement age of sixty years;
      4. 6.5.4 the need for the establishment of training facilities;
      5. 6.5.5 inadequate funds;
      6. 6.5.6 unnecessary waste of manhours at the attendance of court proceedings.
   6. 6.6 The Committee notes with appreciation that the price of bread will not increase until at least the end of October 1988 despite the reduction of the subsidy on bread.
   7. 6.7 The Committee notes with great appreciation the important role played by the S A Police, the S A Defence Force and other State departments during the recent flood disasters.
   8. 6.8 The Committee supports the steps to tighten up measures to protect the consumer and recommends that these steps urgently enjoy a high priority.
   9. 6.9 The Committee expresses its concern about the still worrying shortage of teachers in certain categories of education and recommends as a matter of urgency that the provision of funds for teacher training should enjoy high priority.
   10. 6.10 The Committee is of the opinion that benefi ciation processes for new materials to obtain the benefit of a larger added value for local industries, should receive specific and urgent attention. In this regard reference is especially made to the jewellery industry and it is recommended that the results of the enquiry into the industry be made public and that urgent steps be taken to bring relief.
   11. 6.11 The Committee emphasises the importance of effectively marketing to the public at large the economic implications of the budget on an ongoing basis. It must also be ensured that the objectives which require the motivation of the community on an ongoing basis, for example the fight against inflation, be kept before the public on a continuous basis in the most effective manner possible.
   12. 6.12 The Committee takes note that, as a result of the allocation of money for agriculture as part of the globular allocations to the various own affairs administrations, inadequate amounts are allocated for certain Departments, including Agriculture.
   13. 6.13 The Committee is of the opinion that further consideration should be given to minimum tax on companies to ensure that if proceeded with, its application will be equitable and will not act as a disincentive to investment both locally and from abroad.
   14. 6.14 The Committee regards it of importance that an acceptable long-term basis of taxation of insurance companies should after negotiation with all interested parties be implemented as soon as possible. Evidence has been given by a number of organizations that the increase of the percentage in the formula to 70% is undesirable and have asked that it be reconsidered.

This is the Life Insurance Association. It reads further:

1. 6.15 The Committee supports the concept that general sales tax should be replaced by value added tax.
2. 6.16 The Committee is concerned that the growth of the domestic product in the immediate future may be inadequate to create the work opportunities required for an increasing population.

This is the report.

I want to return to the Budget. Whilst most newspapers have welcomed the 1988 Budget I believe it is an unnecessarily cautious one that brings about very little change. The so-called tax cuts do not go far enough, while the expenditure side which reflects an increase of 12,6% could have been further reduced. I wish to point out that statistics and percentages are often misleading. By for instance increasing expenditure by 12,6% over the previous year the hon the Minister is satisfied that the increase is still below the expected rate of inflation. However, this is based on the assumption that the expenditure for 1987-88 was properly controlled and spent in the most efficient and cost effective way.

What one needs in this Budget is a way of determining whether the funds allocated to the various departments were spent in the best possible way. The hon the Minister must be reminded that I brought to the attention of the House last year a means used to ensure that allocated funds were properly spent. I am referring to what is known in financial circles as comprehensive auditing or value for money auditing. In spite of the fact that this method of auditing has been available in the country for some time now I am disappointed that it is not being used by the Government, while several major private sector companies have benefited substantially from such services. I believe that one Government department should be subjected to comprehensive auditing by an independent professional consultant every year. This will ensure that every department will benefit by such a review over a period of a few years.

A further suggestion is that the Auditor-General should engage qualified personnel who could train his existing staff in matters used for comprehensive auditing. While the Auditor-General is doing excellent work I am of the opinion that he is burdened by inadequate and unqualified personnel. The Government should be prepared to employ the necessary qualified staff in this department. It is imperative to spend money in order to ultimately save money.

While the increase in Government expenditure has been limited to 12,6% overall, the allocations to individual departments could have been better. The amount allocated to Defence has been increased by 22,6% this year over last year while Education and Training have been allocated an increase of only 10,3%. The country is paying a high price to protect and maintain the status quo. Taxpayers are paying an unmanageable amount to uphold the apartheid system. Imagine what a wealthy country this could have been if all political problems were resolved and a free and open society was created.

The Budget has not resolved the problems of disparity in the allocation of funds to different groups. A typical example is a complete disregard this year to increase pensions albeit the narrowing of the gap of the different population groups.

Then again there is the unequal distribution of funds for Black education. If one compares the ratio of money spent per capita on White education to that of Black education one sees that the country is in dire need of education and only a meagre Rl,66 billion is allocated to education and training. I call this a misallocation of State funds.

Mr Chairman, I should like to hon member for Laudium to give us figures on how much was spent on Black education five years ago and I want him to compare that with today’s education.

Mr Chairman, I do not think that I need to say that I am comparing these figures with last year’s figures. I appreciate that there is a lot of money to be spent on Black education but I am talking about narrowing the gap, which is the ultimate aim of everybody. I feel that will answer him.

It was staggering to note that the wage and salary bill of the government increased by a massive 31,1% in 1987-88 compared to 1986-87. This was caused by an increase of 9,1% in the staff complement and 22% for the average income. This increase arose in a relatively low growth period yet most private sector annual reports reflect a reduction in their staff complement and an increase in productivity to contain the wage and salary bill to below the inflation rate. The average increase of 22% per head is also much higher than that of the private sector.

The Government should commence with a programme whereby productivity could be improved by increased efficiency and not by the concept that has been created from outside that the bulk of Government employees do not work as hard as their counterparts in the private sector. There is the notion that Government employees do not work under heavy pressure and are usually employees who work from 8 am to 4 pm.

I want to come to the tax proposals in the Budget. Whilst we support the adjustments to the excise duty of beer, spirits and cigarettes, I am unable to understand why there was no increase in the duty on wines. The only explanation that I can find is that the wine producers’ lobby is too powerful for the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] I derive this conclusion from the fact that wine is locally consumed by the rich people who well can afford the additional tax.

Another welcome exemption is the proposed exemption from tax of interest paid to nonresidents. This I believe will encourage foreign lenders to invest more in South Africa. Also, the moratorium on the payment of stamp duties and transfer duties on group rationalisation schemes is another step in the right direction. This will allow senior personnel of company groups to devote less time on administrative details and spend more time on the business of the company. Again we come to the introduction of the standard income tax or the SITE system. I feel this will be an increased burden on employees. These employees already have to cope with GST returns, PAYE returns, RSC levies, unemployment levies and the normal tax returns. It would certainly have been better if the PAYE system tables could have been amended to cope with the final deduction system instead of introducing a new one.

The SITE deductions in respect of married women, if we analyse it properly, in many cases will not afford relief. The new system I am referring to applies to those women whose husbands carry on a trade and who are incurring losses in their business.

Provided that she earns R20 000 with the SITE system, the couple will pay R4 505 tax, whereas the joint income would result in a tax liability for the couple of R4 470. This is a small difference but it is nevertheless an anomaly. It is inflation and bracket creep. The so-called reduction in the tax rate and the fact that the maximum marginal tax will be applicable only at R80 000 does not really benefit every taxpayer.

We then come to the new deduction on tax for medical fees, which also leaves much to be desired. I feel the Margo Commission’s recommendations regarding medical expenses have been taken out of context. The commission recommended that deductions not be allowed unless expenses exceeded 5% of taxable income against a background of reduced overall tax rates and a reduction in the number of tax brackets. Without making any meaningful reductions the hon the Minister decided to accept the commission’s recommendation. I refer to the hon the Minister’s speech and it is still not very clear on the form of the deduction. I hope the hon the Minister will elaborate on this. I would like to know whether expenses, if exceeding 5% of all taxable income, will be deducted in full; in other words, will the full 5% be allowable or only any excess thereof?

Another factor that will hit the poor people is the elimination of the rebate on dependants, which will affect the so-called non-White people of the country more than anybody else. We know of the extended family system which is still very prevalent in the Indian community, and in our community especially. The lower income group will be affected by this elimination of the dependants’ rebate.

Another point of controversy is the minimum tax on companies, or the MTC. This new tax has brought about a great deal of speculation in the newspapers. The Margo Commission recommended that as an overall package deal on new tax proposals which included the abolition of allowances from the tax system. It is anomalous that incentive allowances are to be included in the MTC when it is introduced. In other words, if an incentive allowance is given to a particular company, it will be taxable. If the incentive allowance is abolished, there will be no need for any MTCs. The major concern regarding the introduction of the MTC is that it has been made retrospective, and any tax that is made retrospective has its problems. The MTC is payable on 30 September 1988 in respect of dividends declared on or before 29 February 1988. Had the private sector been aware of this tax, dividends may not have been declared at the time they were in fact declared. This tax will cause drastic cash flow problems with regard to company projections. Companies may have committed themselves to cash dividends and will now have to borrow in order to pay this tax. If a company declared a dividend prior to the liquidation, it will now be required to pay the MTC. A typical example is a dormant company with a share capital of R100, distributable reserve of R200 000 and a loan account asset of R200 100. Say the company were to declare a dividend of R200 000 prior to liquidation in terms of the new proposal. The result would be that this company would pay almost R50 000 to the commissioner. Where the money is to come from is another question, because this particular company did not budget for this amount.

Another example is a company that exports all its products and is therefore obtaining export incentive allowances.

Although the company will make book profits, the generous incentive allowances will ensure that the company never pays tax. If this company pays MTC, the amount cannot be classified as an arrangement that the company will never pay tax. Companies should therefore be exempted from MTC if they can prove that there will be no future tax liability.

With further reference to the tax proposals, the capital transfer tax is indeed a good tax reform and will result in a simplification of the tax system.

The tax on life assurance has also come in for considerable criticism. As regards the overall effect that this will have on the industry, I will not spell out the fears that the Margo Commission has recommended a certain type of tax for life assurance, but I feel that there should be further discussions with the department as far as this tax is concerned. We know that the tax has been raised from 40% to 70%. The original tax on this was 40%, as agreed to between the industry itself and the then hon Minister of Finance, Minister Dönges.

[Inaudible.]

In conclusion I want to stress that productivity in the private sector should be improved, the tax system streamlined and taxes reduced in real terms. The tax reform in the United Kingdom has resulted in the country’s economy improving substantially. There has also been a reduction in taxes. Therefore we must become more productive, and a reduction in taxes will definitely have a positive effect on our economy. If the hon the Minister is bold enough and not as cautious as he has been in the present Budget, we will find that considerable results will be achieved.

As I said at the outset, the newspapers have welcomed this particular Budget. I am not going to perform an analysis of what has been said about the Budget, but it is a cautious one, and I think that the hon the Minister of Finance is to be complimented on the very able manner in which he presented this year’s Budget.

Mr Chairman, in considering the present Budget, it is necessary to bear in mind that it was prepared under certain constraints, particularly if we consider that we are going to restructure our taxation system in this country; the whole system will be subjected to restructuring. If in that process some ad hoc action has been taken, then we must understand that the hon the Minister needed the funds to run the country, and that is why those ad hoc actions might have been taken.

That brings us to the aspect of the grouses from the mining houses and the insurance companies, as well as various people who have been affected by these actions. The 1988-89 Budget of approximately R53 billion is 12,6% higher than the previous Budget. To me this appears to be a reasonable increase, bearing in mind that there are some matters on which we cannot cut back.

The Budget attempts to address certain important issues. Some of them are the following: The curtailment and reduction of inflation which, in recent years, has risen continuously and could well have continued unabated. The question of inflation was addressed in a different way over at least the past decade. Each time inflation increased, people used to rush to increase prices. Even insurance company went around building inflation into their policies, their premiums and so on. However, it must be appreciated that this is the first time that the Budget is addressing inflation in the way that we are now facing it and fighting it. We go along with that in our efforts to solve this country’s problems.

The increase in inflation between the last quarter of 1984 and the beginning of 1986 to over 20% is due to the falling exchange rate of the rand to a low of 35 cents in the case of the commercial rand, and as low as 20 cents in the case of the financial rand. Coupled with high interest rates which climbed as high as 28%, this left in its wake the disasters of forex losses, and all this contributed to the high rate of inflation that was experienced.

Since then the exchange rate for both the commercial rand and the financial rand has risen and the ravages of further losses have dropped, due mainly to forward covering and a more cautious approach by the department. The above reasons are supportive of the cause for inflation to drop from its high of over 20% in 1984-85 to the low of 14,2% in January 1988.

It is no secret that when the interest rates shot through the roof a lot of people had to give up the roof over the heads of their families. This resulted in the sharp drop in property prices, especially in the upper bracket of the property market; homes above R150 000. Business houses also suffered hardships, leaving behind casualties aggravated by the downturn in the economy. The loss of entrepreneurs’ confidence in the economy was not entirely due to political instability, but also to the extent of the high cost of borrowing for finance stocks and capital projects—hence the high rate of unemployment manifesting itself. Market watchers were not slow to recognise the opportunity when it became apparent that the interest rates were coming down and that the stability in our currency, together with the upturn in the economic activities, was beginning to manifest itself. Confidence which had been absent for a long time returned to the market and hence the 1% rise in the bank rates by lately. This reflects the demand for credit and this Budget reflects the need to keep interest rates at reasonable levels and at the same time to reduce inflation.

The restructuring of the tax laws and the long-awaited Margo Report are encouraging in many respects. The Government’s White Paper makes very interesting reading. Some of the recommendations have been acted upon in this Budget while others, I believe, will be included in forthcoming Budgets. When the tax system of a country goes through a major change like the one we have embarked upon, it has to address various subjects involved in the measures. The relief to married working couples must be welcomed and the adjustment in the maximum marginal rate from R60 000 to R80 000 is a positive step, bearing in mind the bracket creep that occurs.

Sadly, the plight of the pensioner has hot had the necessary attention accorded to it and I must request the hon the Minister to rethink this aspect. If all things go well then he should, in consultation with the Ministry for Health and the Directorate of Housing, come to the assistance of the frail and the needy among us. The R60 one-off payment is not good enough.

A strong export base is a prerequisite for the economy and for job creation. It is also necessary for our balance of payment needs. If our rand improves too rapidly this will hurt our export, and together with an inflation rate which is higher than that of our trading partners, this will cause serious setbacks for our debt repayment. Therefore it is necessary that we try relentlessly to bring down the inflation rate and at the same time pursue the economic goals and try for a growth rate of 3% plus in the year ahead.

For job creation and training the hon the Minister has set aside R183 million rand. The programme for job creation and training is, to say the least, laudable. When we look at the many people that have left the shores of this country after enjoying the benefit of a university education and training which to a large extent is paid for by the taxpayer, this is cause for concern. We have to take a serious view of this matter and it might be a good idea to impose penalties on those who do not serve the country that has provided their academic and practical advancement. The training of manpower for the needs of our economy must not only continue, but must be vigorously pursued.

The funding of the TBVC states gives cause for concern in the present Budget, with the total including guarantees in the region of R2 billion. It should not be perceived by the Receiver that these are amounts which become an obligation to the giver. If that happens then responsibility goes through the window.

Action has to be taken on this, and I must hasten to add that the hon the Minister gave the assurance during his discussions with the committee that there is to be a joint committee which will be responsible for overseeing what is happening in these countries and how they spend the money. Judging from what we have heard and seen in the past, I think there is a need for proper control and for priorities to be addressed.

That brings me to the question of savings. It is common knowledge that for a long time now, and perhaps for a variety of reasons, savings have not been pursued.

We have to look at some of the superpowers’ saving structures in order to see how one country differs from another. In Japan, for instance, there is a savings rate of 16% and they have a credit of 380 billion. In the USA the rate of saving is 2% and they are billions in the red. Personal savings therefore form an important facet of a country’s strength.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance I have cause to be generally pleased with the Budget, as was also evident from most of the highly qualified persons who appeared before the committee and spoke highly of the approach and direction the Government has taken.

In conclusion I should like to say that if the M3 money supply is contained within target and the price of gold stays above the $420 mark, and if we have an interest rate of 15% maximum with inflation down to approximately 12%, then a growth rate in excess of 3% is possible. All of this depends upon the Budget being adhered to. If the Budget is overshot, then there will be a need to increase the deficit before borrowing and the consequences that will follow will be the pushing up of both interest rates and the rate of inflation. The aforementioned statements are not necessarily based on any information that I have received. These are my own personal projections and I do not believe I shall require the hon the Minister to comment on them. We have an understanding on that score.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to contribute to the debate this afternoon on my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance’s Budget.

I firmly believe that the Budget is a practical one designed to meet the present situation and to cater for the situation which the Government sees fit to arrest in the immediate future.

The hon member for Southern Natal quite rightly expressed concern over the issue of inflation. The hon the State President has made certain categorical statements in regard to inflation and the curbing of inflation, and my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance has taken account of the necessity to curb inflation. Whilst, on the one hand, the State is playing its rightful role, an appeal must be made to the private sector to pay heed to the inflation factor.

What I want to impress upon hon members and my hon colleague, is that we have a situation at the moment of trade unions making unnecessary demands on their employers and such demands are not going to be in the interests of curbing inflation. I believe that a word of warning should be issued to these unions to the effect that if the demands for higher wages are pursued, the results will be detrimental to them because in effect, it will mean an increase in the prices of products, etc, simply because of a higher wage demand. Therefore the trade unions should not make unreasonable demands.

My approach to the South African situation is normally—and my colleague, and the hon the Minister of Finance is aware of this—to look at it in relation to the world economy. The global economy is in fact a single economy and the fortunes and misfortunes of countries are so inextricably linked that the events in one country have an effect on the economy of other countries. The world is an interdependent place.

The impending United States presidential election is bound to influence the United States economy and therefore the economy of the world. The Americans are likely to maintain a weaker dollar—and I think my colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, will agree with me—simply for political reasons. The presidential election will influence very largely the economy of the United States and simultaneously the economy of the world. The Americans are likely, as I said earlier, to maintain a weaker dollar in an effort to get economic activity going and with a view to increasing exports and making imports into the United States more expensive. The tug of war between the various industrialised countries will determine whether the world economies swing into a deep depression or remain at a relatively low-growth phase. The United States administration would want to maintain an illusion of prosperity and will take steps to correct any economic problems because of the presidential election. The real test of the economy will come after the United States presidential election.

The South African economy will also be put under a severe strain in the years ahead, due both to external and internal factors. We must grasp our fate and shape the future according to our will. This is what the present Budget does. It is impossible in the long term for South Africa to go it alone in the world. We must have an outlet for our goods. We need the economic and capital support and there is a need for positive interaction with the outside community. We are a part of the Western world, and an integral part of the Southern African complex. There is full realisation in this respect by the State, right from the top level of the hon the State President to members of the Cabinet and the hon members of the various Houses.

As far as economic matters are concerned, the time has come to realise that no development can take place in South Africa until both the private and public sectors understand and acknowledge the nature of the South African economy. For far too long we have tended to close our eyes to the economic realities at our doorstep. We tended to stifle and suppress the initiative of the individual through laws and regulations, favouring and encouraging only the development of the formal sector of the economy. Here we need to acknowledge the role of the hon the State President and the Cabinet in the deregulation of the factors that obtain at the moment in this country.

Our investment decisions were made on the basis of the illusion that our economic base is a First World one only. The reality takes cognizance of the Third World component in the economy. The high population growth rate is inevitable in any country with an agrarian economy.

The African population is still predominantly rural or agriculturally subsistence-orientated. In such societies a high population growth rate is inevitable. The reality is that we can see approximately 200 000 to 250 000 new workseekers entering the market every year. There are already one million or more people who are either unemployed or under-employed.

We have already scrapped many pieces of legislation such as influx control but with the removal of that we have added to our problems. On the periphery of our cities and towns we now have a vast number of people who have entered the area and they have created a big problem for all of us.

Do you want the return of influx control?

No, I am not saying that we want the reintroduction of influx control but we should have planned ahead to meet the demands of the situation that has now been created. I am sure my hon colleague will need all the assistance he can get in relation to the arresting of this very serious problem.

It is important that a start should be made on macro-economic policies that are relevant to the development stage in which we find ourselves. The programme must stimulate economic growth with the maximum input from the private sector. South Africa can still attain a healthy growth of its economy with a limited export market and substitutions for imports which will also provide a natural expansion. I have said before in this House and elsewhere and I want to repeat that we should give very serious attention to our productivity problems. As I said earlier, South Africa has big potential.

There are a few large capital projects such as the Mossel Bay gas project and the Lesotho Highlands water project as well as a number of smaller mining ventures. Most of these projects involve the exploitation of the country’s natural resources.

The gold-mining industry has sustained our economy for many decades and we expect this to continue. While earnings from the mining industry will continue to play an important role in the economy, emphasis must also be given to other sectors of the economy, particularly manufacturing.

It was the boom in the manufacturing sector investments in the years of prosperity in the 1960s that contributed a great deal to our economy while developing the attitudes of Third World countries. Investment in manufacturing must increase.

Unfortunately two issues coincide, and they occur at an inappropriate time. Firstly there is the need to increase the quality of life of the Black population through social services such as education and housing, as well as a need for increased Government spending. Secondly there is the international boycott and disinvestment campaign.

The increased relative cost of social services, the population growth, new and improved facilities and a growing demand for services all demanded a large financial contribution. Black education had to be improved. Housing had to be provided. Social pensions, health and welfare services all demanded heavy expenditure. The Government was under pressure to provide these services and it had a responsibility and a duty in this direction. The Government has provided these services to a large extent. The urbanisation strategy proposed in the Government’s White Paper created new demands for services.

There is a great need for capital to stimulate the economy. There is a greater awareness of the need for capital which is now a big factor in so far as production is concerned. South Africa must now carefully evaluate how it uses its capital. It must ensure the productivity of the capital.

They have always looked at productivity from a labour point of view and neglected the productivity of capital. If capital is not used effectively our ability to compete with overseas countries will be affected. For business to have a reasonable return on capital it is absolutely essential that there should be a more explicit policy of reform to create a climate of confidence. Vagueness only leads to speculation and a lack of discretion will only lead to a loss of confidence. Here I want to acknowledge that the hon the State President and this country are doing all that is possible for reform.

Unhappily for us, agencies within and without South Africa are creating the impression that we in South Africa are still way behind with our reform policies and their implementation.

In the same breath I want to say that not all reform policies have been implemented but with tolerance and patience we should like to see more reform and the goodwill of South Africans in this country bringing them together to find solutions to our difficulties.

One of the economic priorities is to create employment for a growing population. We have a large supply of mainly unskilled labour and a shortage of capital.

The challenge is to use this scarce capital in such a way that the process of job creation will be a long-term one and will be carried into the future. It is important to tackle the problems of tomorrow rather than merely to provide answers for today. The country must reap the maximum benefits from a sound natural economic strategy.

In conclusion I want to say that budget, as presented by my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance, has taken full cognisance of the reality of the situation in South Africa. Whilst I would concede that the hon member for Laudium made certain points in relation to the budget I do not think that a final analysis of the budget itself has been properly evaluated by the hon member for Laudium. This is a budget intended for the prosperity of South Africa, broadening the basis of taxation, as it were, so that we can meet the demand for prosperity in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I am extremely sorry that the hon the State President had to leave because I had something to say about him. May be somebody has told him what is in my notes, I do not know.

The 1988-89 budget before us is structured and planned in line with the hon the State President’s firm commitment to retard the annual growth of Government expenditure. It is well balanced to induce the much-desired upswing in the economy. I commend the hon the Minister and his team on many aspects of the Budget.

In this respect the budget tends to curb Government spending, which was very detrimental to the economy. Generally speaking I am pleased that the budget has not come up with major changes. It is a conservative budget focussed on combating inflation.

I am pleased that the Government has accepted the fact that our senior citizens deserve a special dispensation and the budget addresses this by the reintroduction of the granny bonds.

It is often said that money is the roof of all evil, but I believe that self-seeking greed is the cause of all evil.

Last year, when the hon the Minister introduced a version of the senior citizens savings bonds, the Association of Participation Bond Managers and other financial institutions reacted with a terrible hue and cry.

They claimed to have lost hundreds of millions of rands worth of business to the Treasury. Although this year’s Budget provides for a reduced amount of R30 000 that can be invested by senior citizens, the entry age has been increased from 60 to 65. Furthermore, financial institutions such as banks, building societies and the post office will be receiving the money, and not the Treasury. The association of participation bond managers indicates that despite the refined adjustments made in this year’s granny bond provisions, they will still lose the same volume of business as last year. I cannot see the reason for their fear. Because the ceiling has been vastly reduced to an amount of R30 000, which is actually 15% of last year’s ceiling of R200 000, I fail to see how they can predict a loss of business similar to that of last year. The only conclusion I can come to is that they are very greedy. My suggestion to them is that they reduce their participation fixed term of five years to a shorter term to match the new granny bond scheme. Taking cognisance of the fact that it is impossible to satisfy everyone simultaneously, I beseech the hon the Minister not to succumb to pressure groups and deviate from the envisaged provision of granny bonds. I may mention that last year granny bonds were for the benefit of the wealthy, but this year’s granny bonds are for the benefit of the poor. We should therefore try to keep that situation as it is.

I now come the life assurance industry. Life assurance offices have made a statement to the effect that increased taxation of 70% instead of 40% on life assurance investments—which constitutes 29% of life and endowment business transacted by the life assurance industry—is an arbitrary introduction of a change of rates, and that the 70% tax on 29% of the business investment income will discourage long term savings. I disagree with them there.

It is my submission that the life association industry, under the guise of assurance, is actually a deposit receiving institution and in the process this industry utilises the tax evasion loophole within the tax system to the greatest extent. That industry is one of the largest tax evading industries in our country, legally of course. That is why they offer returns on investments of 23%. The life association industry is not a charitable organisation which renders services on humanitarian grounds. I stress this point. They are not charitable organisations; they are in business to make money. If the pensions and annuity retirement business were not a viable proposition, the life association offices would not solicit this type of business or compete vigorously and relentlessly one another for it. Moreover, there are two kinds of pension business, namely the genuine pension business and the ‘pseudo’ pension business. The latter type of business is responsible to a large extent for higher interest rates on building loans, and it creates inflation. I would like to elaborate on this. There are people who take R100 000, R200 000 or even R500 000 and buy annuities with insurance companies. If the insurance companies did not offer the lucrative return of 23%— or even more, they say—that money might well have been put into other financial institutions such as building societies or banks where it could be lent out to prospective home-owners.

What happens then? The building societies have to borrow from insurance companies and lend back to the consumer at high interest rates. I could prove that point, but my time is very limited, and I cannot go further than that.

What is of fundamental significance is the fact that money invested in life insurance funds do not create jobs. Not a single cent that goes into the life insurance funds creates jobs. Therefore they do not contribute to the upswing in the economy.

Having said that, I now come to the political spectrum. Our country is molested by the international community, and we are plagued by endless threats of sanctions and boycotts. The primary cause for all this is the unwillingness of certain sections of the South African community to discard apartheid in toto. This community’s stubborn prejudice retards and impedes the reform process. Politicians are responsible for the continued retention of an irrational ideology.

I believe that in the political fight which has been going on for the past three decades, people have lost direction and surrendered to racial agitation by politicians who, in their narrow minds, believe that South Africa can survive in isolation. I should like to emphasise that point today. Those racialists, in their narrow minds, believe that South Africa can survive in isolation. Having said that, the intention of the international community is to isolate South Africa and destroy the country. It is the intention of the international community by applying sanctions and boycotts to destroy the economy of this country. Once the economy of this country is dead, that is the end of the country as well.

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, certain radical elements in this country—not the left wing, but the right wing—are inciting people to maintain apartheid at all costs. The cost will be the destruction of their very own country—it would be tantamount to suicide!

I think that politics is necessary, but let not politics become the religion of the country, because it is not always the best who enter politics in any country. This is the truth throughout the world. I believe that politicians should determine a nation’s course of action, but I do not think that they should entirely determine our nation’s destiny. That destiny must be determined by people who can think rationally and assess the potential of our land and use its resources, as well as creating harmony within our community so that we can prosper peacefully and so that posterity will not judge us adversely. Let us not separate, but rather come together as Afrikaners and Englishmen, Coloureds and Indians, Zulus and Xhosas. Let us face the future and build a strong South Africa for the sake of our children. That is the challenge we face. I hope that we are able to accept that challenge with courage and determination.

In conclusion I wish to say that I am not satisfied with the global allocation of funds for the Administration: House of Delegates. This allocation is totally insufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the needs of the people. I urge the hon the Minister of Finance to give this matter some thought.

Talking about the House of Delegates, I am extremely disappointed that the hon the State President has just left us, because this concerns him. I must express my profound disappointment in the hon the State President’s reluctance or refusal to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry concerning the administration of this House. Several hon members of this House, including members of the ruling party, have called for such a commission of inquiry. I am given to understand that the hon the State President has requested concrete proof of corruption before he can institute a commission of inquiry. The alleged corruption within this House is not only a matter of concern to the hon members of this House, but people outside Parliament are deeply concerned about corruption in this administration.

Where is the concrete evidence?

The hon the State President’s unwillingness to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry has a semblance of protectionism to a certain person or persons. I do not say that he is protecting someone, but his reluctance and unwillingness to institute a commission of inquiry into matters raised in this House has a semblance of protectionism. I cannot see any other reason why it should not be done. I could argue this on any forum, because it is not the duty of those people who allege corruption to find the proof for their allegations. It is not their duty. [Interjections.] You should sit like a statue because you do not know what law is. If you want to learn about it, come to me and I will teach you. [Interjections.] Sit like a statue. Do not talk nonsense to me.

Order! The hon member for Camperdown should not refer to other hon members as “you”, but as hon members, and by their constituencies.

I am merely saying that it is not the duty of those people who allege corruption to find proof of their allegations. All that is required is a plausible preponderance of probabilities. That is all that is required in law. [Interjections.] A plausible preponderance of probabilities and a public concern. That is all that the hon the State President needs to institute that commission and that has been proved amply by several hon members in this House.

Who wrote that speech?

Although the hon the State President has a right to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry to look into the correctness or otherwise of the allegation of corruption, the hon the State President, to the surprise of everybody concerned, refuses or is reluctant to appoint that judicial commission of inquiry. This is a matter of great concern not only to this House. This stigma is permeating and filtering through to the other Houses.

We want concrete irrefutable evidence.

Mr Chairman, I do not know where that hon member could have come from. I repeat that those who allege corruption, need not give proof.

Mr Chairman, can the hon member tell us if the Constitution was written by the PFP?

Mr Chairman, that hon member provokes me to call him names which I would not like to call him. He is old enough, I think.

Mr Chairman, I think that the question of bribery and corruption in this House has been overemphasised. I feel very sorry for someone like the hon member for Camperdown when he tries to make this an issue. Such an issue is valueless because the whole thing has been overemphasised.

I think he must understand one fact, and that is that if he has any particular statement to make on matters of bribery and corruption, I think it is up to him to substantiate such a statement.

I did not make them; members of your party made them.

I did not interrupt the hon member for Camperdown. I think he should give me a free say in the matter. [Interjections.] The point is that I think that as far as possible, one should not come forward here with all sorts of flimsy and unwarranted statements concerning bribery and corruption. He is attempting to involve the reputation of each and every hon member of this House. [Interjections.] I think it is high time those hon members who keep raising this particular issue of bribery and corruption were brought to book.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it proper for an hon member to talk across the bar to visitors in the gallery?

Order! The hon member for Camperdown is not permitted to talk across the bar. The hon member must leave the Chamber if he wishes to talk to some one. [Interjections.] The hon member Mr Thaver may continue.

I want to address a plea to all those hon members. I think they are bringing this House into absolute disrepute. [Interjections.] I think that if they have anything to say with regard to any matters concerning bribery and corruption they should make formal statements. Moreover, if they wish to lodge them with the hon the State President, I think they should do so in a proper manner instead of making all sorts of unnecessary noises. They sound like an old record being played with an old needle that does not even play very well. [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with the hon the Minister. He came here to perform the very pleasant task of presenting his Budget. I do not think he came here to listen to the sort of nonsense that is being talked at the moment. [Interjections.] I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I appear to have lost my place.

You have lost yourself! [Interjections.]

I shall thank the hon member for Camperdown to give me a chance to present my speech. I did not interrupt him when he was speaking.

At the opening of Parliament on 5 February this year the hon the State President resurrected the economic strategy. He created expectations in the private sector regarding not only the Government’s participation in the economy but also a severe anti-inflationary policy and the deregulation of the economy. It appears that the Government is serious about the long-term prospects for the South African economy. Only the future will tell whether it is just experimenting with economic reform instead of political reform. In the short term, however, the initiatives must be applauded.

With regard to fiscal policy for the financial year 1988-89 the hon the Minister of Finance has used this year’s Budget to initiate the first steps of the long-term strategy. The Budget must, however, be viewed against the background of the White Paper on the report of the Margo Commission into the tax structure to clarify the current uncertainty, as well as the privatisation that is being implemented and the fiscal discipline that is being enforced.

The actual expenditure for 1987 was 2,1% higher than budgeted for and 18,9% up on 1986-87. The budgeted figure for 1988-89 is 12,6% higher than the actual figure for 1987-88, which is in line with the hon the State President’s austerity programme. However, allowing for the usual overruns the outcome will more than likely be approximately 13% higher than the figure for 1987.

The freeze on Public Service salaries could reduce spending by R1,5 billion to R2 billion. Salaries constitute one third of total Government expenditure.

Another important feature which was not highlighted last year is the Government’s interest bill. The total cost of serving State debt in 1987 was R7,2 billion and is estimated to be R8,6 billion for the year 1988, representing 15% of total expenditure.

The wage bill of the Government, all levels included, rose to R14,842 billion in 1987-88, representing an increase of 31,1% over the previous year.

The number of State employees increased by 9,1%. A staff standstill was implemented from 30 November 1987, except for certain sectors of education protection services and justice personnel engaged in the application of law.

The following aspects are welcomed as regards individual taxation:

• — The raising of the maximum marginal level to R80 000 for married couples.
• — The increase of the primary rebate to R1 100 for married couples and to R750 for single persons.
• — Standard income tax on employees SITE— for tax payers earning less than R12 000 (married women R20 000) tax will be finally calculated for the SITE tables each time a salary or wage is paid. Taxpayers who qualify need not complete an annual tax return (with effect from March 1 1988).

Married women earning over R20 000 will be taxed as before on a joint income basis. This prejudices wives earning over R20 000 and this bias will be only partially offset by a set of deductions which declines with increasing joint income.

However, the abolition of the following are disappointing and will have wider implications than their obvious effect on the individual:

• — Medical expenses, including medical aid contributions, will no longer be allowable unless they exceed 5% of income. The State has thereby moved further away from the Western philosophy of state-assisted health.
• — Insurance premiums of up to R75 are no longer deductible. Although this was only a marginal figure to most taxpayers, it removes some incentive to hold insurance and provide the country with long-term savings.
• — Deduction for dependants is no longer allowable. Although the previous allowance was very small, this abolition will put further strain on those in need.
• — Estates of less than R1 million will no longer be subject to estate duty and annual donations of R20 000 or less will be free of donation tax.

These are welcomed as is the drop in transfer tax to 15%. However, these concessions now make the holding of R100 000 in RSA stock and insurable policies for estate duty purposes unnecessary and is again an attack on the insurance industry.

Because the United States, and possibly later other foreign investors, may no longer claim South African tax deduction on dividends received from South Africa, it is disappointing that the Government did not see fit to adopt the Margo Commission’s recommendation to abolish tax on dividends, at least for foreigners.

A minimum company tax has been introduced to extract revenue from companies which have low effective tax rates and yet pay relatively high dividends. The formula is as follows: 25% of dividends declared—tax paid plus dividends received. Companies will have to pay this tax in advance on 30 September 1988 and the provisional payment will be based on company results for the period ended 29 February 1988.

The decision will impact unfavourably on companies which have a reduced tax liability through tax avoidance schemes as well as those who have invested large sums in capital items. Companies with proportionately large export revenues and export marketing expenses will also be negatively affected.

On balance, we do not expect the above to have a meaningful impact on the stock exchange. However, in the current market negative news has a compounding effect on share prices. We would expect that companies which fall within the expanded tax net will suffer a derating.

The traditional golden goose, the mining industry, is waning in importance. Revenue from this source was down by 17% in 1987-88 and is expected to decline by a further 18,9% in 1988-89.

The contribution is being eroded by rising costs coupled with a stagnant rand gold price. An interpretation of the expected lower contribution is the maintenance of the rand gold price at roughly R950 per ounce for the year. This does not bode well for marginal mines and 1988 could see several gold mines in serious trouble.

As far as the taxation of long-term insurers is concerned, the announcement of the proposed greater contribution to the fiscus by the longterm insurers was not expected by the industry. An amount of R170 million is to be raised in the present financial year by increasing the tax base from 40% to 70% of investment income and receipts from affiliated companies.

As the industry is taxed at the normal company tax rate of 50%, these proposals will raise the effective tax on this source from 20% to 25% per annum. The final effect on the bottom-line earnings of each company will, however, be determined by the business mix of investment income (which is taxable) and pensions business (which is not taxable). The initial effect on life insurance share prices should be a downward adjustment as the news is absorbed. A careful study of each company should be made before investment is undertaken.

As regards indirect taxation, GST is to remain for the time being. There were no further details as to the implementation of the Value Added Tax (VAT). Increases in excise duties were announced for beer, spirits, cigarettes and tobacco. These increases are expected to generate additional revenue amounting to R188 million. It is surprising that the wine industry once again managed to avoid duty increases. No relief was grated to the jewellery industry by the removal of the ad valorem tax. I will be pleased if the hon the Minister will tax the wine industry in his next Budget.

There are one or two other observations that I would like to make. Firstly I want to say that the hon the Minister and the Department of Finance have been most co-operative. They attended the meetings of the finance committee and were able to furnish the committee with all sorts of information. The committee met for seven days and had the satisfaction of not only the hon the Minister of Finance but also his hon Deputy Ministers and the entire staff of the Department of Finance, including the Commissioner of Revenue, the Governor of the Reserve Bank and whoever else falls under his department.

One or two important issues came up that I think this House is entitled to know. I want to refer to some of the decisions taken by the Standing Select Committee on Finance as published in its second report. I quote as follows:

It must be said that while the hon the State President talks of a cut-back of State expenditure, it is increased by putting people in jail. I think this is a very important matter. The hon the Minister of Finance should appoint a committee on that matter to establish how long-term prisoners can be put to productive use for farming and other operations that may need them. Prisons constitute one of the State expenses that cannot be avoided.

The committee also noted its concern over the cut-back of the estimates in so far as the SA Police is concerned. One must understand that there are two very important services namely the SA Defence Force and the SA Police Force. I think the hon the Minister will take offence if I say that he had no business to cut the expenditure on these two by R200 million. I will only say that the hon the Minister should consider increasing the expenditure on the SA Police.

I think they need the money. They have to increase the size of the police force and they are rendering a very valuable service as far as the whole country is concerned. I do not think we must cut back on the budget of the SA Police Force in this way. I think the Police Force is very upset that its estimate has been cut by R200 million. I think the hon the Minister should reconsider that even if, for that matter, he includes the R200 million in an interim budget later on this year.

There are other important issues such as the consumer. The Consumer Council came to the committee and I think they led some very valuable evidence. I once again want to raise the particular issue which I raised last year. It is a question of controlling certain consumer products.

I think rice is being imported into this country at something like 20c per kg—it comes from the Far East—and it is being sold at something like R1,20 to R1,30 per kg at the supermarkets.

As some of these prices are not being controlled I think some of the large supermarkets can take the consumer for a ride. Maize is a similar example.

The maize leaves the warehouses of the Maize Board costing something like R270 to R280 per ton. That is the best maize that they are able to get. The grower gets the R280 per ton but when it reaches the supermarket shelf it is sold at something like R3 000 per ton. Therefore the difference between R3 000 and R280 is made by the middleman. I do not think the wage levels and other levels are that costly. Some investigation into consumer products is needed. A maize producer should even be allowed to produce his own maize products. I think it should be allowed for the sake of bringing the prices down.

There are other issues that were of concern to the committee. I have dealt with the consumer price. The committee expressed its concern and is still worrying about the shortage of teachers in certain categories of education and recommends as a matter of urgency that the provision of funds for teacher training should enjoy higher priority.

I think this is also an important issue. We have organisations that led evidence before the committee. They felt that some of the services are being triplicated and quadruplicated by having so many different departments. For example, we have three own affairs education departments and a national education department. If one looks into all the expenses one sees that the services are being triplicated or quadruplicated. I think that these things can be avoided by having one Department of Education run by one Minister. We could then have more directors-generals who have the administrative ability to carry out the work. I think that instead of more own affairs Ministers we need more administrative people in order to run the department. It should all be run by one ministry.

There are other important issues. One important issue is that our Minister of the Budget has been very strongly criticised for not providing or delivering the goods and I think the hon the Minister of Finance is directly responsible for this. I think if he provided adequate funds for this particular House and the other Houses we would find sufficient funds not only for education but also for housing and other important issues that concern our community. [Interjections.] No, I am referring to one global sum.

I think hon the Minister must be able to look at the expenses that involve our community. If one wants to create own affairs I think one should be able to find out from the own affairs Minister of Housing what amount of money one needs for housing and from the Minister of Education what amount one needs for education. The same applies to welfare services etc.

These poor own affairs Ministers are being attacked from the opposition benches and are being told that they are not providing adequate money and do not blame the hon the Minister of the Budget for this.

Blame the Minister of Finance!

That is correct.

I am trying to be very polite to the hon the Minister of Finance because if one tries to be rude to him he may cut the budget by half next year. [Interjections.] Moreover, I must say that the budget has been a very promising one. A long time ago some of the young fellows were talking about budgets that were produced by people such as Havenga, the hon the Minister and Hofmeyr. I think the hon the Minister’s Budget was drawn up on a similar basis. We will say more good things about the hon the Minister if he increases our own affairs budget next year.

In conclusion, I want to pay my compliments to the hon the Minister of Finance and the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and its members who have done a very good piece of work over the past seven days. Once again, thank you.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to follow the last speaker in this particular debate, and even the speaker before him. With regard to the speaker before him, I should like to suggest that if the hon the Minister has an opportunity to influence any university, he be awarded an honours degree in law, I think he adequately answered the questions in so far as the interjections are concerned in respect of the commission of inquiry. I do not want to go into detail about this because we have had a motion and a full-scale debate on this matter, and it is not necessary for me to go into detail.

However, what I do want to say to the hon the Minister is that should a commission of inquiry be appointed, it would be equivalent to a value-for-money audit which occurs in private enterprise. I think if public representatives were subjected to judicial commissions of inquiry, and if they are above board, they should have no fear. That would really be a value-for-money audit. I believe that if any hon Minister comes out clean from such an inquiry, he should be carried on the shoulders of his colleagues. Only those that are afraid they will not come out clean might resist the appointment of such a commission. I do not want to take the matter beyond that particular level.

I want to start by saying I have very little time in this debate. I am therefore going to go through certain issues which I think are important. First and foremost I want to endorse the statements made by the previous speaker with regard to the quadruplication of services and own affairs, etc. Here I should like to suggest that the figure of R18 billion, which is the amount set aside for administrative costs, is probably high. Perhaps it could be defended or justified from certain points of view but I believe that if R18 billion is spent on the quadruplication of services, etc, that money could be better utilised, if we did not have this quadruplication of services and administrative staff and bureaucracy, for more useful programmes of socio-economic upliftment for the less fortunate of this country. We always complain that we cannot achieve parity with regard to pension funds and we cannot meet the expenditure required for Black education, etc. One must acknowledge that over the past few years this Government has gone a long way from its historical background. Those may be very fair statements but that does not mean we should abuse the funds we have by this quadruplication. I would like to submit to the hon the Minister that when I talk about a value for money audit, I think that public representatives should also be subjected to a value for money audit. Here I would like to refer to the hon the Minister and say that the cost of ministerial representatives in this country is borne by the central treasury. I would like to enquire from the hon the Minister whether he honestly believes that all those who were appointed as ministerial representatives are in fact helping this country, helping the programmes he himself spelt out in terms of his own budget speech. I believe they are not doing that. On the contrary, they are undermining the credibility of Parliament and raising the whole question of public accountability. I may submit to the hon the Minister that it has been brought to our notice that those who were appointed as ministerial representatives—earning almost R100 000 per annum in salary, besides the other perks with which they are provided—are very much involved in party-political electioneering. They are very actively involved rather than being involved in the work that was assigned to them. I make that reference to show how public money is being abused.

I should like to say that the hon the Minister has received accolades in respect of his Budget speech. In some respects these have been justifiable from the point of view of his personality; I think he has a very optimistic view of the future of this country, and I think he believes in what he says. I do not wish to maintain that he is insincere in what he says, but I think that the response, as I see it, is a relative factor. I think we have had such a great economic drought over the years, with inflation running high etc, that the present Budget is a ray of hope. If this ray of hope is to mean anything to South Africa, then I believe we should take this one step further. We should be able to translate this ray of hope, using a twopronged approach. The one prong is socio-economic upliftment and dealing with the social problems that affect the people in this country, while the other is political reform. One without the other will not succeed. We can pump as much money as we like into what we perceive to be socio-economic upliftment programmes, but if it is not linked to any kind of political parallel in terms of which the people of colour are going to feel that they are meaningful participants in these programmes, this is not going to have the desired result.

Whilst that is so, I believe that this Budget fails to address what I would call political reform in this country. It would appear that this particular Budget has come at a time when it is placed under constraint by the fact that the Government itself has taken a U-turn as far as reform is concerned. It would appear that insofar as reform is concerned, the Government is showing a bias towards the right, and thereby to a large extent sacrificing the people of colour. People who are living in what is termed White group areas are being threatened with all kinds of notices of eviction, and a lot of pressure and frustration is mounting among these people. I believe that the Government’s action in what I believe is the silencing of moderate people in this country is also totally unnecessary. This in fact undermines any positive element contained in the Budget address of the hon the Minister of Finance.

I think it is imperative that the hon the Minister of Finance needs address himself to his colleagues. They are undermining the very positive aspects of this particular Budget. I do not want to go into fine details, since I believe that the appropriate Minister should be addressed on these issues.

Permit me to say that I find this very difficult. I know that hon members of this House have been critical of my own leader. What did my leader do? He went out selling South Africa because he realises that one needs foreign investments for the socio-economic upliftment of this country. However, what does the hon the Leader get in return? He is very much a second class citizen of South Africa. Nobody can deny that. The whole structure of the Government is aimed at protecting White privilege.

I do not know how many hon members of this House are aware of this fact, but—I say this with humility; not with any anger or malice, but with understanding, and I want the Government to understand how we feel—I submit to the hon the Minister that it is easier for a White person in this country to adopt a pet—a cat or a dog—and even leave an inheritance for that cat or dog, than to adopt a person of colour.

That is the factual situation. How can my leader, who wants investments in this country, defend such a piece of legislation? I am referring here to the Child Care Act, No 74 of 1983. Concerning the determination of custody of children, section 40(b) of this particular Act reads as follows:

I quote this because I have a real case. While the Government made progress by repealing section 16 of the Immorality Act, the question that arose concerned a mixed couple, the mother being Indian and the father White, with no children of their own. They want to adopt a neglected Indian child to give this child a better home and education. They are even sending this child to a private school and are doing their best for it. Their love and affection is being expressed. However, because of this constraint they cannot adopt that child. Is this reform? Can we defend this? I believe this is inhuman from a moral, ethical or Christian point of view. One cannot defend it.

My time is limited and therefore I would like to conclude with the following remarks. I would like to suggest to the hon the Minister that in order for his positive thoughts in this Budget to be translated into a bright light and in order to increase our productivity, curb inflation, achieve harmony and stability and to cut down expenditure on defence and internal strife, I think it is important that the Government should earnestly give due respect to moderates who happen to be people of colour. The Government should respond in a more positive and meaningful way to initiatives taken by well-meaning people from across the colour spectrum.

I refer here to the Natal Indaba. Why is the Natal Indaba being frustrated? Why are we in such frustration, destroying people like Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi? These people are being discredited and we are being discredited because the Government refuses to listen to us. It is apparent to me that in engaging with the CP and the AWB there is what I would term an old hang-over fight from the NP and those who have left it are now fighting each other. Whether it is based on family feuds or personality clashes, we in South Africa as a whole are being made to pay for that fight. In the interests of our country all moderates should be given due respect and credit for the programmes they engage in for the upliftment of our country.

Mr Chairman, it has been said by financial commentators this year the hon the Minister of Finance, Mr Barend Du Plessis has produced the best Budget since the time of Minister Owen Horwood in the late 70s. The task of the Minister of Finance is always a thankless one. Its compensation is that it wields power. When he exercises it, he can neutralise or enhance the best efforts of his political colleagues who are almost always men of implacable ambition. At the stroke of a pen he can undermine their political dogma, but he can also on some occasions, raise them to transports of philosophical delight.

This Budget would seem to be more than just a shot in the arm for the economy and it goes a long way to underscore the Government’s claims that it is serious about economic reform.

It should begin the difficult and always protracted process of eroding inflationary expectations and bringing back prosperity.

In his Budget speech the hon the Minister of Finance made his intentions known by stating that he was going all out to fight inflation and mentioned that the Government would not entertain a price or wage freeze.

Sharper teeth are to be given to State-appointed watchdogs such as the Competition Board and the Consumer Council to ensure that market mechanisms function properly. The hon the Minister has appealed to the private sector to do its share by putting a stop to the practice of raising prices and building high inflationary expectations into prices. Instead of prescribing, the hon the Minister has appealed to wage and salary earners to restrain their demands and to follow the example set by the Government by keeping the national interest in mind.

Reducing the inflation rate will remain a major objective in both the monetary and fiscal policies of the Government. The inflation rate has been stimulated by the large overflow of capital as a result of political action against the country. Despite these setbacks, however, the inflation rate has fallen from 20,8% in January last year to 14,2% in January of this year. Inflation remains, and will remain a source of resentment, irritation, inequality and distortion unless completely eradicated. According to what the hon the Minister said in his Budget Speech, the true answer to inflation lay in basic discipline on the part of both the Government and the individual alike, and not in the belief that it could be smashed overnight by a price and wage freeze.

I would like to go a little further and add to what the hon the Minister said, namely that the answer to inflation lay in basic discipline and hard work.

I specifically mention hard work. I would like to substantiate what I have said by asking the question: What is inflation?

According to Mr John Gafrey, managing director of the Natal Building Society, in an advertisement which appeared in the Sunday Tribune yesterday, inflation is a man-made folly which can be overcome by man-made ingenuity. I should like to state quite simply that inflation is a disease of a sedentary society. It is only through diligent work that productivity could be attained.

What then is productivity? The definition accepted by the National Productivity Institute, known as the NPI, and which can withstand scrutiny, is as follows:

This being so, the following question arises: Why is it that so often only labour is mentioned in connection with productivity? The reason for this becomes clear when one remembers that labour fulfils a central function. Labour maintains and operates machines. Labour is responsible for the utilisation of materials and the elimination of waste. In fact, labour controls all the capital invested in the firm in the form of production equipment, buildings, etc. Labour, or manpower in its broadest sense, is responsible for the development of systems, whether they be production or administrative systems, and for executing all the operations required to run these systems economically. It is man, whether manager, supervisor or labourer, who controls the other factors of production.

Another reason why the term “labour productivity” is used to stress the need for higher productivity is that there is an economic balance between production and consumption. The same people who produce goods and services are also the consumers. The more we can produce per capita, the more we can consume and the higher we can raise our standard of living. It is said that South Africans produce only half as much as the British per capita and only one quarter as much as the Canadians. Therefore, per capita we can potentially consume only half as much as Britain and only a quarter as much as the Canadians.

Furthermore, if we are only producing half as much per capita than other countries, the cost of articles and services are likely to be higher in South Africa and consumer articles will be more expensive. As a nation we are striving towards a higher standard of living and we must be aware of the relationship between production per capita and consumption per capita if we are to achieve this.

Reference to the productivity per worker does not imply that only labour has a role to play or that only labour is to be blamed for our low productivity. It also does not mean that labourers must work harder like donkeys. If labour alone could make one king, then the donkey would be king. What it does mean is that each employee must apply himself diligently to his task, whether it be maintaining or operating a machine, designing systems to better our products, writing letters or keeping accounts. Whatever work he is doing, he must do it to the best of his ability. Only by achieving a higher output per person, a higher general output can also be achieved, and by employing labour-saving devices, such as better work methods or automation, can we achieve the standard of living we all want.

How then can we improve productivity? If we look at the economy as a whole, productivity improvement is a long and involved process. Sufficient training must be given to everyone. This cannot be achieved overnight. An efficient and adequate infrastructure, for example housing, communication and transport facilities, hospitals, water and electricity supply, and a host of other things are also needed. Furthermore, we need enough new techniques and production processes resulting from research, development and invention. Most of all we need a body of efficient managers capable of utilising to the full productivity improvement techniques such as work study, automation, personnel selection, motivation methods and planning principles.

We must learn from the shining example of the Japanese. In Japan a high gross domestic productivity has become the objective of every man, woman and child. Today the Japanese boast five of the world’s largest banks and their foreign exchange surplus has become the envy of the world. What the Japanese failed to achieve through war, they have achieved through economic might, and that did not come from nothing. It came through hard work. South Africa is richly endowed with raw materials and mineral wealth, and I can safely say that with the proper utilisation of our natural wealth for the benefit of all our people, and hard work, we can achieve far more than the Japanese. I believe anything the Japanese do, we South Africans can do better. I believe this should become our motto and we must start immediately to achieve this goal.

I must commend the hon the Minister for the way he reacted to the recent floods, and for the assistance given. The September flood disaster was declared a national disaster and assistance was given to all the flood victims. However, the recent floods we had in February also affected a number of people, but they do not fall under this category, and, especially in Natal, they do not qualify under the new flood disaster. I would like the hon the Minister to consider those people who have suffered in the February floods this year.

The Budget presented by the hon the Minister has not been a perfect one, but it is a good Budget. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it must be admitted that this is by no means a barren Budget. I want to agree with the hon the Minister of the Budget that it contains proposals that will increase productivity in the future. What I want to say now I am not saying this merely to boost the image of the hon the Minister of Finance—he does not need such boosting in any case because of his sincerity—but I want to say that South Africa is fortunate to have a person of the calibre of the hon the Minister of Finance at this time to manage and direct this very important portfolio on which the success or failure of the country largely depends.

There are indications that the Government is serious in curbing its expenditure on salaries and shifting its attention to wealth-producing infrastructural investments. I feel that this is the right way to go at this stage. After all, the rising public expenditure and falling economic growth must be reversed and I think this should now be possible.

I want to point out that over the past two years the number of public servants has increased by the phenomenal figure of 100 000. I do not want to make extensive comparisons at this stage but the facts cannot be denied. I say this against the background of the statement made by the hon the State President when he became Prime Minister of the country. At that stage he made a statement that he undertook to see that there would be a rationalisation of State departments and that he would reduce the number of public servants.

A good beginning was made at that time but today I wonder if there is an absolute need for the recent large increases. The hon the Minister of Finance is the one who has to bear the brunt, find the money and balance the Budget. I want to suggest that he should seriously consider setting up an investigation to establish whether the manpower resources in the public sector are all used profitably and whether such a large public sector is in the best interest of the country.

The word “sanctions” is commonly used today. So far South Africa has not been very seriously affected but it has been adversely affected in many respects. Sanctions lead to unemployment which in turn leads to poverty and unrest. I need not tell hon members of the traumatic experiences of people in the townships, the hardships that they suffer and the tragedy of their situation. It is a miserable situation that has arisen. It costs the Government millions of rand to engage more people for the Police and the security forces. This situation has to be brought to an end.

On the other hand sanctions may escalate if these problems are not properly handled. This would be a disaster and a revolutionary situation would certainly develop further. There is a revolutionary situation as it is—we have been told this by none other than the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

Taking these facts into account I think it is extremely important that the Government does not resort to such actions that will bring this country into serious disrepute. The situation is developing where even friendly countries are turning against South Africa and imposing trade sanctions, disinvestment etc. I think it is a most important aspect. The fact is that we want friends.

I know we have told many countries abroad that they must not interfere in our domestic affairs. That is fair enough, but then we must be able to produce results to such an extent that it would indicate that we are really making positive changes and are doing so at a pace that is necessary now.

I am growing concerned, and I am probably speaking for a lot of people in this country. In the last few years we have been making progress with regard to reform although they have been piece meal reforms. Some people say they are cosmetic reforms but it is more than that. I remember what the hon the Minister of the Budget said about removing influx control. I am not going to discuss that now, but that was not a cosmetic reform. It was a very diabolical Act that was removed from the Statute Book and I think it was wise of the Government not merely to remove the Act and to allow things to go haywire but to monitor it so that there would be orderly urban development to the extent that these people would have jobs, houses, etc and to prevent things from becoming completely chaotic.

However, what is worrying me, and it is worrying a lot of people, is the kind of “vibes” we get that the Government is going to halt reform not so much as a result of the activities of the left, but because of the activities of the rightwing sector in this country. If this is so—and I want to make this point very clear—the Government should be blamed for tolerating the rightwing to such an extent that it is now becoming a threat to reform in this country. Secondly, many of the left wing’s activities are due not to the political situation but to the socio-economic situation—bread and butter issues in fact—resulting in poor education and joblessness. I think the right wing should be educated to the extent that they will be able to accommodate the reforms needed to address these issues.

There is no place in South Africa for this laager mentality, or the kind of insular thinking that will result in progress being halted. I was reading about the White lady who took such serious exception to the appointment of a policeman to the post of second-in-command at Scottsburgh. Such an issue is made out of this! It is a pity that a White is not able to tolerate a person of colour, be it Indian or Black. It is unfortunate that a person who has the qualities, calibre and ability should not be given a position but must be removed from that police station because one White person takes exception to it. I do not think that that kind of mentality should be accommodated.

I am afraid if the Government accommodates the rightwing sector because of political reasons and because it does not want to lose support and wants to carry the electorate with them, they are going to become obsessed with this rightwing attitude.

This will happen to the extent that it will curb the reform that is absolutely necessary in this country to create the right climate. After all, a good state is one in which every citizen is committed in his thinking and in his will to making the best contribution for the good of all in the country. We must make positive changes to the extent that people will become confident that we are not hiding behind the rightwing or the leftwing. I think we must make these changes because they are necessary.

Mr Chairman, I want to follow on the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Cavendish. It is quite normal that the tallest tree always catches the wind. In the circumstances of South Africa, therefore, we are very fortunate to have a Minister who happens to be the tallest Minister of all three Houses and who also happens to hold one of the most important portfolios in Parliament. Naturally, therefore, he catches the crosswinds from all angles and, although there was once only one House, he now has three Houses to look after. In addition to that he also has to deal with natural disasters, for example, the flood disasters with which this country has been faced. A disaster of this nature, for which no preparation had been made, was nevertheless an issue that had to be attended to. In that regard I want to be on record as saluting this hon Minister and his entire team for the manner in which he was able to handle these unforeseen circumstances that have occurred in our country.

To go further, the hon member for Stanger— unfortunately he is not here—commented on the appointment of ministerial representatives. No government would consider the appointment of any official unless it was absolutely necessary.

Many of the hon members in this House have, from the time they came to Parliament, experienced various difficulties. They have also experienced the backlog of issues that existed within their own communities. Because they were in Parliament, it was not practically possible for them to handle all of those issues. Therefore, the Government in its wisdom decided to appoint ministerial representatives to make our duties easier to perform.

The hon member for Southern Natal, together with the hon member for Laudium and my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget, did lay emphasis on the subject of pensions, which is a very important factor in this day and age.

The hon member for Camperdown spoke about the hon the State President and protectionism. One begins to wonder whether it was a warranted statement in this House with regard to his own submission.

It is an absolute fact!

However, the hon the State President is fully aware of his responsibilities and, should the need arise, I am quite sure he would take the appropriate action.

I think he is protecting you!

He is protecting you, too!

Over the past few years the Budget has regrettably been dictated by political necessities rather than by economic factors and the results have been economic stagnation and uncertainty which leads to confusion in the business community.

There is an upswing; it is not stagnant any more.

On the positive side this year’s Budget has, to say the least, addressed the major economic ills. Firstly, there is the hon the Minister’s assurance that Government expenditure will be curtailed, and that the inflation rate has to be brought under control. These two objectives might be attained provided that the public sector keeps within the State Budget and the Government succeeds in keeping its expenditure as low as possible.

Considering the various sentiments expressed by the many able hon members of this House with regard to the lower income group, the Budget has failed to bring relief where burdens are the heaviest, that is among the lower income groups. Tax reliefs in real terms are negligible and the R60 bonus to pensioners is completely unsympathetic in our opinion. The ill effects of the decrease of R50 million are also unimaginable, since this will hit the farmer hard, who is still recovering from the floods and droughts, or it will hit the man in the street harder still because a rise in the price of bread will inevitably follow.

The VAT system is to replace the existing GST system with a view to stimulating export and adopting a system which is internationally recognised. The South African business community does not have any details from the hon the Minister about the manner in which VAT will be introduced or how the system of collection will change—hence the inability to forecast the future accurately. The private sector must now wait and see, and carry out planning and projection on the basis of calculated guesswork. I therefore think that the hon the Minister should take the business community into his confidence and disclose all details to them by way of consultation.

It might be mentioned, for what it is worth, that the Government is adopting an internationally recognised and accepted stance in introducing VAT, and one hopes, unimaginatively, that all Government policies in the social, educational and economic fields will be dictated by international norms in the future.

I now turn to the removal of vital rebates. The reductions in medical and dependent rebates reflects altogether inconsiderate thinking. It will affect the poor man the most. Since it is characteristic of the non-White society to have more than the average number of dependants, and it is the non-Whites who incur greater expenditure in regard to medical services, which in turn is directly related to illness arising from under-nourishment, poor housing and substandard hygienic environment, together with the anticipated cutback in hospital funding, this will cause the cost of getting sick to spiral. This in turn will lead to dissatisfaction among the non-White groups and will result in a further decline in the already low ebb of confidence in the Government. However unrelated this might be to the racial conflict, it will erupt in the name of racial discrimination, since it has become customary in this country to blame all the country’s ills on the Government’s race policies.

Once again, therefore, the reform thus far, however substantial, will be neutralised and we shall all be back to square one.

The removal of the insurance rebate is equally unimaginative because it will discourage insurance. These aspects, together with the heavier taxation on insurance companies are discouraging signals with regard to savings, which is the most importance source of our capital. In view of increased taxation, insurance companies will reduce returns on investments by policy holders, and the absence of the rebates will aggravate the situation further, resulting in a substantial discouragement to potential clients of insurance companies. [Interjections.] We do expect the Government to encourage insurance, to make families self-sufficient and consequently less burdensome to the State in the long term. One can further expect that participation in small pension schemes will also be discouraged, and this will be an added burden on the State in the long term, since retired people will be relying on State pensions and handouts only.

As far as privatisation is concerned, the hon the Minister’s general remarks on the concepts and plans relating to privatisation and deregulation are encouraging. They could revolutionise the whole economy, not only by directly causing the wider distribution of wealth, but also by converting any undertakings from loss-incurring ones to profit and tax-generating entities.

While one commends the privatisation intentions of the Government, one cannot understands its dragging pace as regards achieving its goal in this regard. The Government has always taken positive action in many of its problem-solving actions, but it is failing to take timely action, thus negating the otherwise positive aspects of its solutions. The community at large is impatient and the Government must take note of this in view of its method of slow, planned and evolutionary change. It is sometimes felt that the Government does not want to speed up the process of privatisation for fear of a backlash from its voters in the public service, whose comfortable positions have thus far been secure. The Government must cast aside minor fears such as these in favour of the overall good of the majority of South Africans.

Perhaps it should take its confidence from the success of the British privatisation efforts. Britain in the early eighties was characterised by government dominated economy requiring massive subsidies for the poor, and inflation was uncontainable. The industrial sector was strife-ridden and workers and State industries expected and demanded wages in excess of productivity. The Government had to meet these demands whether it could afford them or not. In our country the number of strikes last year jumped by 69% compared with 1986.

However, the speedy conversion to privatisation has rescued Britain to the extent that it has attained the lowest inflation rate in 20 years, the least strikes in 40 years and the lowest income tax in the last 50 years. All of this was accomplished in eight years and whatever is still state-owned will be privatised during the next term of office of the Conservative Party. Telecommunications, petroleum, bus companies, shipping lines, the motor industry, gas companies, etc, will all have been privatised. The main reason for the success of the plan of privatisation, in the words of Dr Madsen Pierre of the Canadian Fraser Institute, is “do the stuff as fast as possible but do it systematically on the assumption that in the end everything must go.”

As far as internal problems are concerned, the hon the Minister has by his own admission clarified the fact that the realities to be faced are the unravelling of our problems in our national life; its constitutional, social, security and economic problems make inexorable demands on our finances. Our economy is hamstrung by too many politically motivated and internationally orchestrated restrictions which hamper the optimum use of our resources in the areas of greatest need. This dear, harsh and true analysis of our economy has identified precisely the root of our problems. The solution must therefore come from addressing the problems directly. A workable constitution suitable for all races must be worked out fast in consultation with the leadership of the country. All over-expensive forms of government must be dismantled because we cannot afford them. Our security and border activities with neighbouring and frontline states must be normalised or else, despite South Africa’s external excursions they will not allow peace to return to this region for their own selfish reasons. I believe that as long as they stand up as enemies of South Africa they will continue automatically to enjoy the friendship and patronage of the outside world. Whether or not they have the credentials and qualities to be entitled to such friendships, some foreign countries seem to work on the principle of: You are an enemy of South Africa, therefore you are my friend, or: If you want to be my friend, then first be an enemy of South Africa. The normalisation of our relationships with the neighbouring states, even to the extent of just an agreement not to go to war like Nasser and Israel did, is of absolute importance.

Coming back to other important aspects in our own country, we recently noticed, when given an opportunity, that we have people within our community with potential and expertise. Just last week we witnessed the success of Mr Gorak Karoodia, a breeder of pedigree Friesland cows from Nottingham Road, whose Frieslands swept the board at the Central Show in Bloemfontein. He only started breeding Frieslands four years ago and he has fared exceedingly well against long-established breeders. [Interjections.] Given the opportunity I think our people will make the grade.

With this I would once again like to assure the hon the Minister together with his department with the heavy burden that rests on their shoulders, that we realise and appreciate their difficulties. I am sure that every hon member of all three Houses has realized the importance of understanding and consultation. Above all, in the final analysis, if anything counts it is the economic factor of a country. Just as one’s culture and one’s religion are the foundations of one’s discipline, equally the economic factor is the foundation of one’s survival. Therefore the power of survival rests on the shoulders of this tall and very able hon Minister.

Mr Chairman, before I look at the political side, let me say that this Budget is a good one in the circumstances and it had to be tailored to meet present-day needs. However, may we ask the question: What about future budgets? Here the hon the Minister himself has on many occasions admitted that the country does have problems and hence he has had to present a cautious Budget.

In this present Budget there has been a call by the hon the State President for no wage and salary increases. There have been no increases in pensions and in fact, in accordance with the income tax proposals, there will be no rebates for dependants and so on. The per capita expenditure on dependants in the non-White community is far less than their White counterparts due to their lifestyle. They have more institutions and higher per capita expenditure. Our lifestyle has taught us to keep our dependants with us and on many occasions I have raised the point that in fact it should be the other way around, namely there should be a higher payment in respect of dependants of people of colour because they keep their dependants—whether they be disabled or aged— at home with them.

When one looks at the discrepancies between the pensions that are being paid at the moment, there is still a big gap. Whites receive R218, Indians R167, and Coloureds and Blacks a different figure.

The same difference of R51 also exists in respect of the blind. At least there is equality in pensions with regard to war veterans. In the case of disability allowances, which are R218 and R162 respectively, there is still a difference of R56. With regards to maintenance, this is the area in which I have raised the question that the situation should, in fact, be reversed in that we should receive a higher maintenance allowance. The Whites receive R218 whilst the maintenance allowance for Indians in this instance is R162. The rate of allowance in respect of children is R42 for the Indians and R66 for the Whites.

I could go on quoting other figures, but let us just take a look at what is causing problems for the hon the Minister, for whom I think we have a great deal of respect due to the way in which he is running this department. I think that is a compliment that we in this House must pay him.

Social reform goes hand in hand with political reform and if he had the ideal situation I guarantee that today he would be producing a budget which this country would be proud of, one in which the per capita expenditure on many items would have been far less. In fact, we would be competing with Third World countries.

I have just been on my third trip overseas, and my second to Taipei. What I admire about that country is the reform that it has brought about so that economically speaking today they have a higher balance of payments and they are, in fact, running at an excess and not at a deficit.

We have spoken here about productivity, but what are the root causes of the lower productivity rate in this country? I do not think we can escape the fact that it is due to our political differences and that as long as these political differences and imbalances exist, we shall have a lower productivity rate in this country than in any other country. Therefore, I believe that economic reform will depend on the extent to which political reform is achieved. The hon the State President made this clear in his speech at the opening of Parliament on 5 February this year.

This being so, I wish to make another point, and that is that in the first instance he said that Africa could not isolate itself from South Africa, just as we do not wish to isolate ourselves from the rest of the continent. South Africa plays an important role in Africa as a whole, and particularly in Southern Africa and that is why he said that we desire co-operation and peaceful co-existence for the sake of improving the standard of living of all concerned. However, we shall have to create the necessary climate to achieve this standard of living for all of us in this country. Therefore, we need to make an appeal to the communities in South Africa.

In this respect I wish to refer to the results of the 1987 election for the House of Assembly and the results of the recent by-election. These have not assisted the reform initiative and some White South Africans are to blame for this. The issue of fear and the need for a common destiny for all South Africans has further divided the White community and further questioned the success of the Government’s initiatives for political reform. Therefore, I want to appeal to White South Africans to heed the warning of the hon the State President, who said that they must either change or be prepared to die. Many hon Ministers in our Cabinet have stated that there is a need for change in South Africa.

The problem in South Africa is not a simple one. We need all the sections of the community to participate in the economic development of South Africa so that this country can survive economically and people’s quality of life can improve and they can be provided for adequately. The White community—and that goes for the Black communities of South Africa also— cannot go it alone in solving the political problems of South Africa. We need everyone in this country, and therefore the White and Black issue is also important. We need each other and the hon the State President will, sooner or later, have to take action in making changes to satisfy the political and social needs of this country, or else our hon Minister will not be able to produce a budget in the future which will provide adequately for the communities. He needs to lead South Africa and not to be led by those who do not want to see changes and do not see the danger that lies ahead for us and the likelihood of the destruction of this country. I think he will sooner or later have to take a lead against his own electorate. South Africans from all sides are relying on the stand for change taken by the hon the State President in 1984. Therefore these changes will have to come about faster.

In conclusion I want to state that no Budget can satisfy all the needs of South Africans in the way we are going. The demands will continue as long as the political problems are not resolved. Outside pressure is equally as important as internal pressures, but internal solutions must come sooner or later for us to be able to survive economically in this country.

I wish to make an appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance. The Budget which he presented this year will not be able to be sustained to the extent that he anticipates, because one cannot keep wage and salary demands and pension increases down for too long. The cost of living is still on the increase and although a call has been made for the freezing of price increases, I know the difficulties in this regard. I come from the private sector myself and by January each year companies have already decided on increases on their products. There is no way one can succeed in this exercise. Therefore we must seriously look at the economic, social and political issues for South Africa to be able to survive in the future.

Mr Chairman, while we welcome the hon the Minister in this House again, his Budget Speech presented in Parliament has been welcomed with mixed feelings from different quarters.

Take him to Tongaat. [Interjections.]

Some feel that under the circumstances it is acceptable, and on the hand it could be better. No doubt the job of the hon the Minister of Finance is not an easy one. It is a very difficult one, because his job is to maintain the sound, balanced financial position of the country and in doing so at times he has to hurt certain quarters to satisfy others, but at no time can he satisfy all the people. That fact we have to accept.

The hon member Laudium, the first speaker this afternoon, gave a review on the Budget Speech and made some vital comments. I would like to endorse those comments this afternoon. Other hon members also spoke on various topics this afternoon. One topic was inflation and I would like to endorse what those who spoke about inflation said. I think that is really the killing point in our Budget.

I would also like to speak a little on insurance, particularly what the hon member for Camperdown said in this regard. I do not know whether the hon the Minister has a phobia about the insurance companies, because in 1984 he became very unpopular—and I think he will recollect this—when he imposed restrictions on the pure endowment investment policy at his famous dinner speech.

This year the insurance companies have been hit again. I do not intend to do an advertising commercial for the insurance companies here but I do want to mention a few facts. I think many people depend on insurance companies. It is a long-term investment, but on the other hand it cannot compare with building societies and banks as such. There is a greater risk factor involved in insurance companies and many people do not take that into consideration.

With the increase in taxation from 40% to 70% the products of the insurance companies will become unattractive. As a result people will steer clear of these policies in so far as both investment and life cover are concerned. There will probably be a longer queue waiting in the social pension line-up. I notice that the hon the Minister is shaking his head. I want to mention that I am merely voicing my own opinion here. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the own affairs of the House of Delegates. I know that our hon Ministers are going to make representations to the hon the Minister of Finance. It is a stated fact that the Indian community—and our forefathers in particular—had to sacrifice a great deal and received their education under very difficult circumstances, especially when they received their education from the missionaries.

In those days they had no representation in Parliament but today we are representing the Indian community. It is so that we have missed out a great deal in education and our children are still missing out on education at the moment. A pre-primary school course is now being introduced in our education system. This course, however, is only being introduced in certain areas, in certain schools and for certain children. This is because of a restriction on finance. I think it is most unfair to deprive certain children of this educational system. It can create animosity between parents and the school principal has a problem as to whom to admit to these classes.

We also find that halls are not available for certain schools. We are often told that these will be created once funds become available. Overcrowding in the classrooms is also blamed on a lack of funds. If this is the case the hon the Minister of Education and Culture should make a plea for extra funds so that we can employ extra teachers to eliminate this problem.

I think everybody will agree with me that our child welfare societies, which receive a subsidy of 75% from the State to run their affairs, are now being used as platforms by extra-parliamentary forces. [Interjections.] Just because of the 25% that the State is not able to provide, communitybased organisations and extra-parliamentary groups are infiltrating these welfare organisations and using them as a platform. I also feel that certain quarters are abusing the funds to such a degree that the people who need the help are suffering. Consideration should be given to the possibility of these welfare organisations being fully controlled by the State. In this way the poor people will receive the services that they should have rightfully received in the first place.

It was stated this afternoon that we are running a budget within a budget. I hope our hon Minister will not be responsible for the phrase that we usually get when we make representations to hon Ministers, namely that projects will only be possible “when funds are available”. I want to make a plea to the hon the Minister to be lenient, considerate, to look at our problems in a sympathetic light and to give us what we need. I did not like a bumper sticker that I once saw. It read: “God gives, Du Plessis takes away.”

Mr Chairman, to continue from where the hon member for Tongaat left off, the hon the Minister of Finance keeps many people in business, including the printers.

It is true that one gets bumper stickers that state, “What God giveth, Barend taketh” and another that states “Alles vir Barend”. I wonder whether this hon Minister is getting any royalties for this because if he does the commission will have to look into the aspect of GST and income tax.

I shall refrain from discussing the details of the Budget presented by the hon the Minister of Finance, not because I find it uninteresting or unimportant, but because we have our specialists on the standing committee who have made an input and I believe they are competent enough to deal with it in detail. Let it suffice to say that the manner in which the media have accepted this Budget leaves me with the impression that it was favourably received.

The hon member Mr Thaver referred to the Police and I, too, would like to comment on this matter of our men and women in blue, the policemen and policewomen, who so unselfishly sacrifice their time and on many occasions their leisure and pleasure to protect us, the taxpayers. We must remember that a police officer, too, is the child of parents who love him or her, that he or she is also the parent of children who need the love and care of parents and also that policemen and policewomen are, in turn, husbands and wives. In short, these officers of the law are human beings like us taxpayers who demand from them security and protection. It is unfortunate that in carrying out their duties these people who are there to enforce the law are labelled as unjust enforcers of the law. They are merely carrying out instructions and that which has to be done to protect John Citizen.

I believe that the hon the Minister should make more money available to the Police Force. We have the unfortunate situation where young men are being transferred to places far away from their homes. They leave behind them their families and are unable to bring their families with them to the places where they are now stationed due to lack of accommodation.

I say this because I am aware of the plight of young men from Durban who are stationed in Actonville in Benoni. I had an incident on Saturday where a policeman who was stationed in Actonville came to me with the request that he too, like me, has a young family and through no fault of his own he cannot find accommodation. It will be said that it is the Group Areas Act that has once again taken its toll, but notwithstanding that fact I believe that more money should be made available to the Police Force and to the Department of Law and Order to provide housing for these young men who are transferred from their homes to towns in the same province or in other provinces.

It is interesting to note that individually, each taxpayer contributes only 16 cents towards the maintenance of our Police Force. For this ridiculous sum of 16 cents we tend to expect something that cannot even be bought for much more money. Here I want to refer to an article that appeared in the Cape Times this morning. I want to quote. It is headed “CP housewife ‘upset’ by officers’ rank”. I would like to quote in detail from this article:

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member Mr Seedat a question. Could the hon member let me know from which country the complainant comes?

Rhodesia.

You have your answer.

To commence again:

It is a cover-up!

It is said that racial prejudice has once again reared its ugly head and, it would appear, has been allowed to triumph at the expense of recognition of the ability of a police officer.

In the article Brig Leon Mellet, in his words, “doubts whether there is a link between Lt Naidoo’s transfer and Mrs Clark’s letter”. In response I will say that it is too much of a coincidence that the transfer of a police officer who served Scottburgh for 10 years takes place after his promotion because of a letter of protest.

The hon the Minister of Finance, as the Minister responsible, finances every department through the allocation of money. I believe it is in the interests of South Africa that this hon Minister make his voice heard, too, so that incidents of this nature do not recur.

Will your party reject the Police budgets after this?

It is not necessary to reject a Police budget. An incident of this nature does not call for the rejection of a Police budget and I think the hon member for Stanger, being a responsible member of this House, should not request an answer to a question of that nature.

Why not?

An aspect that needs the urgent attention of the Government is the retirement age of policemen and policewomen. Considering the number of hours spent and the sacrifices made at the expense of family and self, I ask that the retirement age and qualifications for retirement be reconsidered. As a form of recognition I believe that policemen and policewomen should be given the option of retiring after 30 years of service in the Police Force, irrespective of age. Thirty years after joining the Police Force that person should be allowed to retire.

[Inaudible.]

You give him the option.

After having given up, as I said, time, leisure and pleasure in the process of serving one’s country and protecting one’s fellow-countrymen, these magnificent men in blue deserve to spend the later years of their lives in comfort and leisure. I believe their adrenalin is been pumped enough during the years of service. It is the least society can do in recognition of the service they have rendered.

In conclusion, like everyone else I wish to ask the hon the Minister not to ignore the plight of our pensioners but, even at a later stage in the course of this year, when conditions will probably be more favourable, to grant an increase in social pensions. I do not believe that the pensioners themselves are going to be fussy about a percentage increase, as long as they get something that will make their lives that much easier.

Mr Chairman, tomorrow, at the end of this debate, the hon the Minister of Finance will have ready answers to all the arguments advanced in this House today and tomorrow. I would like to know what answer he will have if I say that apartheid is the cause of inflation in this country.

What about Brazil?

I want to say that inflation is brought about mainly by price increases, and I want to quote the price increase in fuel and the effect it has on the South African economy. Despite the fact that internationally, oil is in a glut situation, we in South Africa are paying a premium simply because of the apartheid policy. It has been said that for every 20 cent increase in the price of fuel, the rate of inflation rises by 1%.

As I have mentioned, there is a glut in the world supply of fuel, but we in South Africa are paying a premium, and this is adding to the increase in the inflation rate.

We are paying a premium price for it.

The reason is apartheid, and because of the system there has been a lot of reaction from the community and the people. We have heard in the past that all the destruction that has taken place in this country as a result of bomb blasts etc has been because the communist want to take over, and that it is due to their actions that we are paying for the increase in inflation in this country. I would not say that all the bomb blasts that have occurred in this country are purely because of the communists wanting to take over South Africa. Many of them have brought the situation home to the Government in view of the system here.

May I ask what effect the withdrawal of foreign investment in this country has had on us? What amount of money that foreign countries would have put into South Africa to fight apartheid has gone down the drain? Would it not have helped the Black community, who are living in Third World conditions, to improve their quality of life? We cannot do this ourselves, and we are not giving the outside world the opportunity to help us fight inflation in this country. I believe that the sooner we destroy this evil apartheid system, the sooner we shall be able to benefit all the people of South Africa.

Our people, and the Black people in particular, are paying a very heavy premium, whilst the Whites are enjoying a fantastic franchised life in this country. They have come to enjoy the benefits of life that we are deprived of. The whole of Africa has come to South Africa. Why have they come here? To benefit from our losses and our sweat?

I have very limited time, but I should like the hon the Minister to answer me at the end of this debate tomorrow. What answer does he have to the contention that apartheid is the cause of inflation in this country? I think it is time that he, as the hon the Minister of Finance in this country, assists and puts pressure on his Government, since I think that the solution lies in the solution that the Government has adopted. We must agree in principle that a system that has been adopted by the NP-Government constitutes a duplication of services. The three Chambers we sit in at the moment represent a duplication of services. We have three different Houses, together with their administrations etc! Who pays for it? The people of the country pay for it!

I think that we have the answer within ourselves. As hon members of this House and as Parliamentarians we must put our heads together and find a reasonable solution with which to fight this dreaded inflation that for far too long has been hanging over our heads.

Mr Chairman, judging from the comments made hitherto in relation to the Budget presented by our hon Minister of Finance, it would seem that it was fairly well received. I would like to add my quota of compliments to him as well. While we want to compliment our colleague for some of the good things that the Budget contains, I would also like to state that I am pleased that a number of weaknesses have been highlighted. I would like to dwell on some of these.

The hon member for Tongaat mentioned that money was not available for Indian education. I would like to tell him that we have made representations at the very highest level for more funds. However, what could the hon the Minister of Finance do, although he holds the pursestrings? He has only one cake to apportion from to meet the demands from various departments. I would like to state that the members of the Ministers’ Council are of the opinion that they have not been found wanting. We have made our demands and under the prevailing circumstances we had to take what was available to us. [Interjections.]

Mention was made of pensioners and I would like to add that I would have been very much happier had they been given a monthly increase in addition to the one-off bonus. They are the most deserving because they earn the least. It is so that the Government has been kind towards them at all times, but with the escalation in food and other prices there was a definite need for them to be considered.

The squatter problem was once again highlighted and it was seen to have come about as a result of the abolition of the influx control. I would like to make an appeal to my colleagues that funds be made available …

Order! Once again I would like to draw the attention of hon members to the fact that we have too many mini-debates taking place within the Chamber. I would like hon members to pay attention to what the speakers are saying. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I was saying that the squatters are becoming quite a problem and this does not only concern one particular race group, for that matter. If funds are made available to enable these people to squat on land in an organised manner where at least some of the amenities are available, they will not be a threat to the lives of the people of our nation at large. Of course, when diseases break out under the circumstances in which the squatters find themselves, these diseases do not affect one race only. They become a national threat. From that point of view I would think that if funds were to be made available to organise such squatting, this would be a very positive step.

Do you agree with organised squatting?

Informal squatting.

Yes, informal housing. There is a new word: Incipient housing.

I would also like to appeal to my colleague to make use of institutions that are lying idle. I say this with the intention that it could be workable within the context of the Group Areas Act as it exists, until it is done away with. Certain institutions could be used for teacher training purposes and I wish to propose that there be a national strategy for teacher training until such time as this problem has been rectified. We are aware of the fact that both the Indian and White communities have enough teachers and can even spare a few for other groups if necessary. However, there are others that are not so fortunate and therefore there is a need for a national strategy.

These empty institutions must be made use of forthwith.

They can edge along.

Well, if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is mentioning Edgewood, I would agree with him that that is one of the institutions in question. However, together with that kind of institution there are various other institutions which are not being economically utilised.

All tertiary education should be open.

As mentioned by my colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture and others, we also want to compliment the hon the Minister on not having had to look for money elsewhere. The financial situation in the country is such that when natural disasters such as the floods and other disasters occurred—when I say other disasters I am including the aeroplane crash near Mauritius—they did not necessitate looking for funds elsewhere. The economy of the country was such that the hon the Minister of Finance was able to find the money within the country without having to approach foreign countries for loans. I think we must compliment the hon the Minister on that.

Mention has been made of the retirement age of teachers and I feel sure that this subject will give various hon Ministers food for thought. I am also hopeful that the hon the Minister will keep this in the back of his mind. It may be possible to allow teachers to retire at the age of 60 and this is a possibility that is now being discussed. Of course, the teachers’ societies are now on the march as far as this is concerned—not only one teachers’ society, but a number of teachers’ societies—and they are threatening to form a union. Their better judgment will guide them as to whether or not that is advisable. [Interjections.] However, I am of the opinion that if the retirement age were to be reduced to 60 we would be able to employ younger, more vibrant and more active people, and as a result there would be greater productivity and an overall benefit for the economy of the country.

My next point may be more insular, but I also want to mention that as far as the Indians are concerned we have a moving population due to the Group Areas Act. Greater consideration should be given to this fact when funds are allocated for education in the future because we cannot contain the moving population. We have to build schools in new growth areas but we cannot carry the old schools over to those areas. Therefore, of necessity, the old school remains, perhaps with empty classrooms, but we have to make a capital investment in the new areas, and for that we require funds. I hope my hon colleague will bear that in mind when we make representations in the future.

Of course in the same breath I want to say, as others have said here this afternoon, that we are very happy about the increased allocations being made in respect of Black education. I think this will have to continue until, as the Government is committed to doing, equality in the provision of education for all groups is brought about within a certain period of time. Until that is achieved more and more allocations will have to be made, not only for Black education but also for Coloured education. In the process I hope that White and Indian education will not be completely forgotten.

I now come to another matter which is rather disturbing in so far as the Indian population is concerned, and I want to mention the following two points. One of these concerns the South African Broadcasting Corporation and the other one deals with historical and cultural research.

For some time I have been knocking at the door as far as the SABC is concerned … [Interjections.] Yes, we have been knocking pretty hard. We want to go on doing that. I again want to appeal to my colleague here to look at the possibility in future, within the economy of the country, of establishing more channels for the SABC, so that Indian culture can be presented in the right light.

I want to read an article which is very disturbing. I quote:

I am inundated with many calls—sometimes not very pleasant ones—asking me what I have done about this. I want to ask my colleague to look into this to see whether funds can be set aside. If this cannot be done within the same channel, another channel can be set aside in the future to provide, not only for us, but, we have been told, for the Portuguese and Greek communities as well. By all means, provide for them all.

Fifty percent of TV1 time is already allocated to you.

You are misinformed as usual.

I have here a little article which states that it is very disturbing that SABC-TV was “this week slammed by Hindu and Muslim cultural leaders who …”

You do not like the man whose face appears on it.

You got 20% or 30% of the time.

May I just continue?

Order!

“ … have accused it of furthering Christianity amongst the country’s tiny Indian community at the expense of their own religions.” I have been told by various people that one knows that this country propagates Christian national education and therefore one will have no voice in asking for anything. However, I do believe there is freedom of religious belief in this country and therefore we go on asking for more facilities. “This angry reaction follows a television broadcast last Sunday of a Christian programme in English and Tamil by a group of Benoni Indians.” [Interjections.] I want to make an appeal as I did earlier that more facilities be made available to us.

The other cultural aspect which I mentioned a little earlier was in connection with a statement made by the hon the Minister of National Education. I will follow this up with him, but I would have liked him to have discussed this with me. It is in connection with an Indian temple rejected by an hon Minister. I quote:

While I do not want to dwell on this, I want to say that I get the impression that this matter has not been fully discussed and we have not been consuited in this regard. A certain Dr Cyril Hromnik claims to have proof that there is some Indian culture in the Nelspruit area and that a certain area should be set aside and not developed for housing until the whole matter is cleared. I am bringing this forward so that my colleague may in the future set aside some funds for such research work so that it may have some financial basis from which to operate. Having said this, I once again …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? I am glad that he referred to the issue of the temple in the Transvaal. May I inquire from the hon the Minister whether he has made any representations through the Ministers’ Council on this particular issue?

No, I have not made direct representations yet to any Cabinet committee but I have started some research. I have asked the town council there to stay the development. I have discussed it with my colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture so that he could also inform the town council that we were interested in this and that until it could be proved to be fruitless to pursue it any further the whole issue should be stayed.

Have they stayed it?

Yes, they have.

Finally I want to say that we do compliment…

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question? Arising from the reply of the hon the Minister of National Education, Mr F W De Klerk, it is clear that he has given them the instruction to go ahead with the housing project there. He gave the Nelspruit Town Council the go-ahead. Is the hon the Minister aware of it?

Yes, I am aware of it and we will take it up with our hon colleague.

May I just compliment my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance again on presenting a very fine Budget.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.