Mr Speaker, I move:

1. (1) That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No 18, the hours of sitting on Wednesday, 30 March, shall be as follows:
   14h15 to 18h30;
   20h00 to 22h30;
2. (2) that the House at its rising on Wednesday, 30 March, adjourn until Monday, 11 April, at 14h15; and
3. (3) that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No 18, the House adjourn on Monday, 18 April, and Tuesday, 19 April, upon its own resolution.

Mr Speaker, perhaps this motion warrants a few points of clarification so that if a debate should ensue, it may be conducted in a meaningful fashion.

With regard to the first paragraph of the motion I want to inform hon members that it is still the plan—precisely due to the fact that in terms of the motion we shall start sitting earlier tomorrow than is normally the case on a Wednesday—to adjourn at 17h00. The motion nevertheless makes provision for us to sit longer if necessary. Therefore, if no unforeseen lengthy debates arise out of tomorrow’s Order Paper, this will naturally not be necessary and we shall be able to adjourn at 17h00 in accordance with our present planning.

I do not think the second paragraph of the motion will elicit any opposition. In my view, therefore, it does not warrant any clarification or motivation. In effect it simply means that we shall adjourn for the duration of the Easter recess.

As far as the third paragraph of the motion is concerned, I should like to inform hon members that a meeting of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders will take place at 08h30 on 12 April, at which, as was undertaken during a previous debate, the Consolidated and Joint Rules of the three Houses will also be discussed. The intention is that the report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, together with the schedule, which will consist of the Consolidated and Joint Rules, will be discussed here in the House as early as Friday, 15 April. That debate will continue on Monday, 18 April, after the hon the Minister of Finance has completed his reply to the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill. After Question Time on Tuesday, 19 April, further time will also be allocated for the discussion of the aforementioned report.

At the same time—if those proposals are accepted and consequential amendments have to be effected to the Constitution—we shall proceed to deal with the report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders during the period between Friday, 15 April and Tuesday, 19 April. That discussion will hopefully be completed on Tuesday, 19 April.

The reason why we are moving this motion at this early stage and informing hon members in this manner that we shall be adhering to extraordinary hours of sitting during that period is to make it possible to do effective planning and scheduling of the Votes which are to be discussed then. Consequently there are no sinister ulterior motives involved here. However, planning would become an impossibility if one were not able to begin with this as from a certain date. This will, of course, be the case if the report in question, that of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, and the schedule to it are accepted. It is in any event necessary for absolute clarity to be obtained at the earliest possible time to enable the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament to do proper planning in all three Houses and also, if joint sittings are to take place, to plan accordingly.

I thought it necessary to provide this brief explanation so that hon members may know exactly what is involved, all the more so in view of the guesses that have been made, some of which were fairly accurate.

Mr Speaker, the first point I want to raise, is that I think the hon the Minister could have moved this motion in the form of three separate motions so that whilst discussing the first two paragraphs, with which we naturally agree, it would not have been necessary to link them to the third paragraph. I think it would have been far more orderly if the motion under discussion had consisted of three separate motions. However, I shall leave it at that. They are concerned with a question of procedure.

We on this side of the House do not have any problems with paragraphs (1) and (2) of the motion either. What is important to us is the departure from the Rules, for which provision is made in paragraph (3) of the motion.

We on this side of the House believe that it is a point of departure that the Rules ought to be deviated from only in exceptional cases and whenever there is good motivation for this, for example an urgent need to finalise business, as is sometimes the case at the end of a session. Deviations may also be made whenever very important legislation has to be piloted through for one reason or another.

With all due respect for the hon the leader of the House I say that we do not think the reasons he advanced hold good. They do not comply with one of the requirements which we consider to be valid.

The hon the leader of the House indicated that there was an urgent need to get joint sittings and debates started during the present year. We really cannot see why it is so vitally important at this stage that there should be joint sittings this year, especially in the middle of a session of Parliament in which the Second Reading debate on the Budget will be held separately.

Why should the debate on the Second Reading of the Budget be held separately and the discussion of the Committee Stage and—I take it that this will be a logical consequence—the Third Reading be held in a joint sitting? The Bill will therefore be discussed partly according to one system, after which another system will be implemented, a system for which, according to the predictions of the hon the leader of the House himself, consequential constitutional amendments will be required.

We say this is being done in an absolutely rash, hasty and precipitate way and we are not happy about it. We also believe it is unworthy of an institution such as the House of Assembly. As far as we are concerned, there is no urgency or pressing need, as the Government claims.

These Rules were debated last year as well, but at that time the Rules came to nothing because the House of Representatives, who hold the balance of power, the censors, the monitors in this tricameral system …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I have read through the hon the leader of the House’s motion two or three times while the hon member for Soutpansberg was speaking. With all due respect, I altogether fail to see how, in the discussion of this motion, the hon member can argue about joint debates, the content of debates and the necessity for joint debates to take place. I respectfully submit that the hon member is taking the discussion of the motion a little too far.

Order! The Chair will decide on that. The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

As you please, Mr Speaker.

As I said, the House of Representatives, who at this stage of this dispensation are the sensors, the monitors …

Order! The hon member must confine himself to the motion before the House. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the motion before the House entails the suspension of the Rules in order to debate certain draft rules. I am confining myself to the motivation of the hon the leader of the House. I say that one should advance good reasons when one wishes to suspend a Rule. I am indicating in my preamble that the hon the leader of the House did not give any motivation for this. I should like to add that I now have to search for the motivation behind this.

Order! The hon member may continue his search during the discussion that is to follow on Monday, 18 April, or perhaps even before that date, but for now he must confine himself to the motion.

Mr Speaker, I shall confine myself to the provisions of the motion. The Government was unable to have these proposals passed last year as a result of the refusal…

Which proposals?

I am speaking about the proposed new rules. [Interjections.] Sir, I think that hon member whom you have just put on his place, should rather keep his nose out of this type of thing because all he knows how to do is scream and perform. We are aware of his symptoms.

Linked to the problem the Government had concerning the acceptance of the Rules with regard to joint sittings, there was the demand by the House of Representatives that they would not agree to it unless the Government also accepted joint decision-making …

The hon member is now digressing too far from the subject of the motion. He must come back to it, particularly to paragraph (3), which he is debating.

Mr Speaker, I am only debating paragraph (3).

The other problem is similar to the problems which the Government had last year. I request you to permit me to refer to it because the next point I shall raise will deal with this.

The fact is that the Government wants to have the general election postponed. [Interjections.] A general election must only be held in 1992 instead of 1989. [Interjections.] I am about to give you my reasons for saying this, Sir.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member must really give his reasons immediately, otherwise he cannot proceed in this fashion.

I accept that the hon the Minister is not going to disclose his real reason, namely that the Government has now reached an agreement with the House of Representatives in regard to the Rules as such …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to submit with great respect that the hon member for Soutpansberg is now attempting in a very adroit manner to circumvent the ruling you have just given. After you had given your ruling—it was a correct ruling and we respect it—he said that the Government’s aim was to postpone an election. Then, after you had called him to order, he began to embroider upon that statement in his argument.

Order! As I said earlier, the Chair will decide about that. I am listening attentively to the hon member for Soutpansberg and I shall determine what is in order. The hon member for Soutpansberg may continue.

I just want to say I think the hon member for Innesdal should make an effort not to interfere in the actions of the Chair. [Interjections.] As far as the motivations of the Government and the hon the leader of the House are concerned, there is not really any motivation. That is why I am inclined to accept that in the first place an agreement has been reached with the House of Representatives in regard to this matter. The hon the leader of the House should have taken the House into his confidence and told us what agreement he had reached with the other Houses and that for certain reasons he was in a hurry to have his motion passed. However, the hon the leader of the House did not do so.

Therefore, I now want to ask the hon the leader of the House whether his reasons for this are—as is being rumoured here—firstly that a package deal was negotiated with the House of Representatives in terms of which they have now agreed to joint sittings, and secondly whether the postponement of the general election also forms a part of that package. Then I should also like to know from the hon the Minister: At what price? [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow the hon member to make a political speech on this matter. He must confine himself to the motion.

Our standpoint is quite simply that the debating of these new rules is not as urgent as the hon the Minister maintains. It could have been done in the normal course of this session. [Interjections.] We could quite simply have begun to discuss it on the Friday as the hon the Minister has said, or on the Monday, and the debate could have been carried through to its conclusion. [Interjections.] Why is there all this tremendous urgency? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has not given us the reasons for this. I want to conclude by saying that what we have here is a case of the Government being panickstricken at what is going on in the country.

Even if the hon the State President does postpone the general election and even if it does form a part of this package, it will not help him.

Order! This motion has nothing whatsoever to do with the general election. The hon member must confine himself to the motion.

He must read the motion!

I want to tell the hon member that I did read the motion, because I can read and I am compos mentis enough to know what is stated here.

You do not understand what is stated there!

We shall oppose this motion by the hon the leader of the House, as we are entitled to do, quite simply because we believe that it represents a distortion of parliamentary procedure and that it displays contempt for parliamentary procedure to try to change the Rules in such a high-handed fashion. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, like the Official Opposition we will also be opposing the third leg of this motion. [Interjections.] For the benefit of the hon member for Innesdal, this leg of the motion proposes that the House adjourn on Monday, 18 April, and Tuesday, 19 April, upon its own resolution.

In the first place, it appears that certain members of the Press know a lot more about this than we, the members of Parliament, do. A story appeared in Die Burger this morning, which leads me to believe that there has been some leakage of information.

In The Argus too!

My speculation is that the leak of information is more likely to have come from the Government side than from the opposition side who, after all, knew very little about the motion.

An hon member on the lefthand side has just interjected that The Argus carried the story too. Has he considered that it is possible that as The Argus is an afternoon paper they would have got the story from Die Burger this morning and be following up on it? That hon member is, as usual, not talking too much sense. [Interjections.]

We have a situation here where we are being asked to do something notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No 18. The rules of this Parliament, of which Standing Order No 18 is a part, have been well considered and are the result of the deliberations of a very important committee of this Parliament, and they have been built up over a number of years for a variety of reasons.

Therefore, every time a standing order has to be put aside, the opposition needs to beware, because these changes are pushed through, not as consensus measures, but as the direct result of the voting power of the governing party in this House.

Majority rule!

Every time a standing order like this is put aside, it is a reduction of the democracy in this Parliament. It overrides the opposition and what they wish to do and gives the Government certain powers.

What about protecting minority rights?

What this resolution actually means when it states that the House shall adjourn upon its own resolution, is that the House shall adjourn upon the resolution of the hon the State President, the hon the Leader of the House or the hon the Minister who is controlling the debate who will probably be the hon the Leader of the House. Only when he says we can adjourn will this House adjourn.

All his supporters in this House will obviously vote with him and obey his instructions. That is what we are saying; not that the House will adjourn as a consensus measure, but that it will adjourn when the hon the Leader of the House in his own good sweet time will allow it to adjourn.

What is the reason for this? The reason given by the hon the Leader of the House is that he wishes to dispense with the debate on the alteration of the Joint Rules and Orders of this House in order to bring about, as we understand, more joint debates.

We know this is a contentious matter. It has already been rejected by one House in the past, and one can only speculate as to how that House is going to behave in the future, but Die Burger seems to have more knowledge of that than most.

We therefore believe that actually to have to go on debating this particular motion—as I understand will be the situation—when it comes to this House on Monday the 18th—and possibly until midnight—is a means whereby the Government is using its power to dispense with the opposition and their arguments. [Interjections.] They are going to pass it, willy-nilly. They are going to steamroller it over everybody, and they are going to do it on Monday the 18th until probably just before twelve o’clock, and if necessary, on Tuesday the 19th. [Interjections.]

Why are we told they are going to do this? We are told they are going to do this because they want to have a proper programme for the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill. I can understand that it is very difficult to organise that particular committee stage properly, because it is an absolute and total mess like, I submit, this tricameral Parliament. Every hon Minister has to debate his general affairs Budget Vote three times. No wonder the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has an enormous job trying to decide what Vote is discussed when in which House. I do not envy him his job; I feel very sorry for him.

That is why he looks so old and tired!

Yes. The workload that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is having to carry is aging him visibly before our eyes. [Interjections.]

I believe that this motion should not be passed. I also believe that to have to deal with Committee Stage Votes in three Houses is quite frankly ridiculous. We should have total joint debates and joint voting in this Parliament.

For all these reasons I have given we shall be opposing the motion, specifically because of paragraph (3).

Mr Chairman, basically the hon member for Soutpansberg mentioned five points which I should like to take up with him. Firstly, he said that the rules should only be deviated from in highly exceptional cases. I think the adoption of a new set of rules for this House is a very exceptional occasion. I think it is a very important matter.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House why we debated this same set of rules last year in the absence of a motion like this one?

Mr Chairman, that is so, but at that stage it was not necessary to have a commencement date for proper planning, for the benefit of all hon members in this House, with regard to which Vote would be discussed and when. Does the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition want to tell me that his members do not want to know which Votes will be discussed and when? [Interjections.]

This is an accommodating motion. First of all we know that both the Official Opposition and the PFP are opposed to it for reasons of their own. We are now providing ample opportunity for a lengthy debate. They themselves are in control of it. If they do not wish to work beyond the hours of sitting prescribed by the rules, they may come to an agreement with us to limit the length of the debate. However, we are saying right now that we shall be prepared—we are making provision for it—to allow an even longer debate in order to afford them an adequate opportunity to advance all their arguments. Instead of supporting this they are arguing with us about it. [Interjections.]

We are seeking an agreement. We should like to limit the time for discussion so that we need not in fact deviate from the normal hours of sitting on that day. They may feel free to come forward at the next Whips’ meeting with suggestions as to how we may limit the length of the debate so as to adhere to the normal hours of sitting. However, we are prepared to sit beyond the normal hours of sitting, and we are now asking for a decision to be made making it possible to do so, precisely in order to afford those hon members an opportunity to argue about this so that they will not be able to say, as the hon the Chief Whip of the PFP has done, that we want to steamroller it through. That is exactly the opposite of what we have in mind.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House a question?

Just let me finish, then I shall answer the hon member’s question.

Secondly, the hon member for Soutpansberg asked why we should first discuss the Second Reading separately and then discuss other stages at a joint sitting. We may not discuss the contents of the joint rules now, but I feel quite sure that he will recall that no provision has been made at all for every subsequent debate to be a joint debate. Only some debates will take place at a joint sitting and negotiations will be held with the Whips regarding this process. It is therefore an integral part of the projected plan that some debates will still take place under the present rules whilst some other debates will take place at joint sittings.

Thirdly, the hon member tried once again, before Mr Speaker prevented him from doing so, to substantiate his assertion that the House of Representatives controlled the system. What will happen in terms of this motion is that a decision which this House has taken will be implemented. Is the hon member opposed to giving effect to decisions of this House?

No.

That is the crux of the matter. Consequently, this is conclusive evidence of the folly of his argument that the House of Representatives is in complete control of this system.

Fourthly, the hon member tried to find something sinister in an alleged package deal that had been negotiated with the House of Representatives. My reply to him is that there is no package deal. These rules and those topics that will be discussed, as well as whatever flows from those discussions in relation to the Constitution, have nothing to do with an election.

Fifthly, he asked what was so urgent about it. I think I have already answered that question by saying that in the interests of the orderly flow of the business of Parliament and of this House we want to begin with the discussion of Votes on Wednesday, 20 April. We want to allow ample time in advance so that we can proceed with the business of Parliament on the 20th, under whatever rules are decided on by Parliament.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was almost as suspicious as the hon member for Soutpansberg. I just want to give him the assurance that to the best of my knowledge the newspaper made an intelligent guess. I want to ask him whether he seriously wishes to state that he did not guess the reason for the third part of the motion? Surely he guessed it.

I was told about it by you.

That is right. [Interjections.] I cannot recall whether the hon member was there during our discussion on Thursday. I know the hon member for Sandton was there. They immediately knew what it was about. Experienced newspapermen who have served longer in the Press Gallery than the hon member has served in Parliament have as good a nose as any hon member sitting in this House when they see a motion like this.

I want to repeat that we also tried to reach an agreement with regard to the length of such a debate. However, although we could not reach such an agreement, we are willing and able to enter into negotiations with the hon Whips on the other side to limit the debate if they so require. On the other hand we are fully prepared to have a longer debate, and we are providing time for such a longer debate with this motion.

The hon the Leader of the House said: “Daar sal ruim tyd wees vir die bespreking hiervan”. I should like to ask him a couple of questions. When are we even going to receive notice, or some indication, of what these new rules are? The House is adjourning tomorrow, and it will not meet again until the 11th, and nobody on the opposition side has any idea of what these rules are going to be all about.

*I want to ask him how he can say that there will be ample time for discussion when we have not yet had an opportunity to examine the rules themselves. Secondly, should they not be referred back to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders before coming to this House?

The hon member was not in the House when I said that.

When will the committee be sitting?

The hon member for Sea Point was not in the House when I said that at the beginning of my speech.

During that week, because that is the week of the Appropriation debate. The report will therefore be steamrollered through the committee so that it will at least be able to report to this House by 18 April. However, we have not yet examined these rules and consequently there has not been “ample time” for discussion and consideration.

The agenda and the documentation concerned will be circulated this afternoon. Those hon members who serve on the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders will receive it this afternoon.

Secondly, the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders will sit at 08h30 on 12 April and if necessary it may be continued with on 13 April. The discussion of the report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders will begin on Friday, 15 April, and will run over to Monday, 18 April and Tuesday, 19 April if necessary. That is the ample time to which I referred.

So it is being steamrollered.

There is no reason why it should be steamrollered. The hon member for Sea Point will also know that these matters were discussed fully in the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders on previous occasions and that what we are dealing with here is primarily a consolidation of the rules of the Houses and some possible consequential amendments which may well evoke discussion. We shall therefore be covering the same ground for a second time and for that reason no one will be able to say that he was unprepared. No one will be able to say that he does not know what it is all about, because we have previously held debates lasting many hours on this subject in the House. The hon member need only read Hansard if he wishes to be reminded of how he felt about the matter then. It has all been recorded for him if he wants to refresh his memory.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—97: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Brazelie, J A; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Cunningham, J H; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, P T C; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, P G W; Hardingham, R W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

Tellers: Golden, S G A; Jordaan, A L; Kritzinger, W T; Meyer, W D; Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—22: Andrew, K M; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Hulley, R R; Langley, T; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Uys, C; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make two references to last year’s debate because it is a good thing, in the first place, to remind hon members of the NP of their past statements and because, secondly, it is necessary to do so for the sake of their political consciences and for record purposes.

Last year, during the discussion of this Vote, I requested the establishment of an advisory committee for the whole Doringdraai Dam catchment area, over and above an advisory committee such as the one that already exists for the Sterk River State Water Scheme. I argued that all the interested parties should have a voice on such a committee, and because one would then have good representation, the result of such a committee’s deliberations would normally be a carefully considered and well-balanced submission to the department.

Then, however, the hon the Deputy Minister came along, in the course of the debate—he spoke after I had spoken—and brushed my request aside. Firstly he intimated that it was not legally possible to establish such an additional advisory committee and, secondly, that there was nothing to prevent the relevant farmers from establishing an irrigation board. I am now referring to Hansard: House of Assembly, 1987, col 4663.

The statement I am now making is that the hon the Deputy Minister was wrong when he said that and, as in the case of the notice in terms of section 9A of the Water Act, that he wrongly and unfairly criticised me. He did not take off his political blinkers when we discussed the merits of the case and he had to form a judgment, because in a letter I dictated several days before that debate, but which was only typed and dated the following day, 27 August, I made a similar request to the hon the Deputy Minister. He replied to me stating, and I quote from his letter of 6 November 1987.

Die uiteenlopende reaksies en terugvoering wat die Departement van Waterwese van eienaars en instansies in die Doringdraai-opvanggebied-staatswaterbeheergebied ten opsigte van die beheermaatreëls ontvang, wys weer eens op die groot behoefte wat bestaan dat ’n adviserende komitee vir die hele gebied saamgestel word. Hierdie komitee kan dan as mondstuk dien van al die verskillende instansies, en voorstelle maak met betrekking tot beheermaatreëls en talle ander tersaaklike besproeiingsaangeleenthede. Die departement se streekkantoor in Transvaal het reeds die wiele aan die rol gesit vir die instelling van so ’n adviserende komitee. Ek is oortuig dat die instelling van ’n adviserende komitee vir die Doringdraaidam-opvanggebied die nodige samewerking en onderlinge vertroue tussen die boerderygemeenskap en die Departement van Waterwese sal bevorder en verseker.

Mr Chairman, that was the very suggestion we made, and that was the exact motivation we gave. One can therefore ask a valid question: What kind of game is this Government playing with the Official Opposition?

When we talk politics the Government complains that we are politicising sensitive issues. When we discuss vital agricultural and water issues, or farm schools—we spoke about that the other day, and will be returning to that subject in a later debate—the Government tries to present us in a ridiculous light, accusing us of misrepresentations. [Interjections.] Month in and month out, session upon session, year in and year out we shall unmask and oppose the efforts of hon members on the opposite side of the House who speak after we have spoken merely to present a distorted picture of the facts and to have incorrect facts placed on record, and we shall do so to put the record straight. [Interjections.] When the Government plays games such as these, not only is it bankrupt as far as political policy is concerned, but it is also furnishing proof of what we have been saying for a long time now, and that is that the administration of the country is deteriorating drastically. [Interjections.] It is high time this Government was replaced by a CP Government. [Interjections.]

In the light of new insights gained by the hon the Deputy Minister after last year’s debate, I now want to repeat the request I made to him at the time, ie that this kind of advisory committee be appointed on a more general basis throughout the country, in various catchment areas in which the same problem is being encountered. We are asking the department to initiate and market the idea. We should also like to know whether such efforts have been made and, if so, what progress there has been..

I should also like to refer to what the hon nominated member Dr Golden said in the same debate last year. I quote him (Hansard, 1987, col 4577):

We should like to know from the Government what its comment on this is. After all, the hon member Dr Golden is one of the State President’s blue-eyed boys, and nothing he says is therefore as unimportant as it sometimes sounds. We know that the Government has replaced a White Government with a subservient so-called White own affairs administration, bowed down by the restrictions of the multi-racial Cabinet because of the restrictions which that Cabinet imposes on that administration. Nor would it surprise us at all if the standards of water supply to Whites—as is the case in other spheres—have to be lowered. Nevertheless it remains a drastic statement to make—the statement the hon member Dr Golden made last year—and we should like to know whether, in fact, it is true that in the foreseeable future it is not going to be possible to establish any further irrigation schemes. Or must we simply accept statements of this kind as being part of post-apartheid South Africa, which the NP is trying to create for us?

It is important for us, for the White farmers and potential White farmers in this country, to know precisely how little the Government cares for the purposeful expansion of agriculture and water supply, specifically as far as the Whites are concerned.

Last year the hon the Deputy Minister again tried to exaggerate the water supply component in order to create the impression that White own affairs were being augmented. We then pointed out that less than half a page of the department’s annual report for 1985-86 was devoted to water supply. It was, of course, a vain hope on our part that the situation would improve this year, because the 1986-87 report, which we received less than three hours before the commencement of the debate yesterday afternoon, again devoted only half a page to water supply. Expressed as a percentage, this is perhaps an indication of what this Government thinks of its own concoction— so-called White own affairs. Expressed as a percentage, it is 0,007% of the report.

In any case, the statement on page 52 of the report, ie that 26 State water schemes, with a total scheduled area of 74 800 ha, fall under White own affairs, is a doubtful statement. The whole truth, however, we find in the very next sentence, on the same page of the same report.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not know whether I have counted correctly, but I do not believe we have a quorum. [Interjections.]

Order! I ask the Secretary to ascertain whether there is a quorum.

Quorum:

The attention of the presiding officer having been called to the absence of a quorum, the division bells were rung.

A quorum being present, debate resumed.

Mr Chairman, it is a pity that there was doubt about a quorum being present. As far as I know, that is determined by hon members on the opposite side of the Committee. The time involved in the quorum issue will probably be deducted from the time I have left to speak.

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

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip, but it is nevertheless interesting to note that hon members opposite laughed when my time had expired, because hon members opposite do not want the CP’s voice to be heard, not in this Chamber, not on television, not on radio and not in the newspapers of South Africa.

The truth about the allegation that those schemes, which are so highly thought of, are a confirmation of the own affairs concept, lies in the very next sentence of the report: “They are run on an agency basis by the Department of Water Affairs.” Consequently, the general integration department, the Department of Water Affairs, under the control of the multiracial Cabinet, also has these schemes in its grip.

This so-called own affairs Department of Agriculture and Water Supply is not a full-fledged Government department. Its head is not a full-fledged department head. With all the regard we have for the dedication and thorough work done by the officials in the positions concerned, the fact remains that Dr Heyns is only a superintendent-general of a division of the Administration: House of Assembly, and not a director-general of a full-fledged Government department. In its turn the Administration: House of Assembly is only one of many Government departments. There is only one department for White own affairs in the overall governmental system.

We shall continue to take the Government to task for having undermined vested White rights and for having deprived the Whites of those rights, because in their own country the Whites do not want to be doomed to subservient and inferior positions. This matter will have to be rectified in the near future by regaining our freedom and, once more, having full-fledged White Government departments and our own White Government in our own fatherland.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to react to a few aspects which the hon member for Potgietersrus raised here. I think the hon the Deputy Minister of Water Supply will also reply further. Ninety-five per cent of agricultural activities are in the hands of White agriculture and are dealt with by the Administration: House of Assembly and this department. The hon member may try to belittle that in whatever way he likes, but they are fully controlled by us, and in such a way as to be of benefit to all the farmers of this country. We cannot get away from that. In whatever way the hon member would like to clothe that aspect, he cannot get away from that fact.

I also want to make a few remarks about the hon member for Soutpansberg’s speech. Firstly I want to thank him for the appreciation he expressed to the Directorate: Financial Assistance. It is with appreciation that I take note of that fact, and I hope this will also inspire the officials to greater service.

Secondly, I want to react to the statement about the scheme for grain-farmers which has just been announced. It is said that this scheme will result in grain-farmers being benefited at the expense of stock-farmers because the input subsidies that grain-farmers can receive actually place them in a better position. About this I merely want to make one point, and that is that we should not play farmers who are in need off against one another when it comes to schemes which are available to them. Each time there is a problem, we have to put things in perspective.

I did not do that at all. I asked you …

Order!

The opposite is in fact true, because in the past there have been large-scale input subsidies for stock-farmers. Monthly cash payments were made in respect of incentives and stock-fodder purchases, which were subsidised by 50%. That was not a trifling amount either. In the 1987-88 financial year it totalled R46 million, and in the period 1981-87, an amount of R316 million. So there was a scheme for stock-farmers.

Thirdly, I want to point out to the hon member, in connection with the area alongside the Limpopo which he wants to have declared a disaster area, that we are looking into that. We have a procedure for evaluating the situation. Assistance is basically twofold; there is recovery aid and then claims for damage suffered as a result of the disaster. Even if an area is not declared a disaster area, in terms of the Conservation of Agriculture Resources Act, people there are still entitled to assistance for the reparation of damages suffered. It is therefore a question of a subsidy of 50% or 75% when the area is declared a disaster area. This distinction exists because if we summarily declared an area a disaster area under any circumstances, in virtually all cases this would have some effect on the country. If there is any merit in a request, we shall declare an area a disaster area. We merely make sure, but we are not insensitive as far as that is concerned.

Fourthly, in the Soutpansberg area and other areas crop-production loans and debt consolidation are available to farmers on a large scale. That is not being done away with. Debt consolidation, and particularly crop-production loans, are available under very favourable conditions, but we still have to make fairly certain that farmers have had crop-failures owing to reasons beyond their control and that the co-operatives can offer the farmers no further assistance. A negative means test—this is very important—is also applied to the farmer in the sense that by his own calculations he must not be insolvent.

I also want to mention a further aspect in regard to what the hon member called my prowling around in the Soutpansberg constitution. I can understand why the hon member is fairly upset about that, because what I do when I go there— I shall do so again, and we can discuss it at a later stage—is to tell farmers what assistance is available to them. I have checked up on what assistance is available, and I quickly want to tell the hon member about that, because his farmers apparently do not know about this. I do not know why they are unaware of it, because in the other constituencies they are informed of these facts. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the schemes that are available. There are schemes for the purchasing of agricultural land at an interest rate of 4%; for the consolidation of debt, at an interest rate of 4%, a maximum of R500 000 and repayment over 15 to 20 years; for settlement proposals, with a maximum loan of R500 000 and an interest rate of 4%, with repayment over 20 plus two years; for the purchasing of livestock, at an interest rate of 4%, with repayment over five to 10 years; for cropproductions means—this is the fifth scheme available—with a maximum loan of R75 000 at an interest rate of 4%; for housing for farm labourers, with a maximum of four dwellings and repayment over 20 years; for the erection of water works, with a loan granted on merit at an interest rate of 4%; for boreholes, with a maximum of four attempts, at an interest rate of 4%; and for the erection of soil conservation works—this is the ninth scheme—with a loan at an interest rate of 4%. The tenth scheme provides a territorial allowance, the eleventh, one for safeguarding the inhabitants and the twelfth, interest subsidisation at 4%.

[Inaudible.]

In other words, we have schemes available. If the hon member for Soutpansberg so desires, and if he would arrange a meeting for me under the auspices of the SA Agricultural Union, I would come along and tell the farmers of the Soutpansberg area about them.

I have already …

Apparently they do not know this, however.

Then there is a last point. A great deal has been said in this debate about our hon Minister, and I want to state here that a prophet is not always appreciated in his own country. It is interesting that people outside agriculture react positively to the hon the Minister, but that hon members in this Committee make malicious personal attacks on him. [Interjections.] As someone who is close to the hon the Minister and who works with him, may I also make an assessment? Perhaps I am in a better position to judge the qualities of this hon Minister which are coming under fire. Co-operating here as we do, I have come to know the hon the Minister as someone who knows agriculture, a man whose roots lie in organised agriculture. He knows farming because he is a large-scale farmer. He knows the co-operatives because for a long time he was chairman of a co-operative. He knows politics, and he sticks to his political opinions, even though certain people give him the cold shoulder for doing so.

And he loses the election!

But he sticks to his opinion! That is a great deal more than other people can say. [Interjections.]

Order!

At least he is not two-faced. [Interjections.]

Order!

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

He is a man who spends his nights wrestling with problems in order to find solutions. Often when we have reached a stalemate, he arrives the next day bursting with plans and inspires us once more. With banks and other bodies he negotiates benefits for agriculture. The agricultural sector is going through difficult times, having experienced the most difficult of times since 1981. Through all the problems he has charted a course for agriculture, and I think that this hon Minister will ultimately be known as one of the greatest Ministers of Agriculture we have ever had.

Mr Chairman, I am not certain, but I think I detected a blush on the face of the hon the Minister when the hon the Deputy Minister heaped praise on his head. [Interjections.] It might just be an agricultural complexion like mine, but there certainly seemed to be slightly more rose to his cheeks than I have seen before.

It seems to me that it is impossible for the hon the Deputy Minister to please the hon member for Soutpansberg, because if he did not go to Soutpansberg, he would be in trouble for not doing his job, and when he did, he was interfering in the affairs of Soutpansberg.

I want to raise a matter we discussed very briefly yesterday, namely the question of loans to farmers for the erection of dwellings for their labourers. I want to draw attention to a particular problem that exists as a result of the devastating drought of the past few years, and the consequent deterioration of the farmers’ economic situation. It is one of the many side effects that I wish to discuss.

On the majority of our farms today, labouring work and, to a certain extent, skilled work, is carried out by Black people who actually live on the farm where they work. Many of these workers have lived on the farm where they work all their lives, and many of them come from families that have lived on those farms for generations.

They have been and still are a very important part of the South African agricultural scene. These farm workers have no right of ownership. They live on the farms because the farmer gives them permission to do so, but they have no security of tenure at all. They have no rights of occupation.

Due to the economic plight of many farmers, Black families have been forced off land that they have inhabited for generations, and many thousands of them have no place to go. They have been forced to move to town and they have joined squatter communities because the urban situation offers them some chance of making a living, whereas there is nothing more for them in the country. Many of these displaced farm workers have been in a desperate situation and are still in a desperate situation.

There is an interesting historical parallel for this situation. At the time of the infamous Highland clearances in Scotland in the last century, Scottish crofters whose families had lived on the land for centuries, were evicted because landlords decided that sheep were more profitable than human beings. They too had nowhere to go and the dreadful results and the suffering that ensued are a matter of historical record. Many died of starvation and many went through considerable difficulties before they were able to establish a new life, many of them in other countries because they were forced to emigrate. Some of my forefathers had to go through that.

My plea today is that any plan directed towards the restructuring of agriculture should give consideration to the plight of these unfortunate people. The only skills they have are skills related to agricultural pursuits. I believe that when financial aid is given by the State to the farming community, one of the conditions of the loan should be that the farmer retain as much labour on the land as is economically feasible. Regrettably one cannot keep people on the land when there is just no economic hope of their making a contribution at all. If it is economically feasible, however, we would like to see these people kept on the land, if possible.

Exactly how this could be worked out would depend on individual cases, but I think that the realisation must always be there that chasing people off the land creates for the State further expensive problems which have no easy solution either. I must add that the bitterness of many of these people is extreme and very understandable. The feeling that they have that the whole system of landownership and land tenure in this country is unfair and should be changed persists and has added to the political problems we are experiencing at present.

I believe that the State has both a problem and a responsibility in this whole matter which could well be addressed by trying to keep these people on the land doing the job that they know best, and I must ask the hon the Minister to give the matter consideration. I know it is a tremendous problem, but I think one should always bear this in mind when one talks about restructuring agriculture.

There is another matter which I would like to explore further and that is the question of the use of potentially dangerous herbicides and pesticides—a matter which I raised last year. The hon the Minister was kind enough to reply further to the debate in a letter he addressed to me in November of last year in which he outlined the position. I thank him for that letter, but regrettably I find that the answers contained therein show a somewhat unsatisfactory situation in relation to the group of chemicals connected to “Agent Orange”, which was used by the United States armed forces during the Vietnam War.

The hon the Minister added in his letter to me that as a result of the tabling of a code of conduct in relation to pesticide residues issued by the World Health Organisation Codex Alimentorius Committee the department had referred details to the various Government departments concerned in order that they could deal with the possible “offenders” using this sort of herbicide.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that this goes far enough, and I think the action taken is inadequate. It is not necessarily the department’s responsibility to do this. I was very interested in a report in The Sunday Tribune of 7 February of this year which claimed that because of the growing alarm about vegetable losses in Natal, the Free State and the Eastern Transvaal, in the region of R350 000 had already been spent on special research “conducted under wraps in Pretoria”; in other words, in secret. The report adds that the official findings on this research are being kept firmly hidden. It adds that the Department of Agriculture is taking 2,4—D research “more seriously than any other research project before it”.

I think the hon the Minister must tell us what is going on. It appears that there has been damage to vegetables in areas as far afield as Weenen, Winterton, Pongola and the Tala Valley, they say. In his letter to me the hon the Minister made it clear that all formulations of 2,4—D registered in terms of the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act of 1947 contained TCDD concentrations below the 0,05 mg/kg detectable limit, which appears to be a safe limit. TCDD occurs as an impurity in the manufacture of 2,4—D and is generally accepted as the dangerous element contained in “Agent Orange”.

I should like to know whether this research has actually taken place. Have the results of this research been made known and, if not, why not? It is very disquieting when a newspaper can say that research which has been conducted as a matter of priority is being kept secret from the people concerned.

I think I should say that I have obtained a number of papers published in the United States and elsewhere concerning the toxicology of the chlorinated dibenzodioxins, the dangerous element of “Agent Orange”, and it appears that possible danger to human beings as well as possible permanent damage to the ecology is certainly not proven and seems to be extremely unlikely. It is not proven in either direction yet. We saw a lot of newspaper reports of malformed babies as a result of this. This appears to be untrue and everything I have read in the publications that I have had from the United States indicates that it is certainly not proven and very unlikely. Certainly, though, the level of public protest about the vegetables, and particularly the protest from the Fresh Produce Growers’ Association, suggests that the hon the Minister should make a statement on this matter.

I would like to add that I still believe that chemical companies in South Africa are manufacturing “Agent Orange” type defoliants and that these are being used by certain Government agencies, particularly the Department of Forestry, and possibly a great number of them outside our borders. I find it difficult to accept the hon the Minister’s contention in his letter to me that the quantities of this substance available in South Africa are well-nigh exhausted. It seems to me there is a source of supply somewhere in South Africa and that this supply is being made use of by various persons and/or bodies. We would like to know what the present situation is and whether the hon the Minister does not believe that further controls over and restrictions on the manufacture of these substances have become necessary.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston must please excuse me if I do not react to what he said in his speech, because he specifically put certain questions to the hon the Minister.

If I may say a few words about supporting farmers in their ability to subsist by effective water supply, I hope I shall do so in a more positive spirit than did the hon member for Potgietersrus. I want to tell that hon member that he ought to be ashamed of having made such statements about our hon Ministers who administer water affairs in these departments. When he makes such statements I really think he is sick.

Your system is sick.

It is ironical that when we are speaking about droughts or floods, water remains the central theme. Water is essential to all life, and since in the major parts of South Africa water is a resource which is in short supply, with various consumer groups competing for the conservation, management and employment of that resource, it is a vital one. This is emphasised by this publication which I have here in my hand and which is published by the Department of Water Affairs. I would advise the hon member for Potgietersrus to study this book—then he would not talk such nonsense in this Committee. [Interjections.] If it is important to other consumer groups, it is that much more important to agriculture. The droughts of the past few years have reconfirmed this. They have shown once more specifically how dependent agriculture is on water. While lamenting the floods, we are jubilant about the water. I therefore regard it as important for us to speak about that in this debate—not as the hon member for Potgietersrus did—and to reflect on the ways in which we can use the water supply to grant our farmers the maximum stability.

This can be done in two ways—either by making provision for the additional storage of water, which the hon member advocated but which he probably knows nothing about, or by using available sources to better advantage. I know there is a school of thought that claims that neither on economic or strategic grounds is there any urgent necessity for the large-scale provision of additional irrigation water. I am saying the large-scale provision of irrigation water, and to a certain extent I agree with that. One should not, however, allow oneself to become inured to the needs of the individual farmer. One must do the one thing and not neglect to do the other. I concede that we should make the best possible use of the available moisture content of the soil, and we must strive to increase production per unit volume of water. Has the hon member ever heard of that? As far as this is concerned, we can learn a great deal from other arid countries such as Israel.

Likewise we must give attention to the maximum possible storage of available resources. Unlike that hon member, rather than large, new State schemes, I am more inclined to think in terms of the perpetuation of existing irrigation farmers and existing farming units, particularly the livestock-farming units, by ensuring a constant fodder-flow programme. A constant fodder-flow programme is dependant on available funds. If I stabilise my farming enterprise by ensuring that run-off water which is rightfully mine does not leave my farm, this is to the benefit of my farming enterprise, and agriculture and the State as a whole.

I think that ultimately it would be more beneficial to the State to assist the farmer in the optimum conservation of water, wherever possible, rather than helping him to purchase a bag of fodder. In saying this, let us acknowledge at once that attention should be given to the realisation of this ideal. We specifically think of the department’s loan and subsidy scheme in regard to waterworks. In this context we basically have two groups of farmers: Individual farmers and farmers gathered together in irrigation districts. During the 1986-87 financial year, individual farmers received subsidies totalling R3,2 million from the State for waterworks. Why did the hon member for Potgietersrus not mention that?

Because you people wasted my time with a quorum!

Order!

That hon member must not waste my time. During the 1986-87 financial year individual farmers received R3,2 million in subsidies. During the same year, in the form of loans and subsidies to 24 irrigation districts, R5,5 million was granted to water-supply projects.

Yes, I can also read the annual report!

Order! No, I am not prepared to allow the hon member for Potgietersrus to comment on everything that is said. He has had his turn to speak. The hon member for Humansdorp may proceed.

I am asking questions because hon members on that side of the House are constantly disseminating false information outside this House. [Interjections.]

Ten new irrigation districts have been proclaimed. This brings the total to 255, with a scheduled surface area of 395 000 hectares. Did that hon member mention that? One White Paper case, ie Greenland, was approved, and an amount of R6,8 million will be spent over the next two years.

If we examine the State’s subterranean water services or the so-called borehole services, we find that a great deal is being done to relieve the farmers’ water crisis. It is indeed a very important service which is being furnished by the department to agriculture. The importance of this service is clearly evident in the fact that during the 1986-87 financial year 1900 boreholes were sunk, with a further 1 300 being subsidised. The drought, however, was so severe that even this substantive assistance from the State did not appear to be sufficient. If we look at the 1988-89 Budget we find that an amount of more than R30 million was once more voted for State-supported water schemes—as was the case last year. What is interesting is that virtually 40% of this amount was spent on borehole services.

This brings us to the following point for consideration i.e. the financing of the irrigation scheme. In terms of the Act the State guaranteed it at a fixed interest rate over the redemption period, based on the average over the construction period of the scheme, which remains constant. Experience has taught us that for the most part this was not to the benefit of the borrowers, and the recently amended legislation now makes it possible for old loans to be discharged if more favourable interest rates can be negotiated. This, of course, has resulted in the Land Bank coming strongly to the fore as a possible and probable source of financing for old and new schemes. Investigations in this regard have been carried out. Apparently the Land Bank is willing to take over loans and also to finance new loans. There are specifically two reasons why it would be beneficial to the Land Bank to finance such schemes. Firstly this would considerably alleviate the pressure on the Budget for agriculture and water supply and free available funds for other equally important purposes within the department.

Secondly this could mean a considerable saving in interest for the irrigators. This is a very important factor if one bears in mind that costs normally determine whether a scheme is viable or not. Borrowers can thereby be assured of savings of 1% to 5% on interest on loans. This will inevitably mean lower annual water-rates. I understand that in this regard a great deal of progress has already been made with negotiations, and we eagerly look forward to the Land Bank financing these schemes for us in the future.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Humansdorp must please excuse me if I do not react at length to what he said, because he did not say anything. [Interjections.]

Then leave me alone!

That side of the House is always accusing this side of the House of making scandalous speeches. They then immediately follow in their footsteps and launch scandalous attacks.

I should like to refer to the hon the Deputy Minister’s reply to a question of the hon member for Soutpansberg when he said that the reason why he went gadding about in the Northern Transvaal was to inform the farmers of what the CP was not doing. That, however, is the biggest lot of nonsense anyone has ever come up with. Those people inform their members so that they know precisely what is going on.

Yes, but they give them the wrong information.

They are so well-informed that they are rejecting the NP at every turn. The biggest joke, however, is that the hon the State President appointed a nominated member in the Northern Transvaal, instructing him to inform the farmers there. In other words, he is not carrying out the instructions given to him, making it necessary for the hon the Deputy Minister to run around doing his work for him. [Interjections.] Fiela’s child, you keep quiet!

Order!

The recent drought we experienced, and the floods that followed on its heels, should have taught us something on which we could build in the future. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member for Carletonville an opportunity to complete his speech.

Arrie, you are probably Fiela’s brother!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I am asking you to give a ruling instructing the hon member for Carletonville to explain the remark he made. In my opinion it was a very snide remark not worthy of this House.

Order! I would be glad if hon members would stop referring to other hon members as “Fiela’s child”. I should like to know what the hon member for Carletonville meant by the remark.

Mr Chairman, I wanted to silence him. That is all I meant by it.

Order! I repeat that I hope these references will cease. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, yesterday the hon the Minister also blossomed forth as a fortune-teller, informing us that the drought had now been broken. I only hope he is a better fortune-teller than the previous Minister of Agriculture, Mr Hendrik Schoeman, who said that the dams would be full before April last year and that the CP would only win six seats in the election. He was wrong. I hope this hon Minister is going to be right.

With these floods we have also learnt that a great deal of water runs into the sea. We have seen the Orange River pouring so much water into the sea that the fish died because of the desalination of the sea-water. We must learn from the floods, and I want to suggest that we build as many dams as possible. We should not build dams in other Black states and make the same mistakes that we made in Angola and Mozambique; we should rather invest the money in South Africa. Let us use that money to build our dams in South Africa, dams controlled by us.

I also want to appeal for greater subsidies to be granted to farmers so that they can build weirs in rivers and streams and so that they can build earth-dams.

How many?

Those are all ways in which to conserve water in South Africa, and we need that water.

The hon the Minister also said he was concerned about the water-table which was constantly dropping. I am inclined to agree with the hon the Minister. I see that various experiments are being done to rid dams and rivers of weeds, and I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it is possible to carry out a further experiment aimed at trying to increase the water-table. I want to make the following suggestion. At present the water seeping into the defunct mines on the Rand and elsewhere has to be pumped out again to control the water level in neighbouring mines. Ways could surely be devised for stopping this water, and if the old mines fill up, the water-table simply has to increase again. Unfortunately there are few hon members on that side of the Committee who know what I am talking about at the moment. I am asking the hon the Minister just to look into that, and I am certain we can do it.

I want to refer once more to the experiments being done on the biological eradication of weeds. I see that they are now releasing beetles into the dam. I hope these beetles are not going to chew up less of these weeds than the NP has chewed away at the policy and benefits of the Whites. [Interjections.] It is a good thing that we had those beetles, but the problem is that they have already have to start working on a countermeasure against these beetles, so that when they have eaten up all these water-weeds, we have something to counteract them so that we do not have the same situation that prevailed when we imported cochineal which is still devouring the prickly pears.

You do not know what you are talking about!

The hon the Minister must start doing something about this even now.

They should be taught to devour Nationalists.

You are talking nonsense.

That hon member says I am talking nonsense, but if he would just go and listen to his speech, he would look in his mirror this evening and laugh at himself, because he would then see how much nonsense he has spoken today.

He laughs, in any case, when he sees himself in the mirror.

Another point I should very much like to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention is that water-rates have rocketed as a result of the drought. As a deterrent, large levies were imposed in order to prevent people from using a great deal of water. Since the rains we have had, I have not yet seen water-rates coming down, and I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to look into this situation. It will encourage people to use more water so that the water-table can increase. [Interjections.]

Order! No, we cannot go on like this. This is not a market-place where everyone can take part in the debate as he sees fit.

Mr Chairman, I should like to agree with the hon member for Humansdorp about the importance of water. I also understand the hon member for Carletonville’s statement about the hon member for Humansdorp having said nothing. I can understand that because I think the hon member for Humansdorp’s speech was quite beyond the hon member for Carletonville. [Interjections.] I do not think he could understand it at all.

As I understand it, the hon member for Carletonville’s argument is that we should build dams. We have just seen the last of a drought only equalled about once in 200 to 500 years. Then we had floods which, as I understand it, perhaps also occur only once in 200 or 500 years. Yet the hon member wants us to start building dams to act as catchment dams for flood-waters. I do not know whether the hon member witnessed the floods we had. I think the hon member has in mind that the Government should give money to the farmers to simply have them throw up tiny weirs to stop those flood-waters. If that is what he has in mind, let me tell him that there is only one more ridiculous statement he could have made, and that would perhaps have been to advance the same argument about water that he furnished earlier in regard to telephones. He should also have argued for the separation of White water from Black water. [Interjections.] Such an argument would definitely be more ridiculous than this one of his about the tiny weirs. [Interjections.]

This afternoon I would prefer to express my thanks for the fact that over the past week I have had the privilege of being present at the jubilee celebrations of the largest irrigation scheme in South Africa. I am now referring to the Vaalharts irrigation scheme. On that occasion Mr Eugene Louw, the Administrator of the Cape, received honorary citizenship in that area. That in itself, I think, was an historic event. As far as my knowledge goes, it was the first time anyone had received honorary citizenship of that region—a region falling under the jurisdiction of three separate local authorities. I should like to join the Administrator of the Cape in his congratulations on this mammoth irrigation scheme’s jubilee.

The year 1938 is regarded as the year in which the first farmers obtained land in that area. It is nevertheless interesting to note that the idea of an irrigation scheme started as far back as 1873. In 1881-82 Cecil John Rhodes began to take an interest in that idea. The then government, however, experienced the same problems that we have today, ie a lack of finance. They then decided to privatise the whole idea of the establishment of an irrigation scheme, and the concession was granted to a certain company. The estimated cost at that time was £130 000. The company, however, could not obtain the necessary finance either and the matter was shelved.

Nothing positive was done until about 1920, when a select committee of this Parliament was instructed to reinvestigate this matter. The investigation was only completed in 1925. In 1933 the then Cabinet decided to go ahead with the irrigation scheme, and in 1934 legislation was passed for the establishment of this irrigation scheme, at an estimated cost of £3,5 million.

In January 1934 a start was made on the construction of the Vaal Dam. Initially there was speculation about where the Vaal Dam should actually be constructed. The question was whether it should be near Vereeniging or near Christiana, in the vicinity of Krommenellenbogen. For several reasons it was subsequently decided to construct the Vaal Dam where it is situated today. The cost of the dam was £837 000, and the sum paid out for the land which was to be flooded amounted to £827 000. The total cost was therefore less than R3,5 million in today’s monetary terms.

The irrigation scheme at Vaalharts covers an area of 28 000 ha, divided up into 1 250 small farms averaging 24 ha each. The gross yield averages R60 million per year, and Vaalharts can also look back on prosperous but also very difficult years, particularly the past five years. It is therefore with extreme gratitude that one takes note of the dams which are now so full. I am referring to the Vaal Dam and the Bloemhof Dam. And the future looks very rosy. With regret, however, one also has to note the vast amount of damage caused by the recent floods.

I visited approximately 90% of the people whose homes were flooded on a specific night. Those people were especially grateful to their Black employees who came to wake the White farmers that night to tell them that their homes were surrounded by water. Many lives were thus saved.

The damage to both private and Government property such as canals and dams is estimated at approximately R25 million. If we compare this with the scheme’s overall construction cost of R7 million in the thirties, we see how much damage was caused.

From the floods, and the drought which preceded them, we must learn certain lessons. I think it is now the time to give attention to that. The present Vaalharts water-quota is 7 700 cubic metres per hectare per year, and that is considerably lower than the quota for most of the other irrigation schemes. According to certain experts this is also inadequate if the full potential of the land is to be realised. I am aware of the fact that there is land which the drought and now the floods have shown to be land situated in high-risk areas. The question that arises is whether an in-depth investigation should not be made into the descheduling of certain land with a view to granting a higher quota to the rest. Whilst work is being done on certain canals, in my opinion the whole question of a possibly higher water-quota per hectare could also be investigated.

South Africa is a country of extremes, and this applies to the agricultural sphere too. One moment there is a drought and the next there are floods. Fortunately human beings have short memories—we quickly forget. It may therefore sound far-fetched to hon members when I now speak of a drought, but I am very afraid indeed that we are going to forget what we have been through and the lessons we have learnt during the recent drought. I am referring here to the drought aid to irrigation schemes, a matter administered by the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply in accordance with a formula in terms of which cognisance is also taken of contributions made by the Department of Water Affairs.

I am aware of the fact that on several occasions organised agriculture has unsuccessfully made representations to those two departments to have the formula adjusted or changed. I therefore request that urgent attention be given to the matter of having drought aid to irrigation schemes fall under one body, as in the case of other drought aid, ie the responsible agricultural department, and for urgent attention to be given to the adjustment of the formula.

Nor am I quite certain if yesterday’s announcement of the new scheme by the hon the Minister will also be applicable to irrigation schemes. I should like us to give attention to that too.

I want to conclude by expressing my thanks for the assistance granted by the Department of Water Affairs to relieve the burden of irrigation farmers by granting approval for the annual water rates to be scaled down to that portion of the water-quota actually provided. I am grateful that permission has already been granted for the fact that if there is any surplus water, extra water can be purchased at the same tariff paid by the farmers for their normal quota.

My last request this afternoon is for an announcement to be made, as soon as possible, about the future of the Spitskop Dam which was also breached in the recent floods, and for the irrigators to be informed about the short-term and long-term water supply to them.

May I express my sincere thanks to the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Agriculture for what they did for my people in the Vaalharts area and in the Northern Cape during the recent drought and also during the floods. Ours is a country of extremes. I am grateful for the fact that we have a Government which is also prepared to take those extremes into consideration.

Mr Chairman, I should like to say a few words by way of introduction before I reply to what individual hon members said in their speeches.

There is an idiomatic expression which goes: “Water, water everywhere”. This expression became a physical reality this year with our overflowing rivers and dams. In spite of this virtual disaster which overtook us, our farmers did not lose their sense of humour. They say that one day it was reported in the regional news that there was an urgent appeal to look out for Mr and Mrs Van der Merwe, travelling between Upington and Kakamas in a white house with a red roof. Anyone coming across these people should please contact the sergeant in Upington. [Interjections.]

Having said this, I immediately want to emphasise the seriousness of the recent floods. The floods we experienced recently really destroyed the lifeblood of our people in that area of the Vaal River and the Orange River. A great deal of damage was caused in this area. I am referring specifically to the Lower Orange River area where more than 90% of the country’s dried sultanas are produced and where the largest wine co-operative in our country is situated. Extensive damage was caused here, and extensive help will be needed to repair it.

What remains after these floods and the damage they caused? The best human material one can find in the farming community remains; people who have survived previous floods, who have the will to survive and who have the courage to rebuild.

We are really grateful that so few lives were lost during the floods. For that reason we are particularly grateful for the timeous flood warnings issued by the Department of Water Affairs. I want to express a particular words of thanks to those persons who manned our flood control room day and night to monitor the floods and keep people up to date on conditions.

I want to thank the SA Police and the Defence Force in particular for their quick action. They also proved that their sole function is not to wage war and lock people up but also to reach out a helping hand to uplift people, and to act in the interests of our people’s welfare.

We did learn lessons from these floods, as the hon member for Kimberley North also said. The first lesson was that an empty dam is not the only and final solution to control floods of this magnitude. What happened when the first flood arose in the Vaal River? The Bloemhof Dam was less than 40% full and the Kalkfontein Dam was 4% full. They are two of the ten largest dams in our country, yet these dams were unable to prevent or eliminate these floods.

In the same breath I must say that the large dams in the Orange River really did reduce the magnitude of the floods. At one stage as much water was flowing into the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam as was already in flood in the Vaal River. If we had not had this levelling-off effect of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and the P K Le Roux Dam, the effect of the flood in the Lower Orange River area would have been double what it was.

If one looks at it in this way one realises that this implies that we must do further research with regard to flood control and that we will possibly have to build more dams. If we have to build dams to control floods, we shall have to change our entire policy in respect of the construction of dams, because at present the policy is that the capital costs of any structure erected in rivers to improve the water supply system in that river, are passed on to the consumer.

The consumers of water along the Orange River cannot afford to accept further increases in their tax owing to the erection of such structures, because at this stage they only use a third of the water in the river effectively. If we therefore want to build this kind of waterworks, we must change the policy, and the State as a whole will have to say that it is in the national interest to build these dams, and then this will be done.

Another important matter we also learnt from these floods is that we totally overestimated the effect of reed growth in the river courses. A flood of the magnitude we have just had, is really not impeded or stopped or diverted by reed growth. They are simply flattened and washed away by the first of the flood waters. This problem was therefore not as bad as we thought it was.

If we now have to consider the nature and extent of the assistance being given in consequence of this flood, I can tell hon members that we have already completed the surveys, but that the assistance has not yet been announced. What we can, however, say is that the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply has a certain responsibility in respect of the repair of waterworks in the river and in the canal systems, and that, as in the past, we will, repair these works and to a great extent have already done so. I can also say that with the exception of a few works which, we believe, we will have repaired within three weeks, we will see to it that all the supply systems to our various irrigation schemes will be repaired within the next two or three weeks.

As regards the dams, to which the hon member for Kimberley North also referred, particularly the Spitskop Dam, I want to point out that the Spitskop Dam will be repaired by the Department of Water Affairs. In the interim we will take all the necessary steps to ensure that where dams washed away, these irrigators will be supplied with water in other ways. For that reason, when we start to repair the Spitskop Dam, a coffer-dam will be built around the breach, and we will be able to store some water behind this coffer-dam too, from which we will be able to supply the people with water.

Another point was also raised here, and this concerns the matter of assistance with regard to the Budget, as well as disaster aid, when we talk about own affairs. The assistance being given to a specific population group under general affairs is not reflected in their own affairs budgets. In this way the Department of Water Affairs suffered damage totalling R43 million to Government waterworks as a result of the recent floods. This will be repaired, but it will not be reflected in the assistance allocated to own affairs. For that reason we must not allow ourselves to be misled by the few figures which appear in the general affairs budget, because a great deal of money is also being spent under own affairs, particularly as regards water affairs, which will be to the direct advantage of that specific population group.

I do not want to discuss the assistance being given by the own affairs department any further now, because the hon member for Humansdorp also referred to this. I merely want to say that there is nothing which makes a Government as unpopular as State assistance to people. There are reasons for this. When one gives State assistance to a specific group of people, one is dealing with people who are suffering hardship, who sometimes have onerous debts, and who are frustrated. The department is not really able to place those people back in precisely the same position in which they were before the disaster overtook them. As a result this creates an ideal climate to incite people against the Government. For that reason we also anticipate that when we give this Government assistance we will not receive many thanks, but that we will have endless trouble. The point of departure of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply and of the State is not to buy votes or make itself popular by means of Government assistance, but the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, like all the other departments, has a certain responsibility towards the farmers of South Africa, and we shall do our duty, irrespective of the political views of those farmers. Because it is, therefore, our duty, we shall continue to reach out our hand to these people who fell by the wayside in their struggle against nature.

I should like to get back to the hon members who participated in the discussion. Unfortunately I was not here yesterday when the hon member for Middelburg spoke. Apparently, when one is dealing with international rivers, he objects to the people in self-governing states using that water. Water is allocated to the people who have land along the banks of those rivers. For this reason water was allocated to the people in those Black states living along the banks of the rivers.

These water-rights attach to the land, and this was also done there. The hon member apparently created the impression that the White farmers were being treated shabbily in the process. This is not true. As a matter of fact because of the exercising of their rights in these Black areas shortages arose, and the department then raised the wall of the Loskop Dam in order to stabilise the position of these people below the dam. The fact of the matter is that the position of the people who live downstream is being stabilised by this process. Water which flows through Loskop Dam to the sea does not go directly to the sea. There are still a number of places in between through which the water flows, such as the Kruger National Park and Phalaborwa. One sometimes gains the impression that there is surplus water where it has never occurred before, but people living upstream or along the upper reaches of the river, cannot simply wilfully use the water flowing past them, in the hope that the person lower down will not use the water. That is the position.

A study is also being undertaken of the further development along the Olifants River. However, I can say that the Olifants River is already being fully utilised, and any development which takes place there will be in the interests of the stabilisation of the present development there.

As regards the hon member for Potgietersrus, I must say it is very difficult to reply to him. When that hon member rises to speak here his weapon of choice is the shot-gun. He shoots blindly in all directions. If the hon member really wants to make a contribution to this debate, his party and his people, he should choose a specific topic and stick to it. Then we can reply to him meaningfully. However, in the limited time at my disposal I cannot give him a meaningful reply' in this debate.

The hon member is also constantly discussing general and own affairs. The matter of advisory committees is a general affair, and we shall reply to the hon member in the debate on general affairs. We shall continue to appoint irrigation boards and advisory committees on merit where necessary and where the need arises. As regards irrigation schemes in future, he referred to what the former hon member for Potgietersrus had said in a previous debate. I do not think the hon member for Potgietersrus understood what the previous hon member for Potgietersrus, Dr Sample Golden, said. Hon members must understand very clearly that from an agricultural production viewpoint there is no immediate need to establish large irrigation schemes in this country. That is what the former hon member for Potgietersrus said.

Schemes will be developed, but for completely different reasons; for socio-economic reasons and other objectives. However, we are not going to develop big schemes in the immediate future from an agricultural production viewpoint. This does not, however, mean that we are not going to develop schemes. I think that as regards that hon member, this will suffice as regards the matter of own affairs. The hon member is almost like a person who always sings a certain closing hymn after the church service; that is how he chants this stereotype closing hymn on own affairs. I think this will suffice as regards that hon member.

I think the hon the Minister will reply to the hon member for Bryanston. The hon member for Humansdorp again referred to the stabilisation of our water resources. I want to reply to him on the second point, namely the financing of the irrigation boards by the Land Bank. The attitude of the Treasury towards this application of ours is very favourable and it accepts the principle. Our request need now only be signed by the hon the Minister of Finance. When we have to prove the cost-benefits of a scheme we have already found from our investigations that the subsidising of interest rates makes a scheme far more effective than when capital costs are subsidised. This is the crux of the matter, and this is what the hon member singled out.

The hon member for Carletonville touched on quite a number of matters. Because my time is limited, I only want to discuss the last one, the one in connection with the price of water. The water prices are not as straightforward as the hon member made them out to be. I merely want to tell him that the water tariff policy is to levy at least the operating costs of existing schemes. At the moment the average levy on operating costs is approximately 40% in our country. We are increasing our water tariff every year now, but we cannot do so satisfactorily because inflation is preventing us from eventually reaching the point where the people can pay 100% of the water tariff.

I should like to associate myself with the congratulations of the hon member for Kimberley North to the Vaalharts irrigation scheme on its fiftieth anniversary. We wish the farmers there everything of the best. We thank the hon member for the illuminating explanation which he gave of that history. As regards the water quota, I merely want to say that we agree with the request of the hon member to increase the water quota. We have already decided in principle that we will increase the water quota. All we need do now is to improve that canal system of theirs, which is in the planning stage, and then we can give them a bigger water quota, as they have asked. I thank all hon members who participated in this debate.

Mr Chairman, we have reached the end of this debate. Allow me to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs for the way in which he replied to hon members on water matters. The hon the Deputy Minister is a practical irrigation farmer. One can say that he grew up in the irrigation furrow as it were. He has a very practical approach towards irrigation problems in agriculture.

As regards my department, we have a standing Ministerial liaison committee in respect of irrigation matters which meets from time to time on a regular basis. The hon the Minister of Water Affairs is also involved in this. In that committee we only discuss irrigation matters, which are obviously very closely linked to agriculture in general. In that respect I also thank the hon the Minister of Water Affairs for the contribution which his department makes to the development of irrigation in South Africa. This is a very complicated kind of development, which is particularly capital intensive. At the same time it must be borne in mind that when large irrigation areas are developed in South Africa, it must be decided in advance what is going to be produced there. If this is not done the total production structure in South Africa will be disturbed. It must also be taken into account that production must be market-orientated. We therefore liaise very closely with one another and give attention to irrigation matters.

The hon member for Kimberley North asked a pertinent question about the assistance scheme which we announced yesterday. He asked whether it also affected irrigation farmers. I can tell the hon member that the scheme we announced yesterday specifically applies only to drought and emergency schemes in the dry-land summer grain areas. However, I want to tell the hon member that there are specific schemes if a farmer were to experience financial problems in a certain area owing to other circumstances, for example if the price of a specific product which that farmer produces were to collapse. I am thinking for example of the Vaal-Harts area. If financial problems were to arise in such a case, the relevant agricultural infrastructure could be approached. I am thinking for example of the agricultural co-operative in that area, which is a very good agricultural co-operative. I am acquainted with the affairs of that co-operative and I know that it is very efficient. In the case of financial need one could use such an agricultural co-operative inter alia to become involved in the six-year and the 10-year carry-over debt scheme. Those farmers can also become involved in this, and we will then be able to help irrigation farmers too.

I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for the kind words he addressed to me which caused me to blush a little. I was nearly as red in the face as the hon member for Bryanston. I want to thank him for this, and I can just tell him that it is not possible to be a good Minister of Agriculture, because one is a good Minister one day and useless the next. It is just like the Land Bank which is good one day and bad the next. I nevertheless thank him for his co-operation and support during the past year. The hon the Deputy Minister assists me very well, and I should like it placed on record that I greatly appreciate the exceptional co-operation between us.

In the course of this debate we were continuously being attacked about agriculture as a White own affair. It is a pity that the hon member for Barberton is not here, because he attributed all kinds of terminology to this and said inter alia that it was a bluff. I want to say that we are dealing here with a constitutional fact, which neither the CP nor I can do anything about at the moment. [Interjections.] The constitutional fact originated as a result of a decision taken by two thirds of the White voters of South Africa that the principle of own affairs should be applied.

Shame!

It is not a shame, but a fact which the CP cannot argue away. It will last for years and I do not know whether they will ever be able to change this fact.

Are you satisfied with that fact?

Of course I am. There is another very important fact which we must take into consideration, namely the historic fact that more than 90% of the agriculture in South Africa is being undertaken by Whites. This is an historic fact that no one can do anything about. Because over the years and decades agriculture has developed its own character and culture, which is linked to the traditions of White farmers, it is essential for there to be White own affairs in the field of agriculture.

When the principle of own affairs was considered by the various departments at that stage, I was the Minister concerned. We argued for a long time regarding what matters we should make own affairs. I want to say it once—I am being honest with the Committee—that this was a very complex exercise, because a departmental infrastructure for agriculture, in which the various facets were closely linked to one another, had developed since 1910.

At one stage there were three departments of agriculture. The Department of Agricultural Credit was a separate department with its own secretary as the head of the department. There was also a Department of Agricultural Technical Services and a Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Later we combined the three departments to form one department.

Certain decisions had to be taken at that stage. We made recommendations which were accepted by the then Constitution Committee. We came to the conclusion that the following matters should be own affairs: The training of prospective White farmers, with their own traditions and their own particular needs; financial assistance to White farmers who are responsible for more than 90% of this country’s production; particular production needs—it is necessary for this to be a White own affair; extension and advisory services which are obviously a White own affair; resource conservation; and certain irrigation board schemes which we felt should be White own affairs. I am saying this because no one can deny that White agriculture has its own character, tradition and culture of which we are all proud.

Agricultural production in South Africa is confined almost exclusively to Whites and in saying this I am not suggesting that opportunities should not also be created for the other population groups to become involved in agriculture and develop in that sphere too.

A function which is also allocated to the White own affairs department and about which there has been a great deal of argument, is research. It can be argued that the making available of knowledge through research is of importance to all population groups, and that this should therefore be treated as a general affair. However, it was not classified in this way because the following aspects have to be taken into account, and—as I have said—this is a process which has developed over decades.

In the first place the economically important agricultural sector consists almost exclusively of Whites. In the second place research will therefore be aimed predominantly at the development of White agriculture. In the third place the dismantling of the research structure in agriculture cannot take place without greatly disrupting the entire services structure. It must be borne in mind that training, research and advice are, for example, frequently supplied by the same people in a specific region. Research results or knowledge which is made available are also at the disposal of the other population groups by way of publications, through direct liaison and in various other ways.

I want to make it quite clear that this does not mean that we cannot reconsider this classification of research if there is justification for this and if we succeed in developing the services structure of agriculture, particularly with regard to extension and advice, into an efficient service, which can function without relying on research and advice and the development of economically justified technological packages. This development of services to which I have referred is at present receiving the attention of the department and the Commission for Administration. The Ministers’ Council has already taken this decision, and we are investigating the situation.

By means of the expansion and development of the centres of knowledge which will improve the staff position and allow the services structure of this department to do more, and the bigger, stronger and more effective this is, the stronger the link between this organisation and research will become. One must therefore have the situation in which one cannot undertake goal-orientated research in South Africa without creating a good and sound extension and services structure. The two are indissolubly linked to one another. We have always adopted the standpoint in South Africa that there should not be research for the sake of research, but that research must be goal-orientated as regards agriculture. Where does one determine the need for applied research for agriculture? One determines it at farm level, where the production programme is in progress. We are looking into this, and when we have achieved results in this regard we shall report on it.

There are a few other outstanding matters on which I should also like to say a few words, and now I am referring specifically to the speeches to which I replied in part yesterday. Very important aspects were mentioned. I am referring now to the speeches of the hon members for Mooi River and Caledon who are also present here. They spoke about agricultural extension and research. The importance of agricultural extension and advice has never been as topical in agriculture as it is now. Undeniably the service which the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply is rendering in this regard, no longer meets the demands of the times. I said so yesterday too. This was in fact one of the factors which led to the appointment of the Commission of Enquiry into Agricultural Services—the well-known Kolb Committee.

In its recent report on its investigation into agriculture the Economic Advisory Council of the State President also referred to certain shortcomings in the service structure. It was, for example, stressed that the farmers of the Republic of South Africa had to be provided with an integrated package of technical-economic expertise, in the fullest sense of the word, in order to enable them to become financially independent, based on the efficient and profitable production of saleable products. There are approximately 177 departmental extension posts, 52 of which are vacant. This means that there is a very unfavourable ratio of officials to farmers. What is more, this small work force is expected to carry out certain regulating functions and to assist during droughts and floods and to administer certain schemes.

Obviously this seriously hampers the performance of the task of educational extension. It must also be borne in mind that owing to the heavy demands made by agriculture nowadays with regard to the pursuance of optimum utilisation of resources, technical economic support by means of agricultural extension only can no longer serve the farmer. It cannot do that. One cannot expect a so-called Jack-of-all-trades to master all the separate facets which are developing in agricultural technology to such an extent that he can advise farmers on this. I feel the time is past when this was possible.

We believe that the solution to this services problem lies in greatly developing the operating extension and operating advisory services at subregional level. This aspect is at present receiving all our attention. What is being envisaged is the establishment of agricultural advisory centres in the seven agricultural regions. These agricultural advisory centres will consist of multi-disciplinary teams of experts, whose areas of expertise will be determined by the farming communities and branches of farming which will have to be served.

Through the creation, manning and financing of these centres the following can be achieved. In the first place it will bring expertise, including economic and financial expertise, as close to the farmer as possible, where it can be promoted according to a farming unit approach in a programmed manner, effectively to convey technological know-how in accordance with optimum utilisation of resources. In the second place it will enable the Agricultural Credit Board and the Directorate: Financial Assistance more effectively to evaluate the merits of applications, and particularly the potential of farming units, and to ensure the necessary follow-up work, extension, advice and monitoring of credit takers.

The future extension task will, therefore, in the main, be twofold. In the first place it will involve a long-term proactive persuasion task, inter alia also according to the principles of the farming unit approach. Specialists in the field of agricultural advice will have to make a very important contribution to the extension services in this regard. In the second place it will involve a non-reactive advisory task, in which inter alia the needs arising from the uniqueness and sophistication of the farming community will have to be met.

I should now like to reply to the speech of the hon member for De Aar. Yesterday he spoke about training in agriculture. I agreed with him when he said that the level of training of the South African farmer would have to develop further in future. I feel that this fact cannot be denied, particularly when our local situation is compared with that in other developing countries. It will be found time and again that the level of training of the farmer in South Africa is not as high as we would like it to be.

I do, however, want to say the following. Frequently when one talks to overseas farmers and visits overseas agricultural countries, one does notice a big difference in the cultural approach of farmers towards agriculture. I think the South African farmer is unique in this respect because he has to overcome very difficult natural and climatic conditions. What also makes the South African farmer unique is the fact that he has a particular love for the soil. Once a farmer, always a farmer! It is a way of life and a particular culture, and I think our South Africa farmer has this particular characteristic.

We realise that problems crop up because some of our farmers do not have sufficient training, and that we will have to investigate this matter further. [Interjections.] Because the department and I are deeply concerned about the situation, it was decided a number of years ago to expand the facilities at the existing five agricultural colleges so that more students could be accommodated. In the laying down of priorities for capital works for the department preference was therefore given to the expansion of the facilities at the various agricultural colleges. In order to increase the number of students who could be enrolled, it was decided to make provision for an additional 400 students by means of the expansions. A great deal of progress has already been made with the expansions to the respective agricultural colleges; as a matter of fact some of the expansions have already been completed.

What is very important is that it was also decided to erect a sixth agricultural college at Nelspruit, which will be known as the Lowveld Agricultural College. At this college the syllabuses will concentrate on serving the citrus and subtropical fruit industries as well as the vegetable industry in the Lowveld. On completion the Lowveld Agricultural College will be able to accommodate 250 students. A great deal of progress has already been made in creating the necessary facilities; so much so that the first buildings will be handed over by October of this year and the remainder by the end of next year.

At present it is envisaged that the first students will be enrolled by 1990. The Department of Agriculture and Water Supply has already appointed seven lecturers and quite a number of assistants. Various works, such as the establishment of demonstration orchards and the preparation of the soil have also been completed. Hon members will understand that such preparations are very expensive and take a long time for a college of this kind.

The proposal of the hon member for De Aar that consideration should also be given to allowing day students to enrol at agricultural colleges in order to relieve the pressure on the existing hostel facilities will definitely receive sympathetic consideration. [Interjections.]

As regards the farmers who have not received post-school training, discussions have already been held with the SA Agricultural Union. The appointment of a committee of enquiry is envisaged, with the directive to investigate what can be done in respect of these farmers.

I am very much in favour of short courses in agriculture. I think by planning this aspect well and regulating it thoroughly in the specific regions in which most of the colleges are situated and by adjusting to those specific agricultural conditions, we can also, to a very great extent, satisfy the need to introduce a higher standard of training for our farmers. In general we must increase the academic and technical knowledge of our farmers. The structural change which is taking place in agriculture—I am not talking about the future; it is taking place now—calls for more skilled managerial techniques. The agriculturalist of the day must have a versatile production capacity. Management, and particularly its economic facets, are becoming increasingly difficult. That is why it is necessary for us to have farmers of this quality.

The hon member for Bryanston asked certain questions regarding the position of Black labourers on farms. He asked whether the loans we were granting to a certain extent compelled farmers to use the money to keep Black people on the farms. At the moment our problem in agriculture is, in fact, to keep Black people on farms. It is just the other way round. There is an urbanisation process under way throughout the whole of South Africa, particularly as regards Black people, which is also affecting the agricultural sector in the process.

What are we doing, however? We are developing training centres where Black labourers are trained to do specific, specialised work on farms. A trained worker is always happier than an untrained one. We are developing a very good Black labour force in agriculture.

In the second place we are also helping farmers to erect housing and schools, to establish a good healthy community life for their workers on the farm. We are looking into this. I think some of the happiest Black workers in any industry in South Africa are to be found in agriculture. I can assure the hon member that we will keep it that way.

The hon member asked another very important question regarding the problem we experienced with 2,4-D—hormone weed-killers in the Tala Valley. We took various steps in this connection and an ad hoc committee was appointed to investigate the situation. It was found that poisoning by 2,4-D caused damage suffered in respect of vegetables—this is a very important vegetable producing area.

I then appointed an advisory committee on which people from the various industries were represented. They investigated the matter further, and in consequence of their recommendations—this is no secret—it was decided that we should prohibit the use of 2,4-D in the Tala Valley.

We also appointed an advisory committee and we are ascertaining whether we cannot undertake further research in respect of 2,4-D. I want to mention to hon members that 2,4-D is a very important weed-killer. It is one of the cheapest weed-killers, and it is 30 years old. Not even the Americans have banned it yet.

It is a matter of agreement and a matter of comparison between the different producers; there are maize farmers, foresters and sugar farmers around the Tala Valley. They use 2,4-D, which is very effective. The wheat farmers and vine farmers agree with one another on the use of 2,4-D in the Western Cape. I cannot understand why the farmers of Natal cannot also get along with other people who obviously have to use 2,4-D. I think it is a matter of negotiation.

The Natal Agricultural Union is very closely involved in this matter, but there are certain people who have other objectives with regard to this problem in the Tala Valley; they want to establish the so-called Greens in South Africa. They are trying to do this and are collecting information from around the world to see whether they cannot launch such a programme in South Africa.

We have some of the best scientists and researchers in this field. As the hon member mentioned in his speech, we still regularly receive research results from around the world on the handling and control of weed-killers. This is a complex matter, and I will give the hon member a full report on events to date.

I thank the hon members on this side for their good contributions to the debate, as well as the hon members from the ranks of the opposition; some of them made contributions which were not bad. I do not mind criticism; I can take it. I have endured many hard knocks in politics in my time. I can take it.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The understanding among the Whips was that we would now debate the Land Bank Amendment Bill. [Interjections.] We certainly object to the fact that the debate is to be postponed.

Mr Chairman, with leave of the House I shall in that case withdraw my motion. [Interjections.]

Order! No objection? Agreed to. It is wonderful that there is so much unanimity in this House! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I move:

A need for comprehensive financing of the farming industry has existed for quite some time now in the Republics of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei—the so-called TBVC countries.

Initially, after certain negotiations had taken place, the Land Bank indicated its willingness to provide short-term financing in the usual way to co-operatives in the Republic in order to enable the co-operatives, in their turn, to make financing available in the TBVC countries accordingly. Because this kind of financing would obviously provide solely for production credit and other than that would only provide for funds for the purchasing of farming assets, implements and equipment, the general feeling in these countries was that this method of financing would not be comprehensive enough, and it was intimated that financing by the Land Bank of the Republic was desired for the farmers and other farming institutions within the territories of those countries, on the same basis and to the same extent as farmers and farming institutions inside the Republic at present receive.

The desirability and feasibility of the principle of Land Bank financing for farmers and other farming institutions in those countries, and the way in which such financing would take place, were then investigated in depth at a series of meetings by a specially designated work group and a task team, in which the Land Bank was represented.

The investigations and negotiations which took place stressed the desirability of Land Bank financing in the TBVC countries. However, direct financing by the Land Bank to farmers and farming institutions in these countries cannot take place owing to the fact that the Bank is at present limited in its statute to the financing of the farming industry within the borders of the Republic of South Africa. Furthermore, the Bank is faced with the problem that it cannot exercise its statutory powers of summary execution across international boundaries. The obvious solution is, therefore, to allow financing to take place through the Land Bank in the said countries, and indeed in every state whose territory previously formed part of the Republic, by way of loans to any financing institution in each of the relevant territories, which in the opinion of the Land Bank Board has as its objective the promotion of any branch of the farming industry in that territory. These financing institutions can, in their turn, undertake the financing of the farming industry in the respective areas with funds thus obtained.

It will, however, be necessary to amend the Land Bank Act for this purpose. Because the proposed financing by the Land Bank will, in fact, amount to financing in a foreign country where the Bank will be unable to enforce its powers of summary execution, such financing, which will in each specific case only be undertaken with the prior consent of the Minister of Finance, will be guaranteed by the governments of the TBVC countries concerned, and the South African Government will provide the Land Bank with a subsidiary guarantee. Arrangements will be made by the Government for similar legislation to be promulgated in the TBVC countries, in order to provide for the governments of those countries to furnish the Land Bank and the RSA with guarantees. According to present indications the total extent of the envisaged financing will not exceed R100 million.

The object of the amending Bill is therefore to authorise the Land Bank to advance money, with the prior approval of the Minister, to certain financing institutions in states, the territories of which previously formed part of the RSA, in order to enable those institutions to undertake the financing of the farming industries in the respective countries.

In my opinion the amendments envisaged reflect the Land Bank’s desire to adjust to changed circumstances in a meaningful way and to contribute towards the development of the farming industry in South Africa’s neighbouring countries, which can only be to the advantage of the South Africa community as a whole. I hope that hon members will see their way clear to supporting the proposed amendments.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House will not vote in favour of the Land Bank Amendment Bill, as introduced, to amend the Land Bank Act, 1944, so as to enable the Land Bank of South Africa to advance money to certain financing institutions and to provide for incidental matters.

The proposed amendments to the Land Bank Act of 1944 have as their objective to enable the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa to advance money, with the prior consent of the Minister, to financing institutions which will be established and registered in terms of legislation of the TBVC countries or a self-governing territory. It is not the task of the Land Bank to act as a money-lender to foreign governments. This is merely another way of concealing and hiding the total amount which is being channelled from South Africa to the TBVC countries and the self-governing states under a cloak other than Foreign Affairs. This is not in line with our policy. Millions of rand are being pumped into these countries without it being spelt out to the voters of South Africa what the extent of the total assistance is.

This amending Bill is being guaranteed by the State. This means that in the long run the tax-payer of South Africa will have to pay the piper. The standing committee did not reach consensus on this amending Bill either. This side of the House will not vote for the amending Bill because this is another example of the give-away mentality of the NP, its guilt complex culture. We are not voting in favour of this measure.

Mr Chairman, it comes as no surprise that the Official Opposition is not in favour of passing this Bill. Consensus could not be reached in the standing committee; the hon member for Delmas said so. The Official Opposition and the PFP were also opposed to the motion for the consideration of the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance. Having heard the arguments of the hon member for Delmas, it seems that they are opposed to it for different reasons. That does not surprise us at all.

†Mr Chairman, it is pleasing that after a difficult passage this Bill has come before this House for consideration. In spite of the criticism levelled I think there is much merit in this legislation. The proposed amendments will enable the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa to advance money with prior approval of the hon the Minister to financing institutions established and registered in terms of a law of the TBVC countries or self-governing territories. The express purpose is to enable such a financing institution to advance that money to persons within the self-governing territory or state concerned for farming or agricultural purposes.

We understand that an amount of some R170 million will be available although the hon the Deputy Minister said it should not exceed R100 million. At present credit facilities are not available to the vast majority of bona fide Black farmers in these areas because of the communal nature of the ownership of their land. It is vital for the progress of the commercial Black farmers in these areas that for the creation of an agricultural infrastructure and the provision of job opportunities some control avenue of finance be created at the soonest possible opportunity.

In South Africa the position is that people of all races may apply for loans from the Land Bank. However, this finance is only available to individual farmers, companies or legal entities that have separate land title or similar security, and on the approval of the Land Bank Board. Quite frankly, I am amazed at arguments advanced by the hon members of the PFP for Pinelands and Yeoville in earlier debates in opposition to this legislation recommending that terms and conditions be specified to ridiculous extremes. In doing so they have opposed amendments designed to assist the Black people of South Africa whose cause the PFP claim exclusively to champion.

In debating the acceptance of the first standing committee …

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

I do not have time to answer a question at the moment.

You have 30 minutes, idiot!

When debating the acceptance …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it proper for the hon member for Turffontein to call the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central an idiot?

Order! I am dealing firstly with the point of order raised by the hon member for King Williamstown. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, my point of order is: Is the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central entitled to call the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South an idiot?

Order! Did the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central call the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South an idiot?

Yes, Sir.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, may I now raise my point of order?

Certainly.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Turffontein used exactly the same word in reference to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Order! The hon member for Turffontein must withdraw the word.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this point? I did not call the hon member an idiot; I said: How can you call another member an idiot if you are an idiot yourself? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Is it in order for an hon member to give an idiotic explanation to the presiding officer? [Interjections.]

Order! I do not intend to elaborate on what has already been said. By necessary inference the hon member for Turffontein did call the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central an idiot and the hon member must withdraw the word.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The hon member for Yeoville questioned the financial acumen and expertise of the Land Bank in making decisions on the granting of finance. He pointed out that this type of help was currently being provided by the Development Bank to the self-governing states. It is clear that the Land Bank, its board and its officials are best equipped to make decisions of this nature. I think the derogatory remarks made by the hon member for Yeoville are not only questionable but also unfair and out of place.

The Land Bank was established especially to provide adapted finance to the agricultural sector.

What are the facts about Twin Towers? Can you tell me that?

I have no knowledge of Twin Towers. I want to continue …

Is buying a flat an agricultural activity?

Order! I presume the hon member for Yeoville will have an opportunity to state his point about Twin Towers later.

Mr Chairman, …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member if it is an agricultural activity to buy flats in Twin Towers?

Order! The hon member has indicated that he is not prepared to take any questions. [Interjections.]

I am continuing with my speech.

What is wrong with Wesbank? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, as I was saying …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Yeoville is making it absolutely impossible for the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South to continue with his speech. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South may continue.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Would you please ask the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance what he sought to infer with his interjections?

Order! The hon member for Yeoville may ask the hon the Deputy Minister at a later stage. [Interjections.]

I want to ask him to do so because he tried …

Order! The hon member for Yeoville must resume his seat or I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber. [Interjections.] The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South may continue.

[Inaudible.]

Order! If the hon member for Yeoville continues to ignore the rulings of the Chair he will definitely be asked to leave the Chamber. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South may continue.

Mr Chairman, now that the hon member for Yeoville has given me a chance to continue I want to say that the Land Bank was especially established to provide adapted finance to the agricultural sector, concentrating on granting financial assistance to deserving farmers. Who therefore can better determine the needs identified by this legislation?

In the standing committee members of the House of Representatives and a minority of the House of Delegates did not support the Bill because they felt that their people were not getting a fair deal. They asked why funds should be provided to Black farmers in preference.

Statistics since provided present a very different picture although they are obviously influenced by the limited number of Coloured and Asian farmers and available land. These statistics show that for the six-year period from 1982-87 Land Bank loan assistance to Coloured and Indian farmers amounted to the following: There were 75 applications from Coloured farmers of which 60 or 80% amounting to R835 000 were granted, and there were 237 applications from Indian farmers of which 201 or 85% amounting to R6,7 million were granted. In comparison, 81% of applications by White farmers were granted over the same period. I think that indicates fair and equitable treatment.

A matter which, I believe, requires some consideration is the question of financial assistance to Coloured farmers in the Republic of South Africa who utilise communal land through historical church and similar ownership and who cannot obtain finance because they do not have title to the land occupied. I feel they fall into the same category as the Black fanners who are to be assisted through the medium of financing institutions in terms of this Bill, and their plight deserves investigation and sympathetic consideration.

In spite of arguments to the contrary I am convinced there is a need and desirability for this legislation which will make it possible for the Land Bank to help finance Black farmers in the national states.

*On behalf of this side of the House I should like to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, if I may I should like to start by responding to the interjection of the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance because he referred to a particular financial institution and apparently sought to draw some inference from it. The inference I think he should draw from it and the fact that he should have knowledge of is that members of his party borrowed money from that financial institution. When they could not pay their instalments they asked me to assist them so that they would not be sued and would not have judgment taken against them.

You are getting personal now.

If that is regarded as an improper action the hon the Deputy Minister must make that interjection again and I shall deal with it in reply.

You are ridiculous!

I should like to debate this continuous interjection made by that hon Deputy Minister—from whom I did not expect it—and some of his colleagues.

If he thinks there is anything wrong in relation to that financial institution and any person who is a director of it, why does he not have a select committee investigating it? [Interjections.] I will tell you why, Sir. It is because this has been going on since 1974 when I first came to this House.

Tell us why Harry Oppenheimer did not want to take you with the bank. [Interjections.]

What a cheek! [Interjections.]

At least, Sir, unlike some other hon members in this House, I paid my instalments when they were due. Just remember that. Just remember that!

Whom are you referring to?

Just remember that!

Whom are you referring to?

And I never sold secondhand, defective motor cars either.

Whom are you referring to?

You can decide who the shoe fits, my friend, and you can decide what you want to do about it.

Well, have the guts to say it then!

You can decide whether the shoe fits.

You are a disgrace!

You are a disgrace, man!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think you probably heard what the hon Chief Whip of the NP said about the hon member for Yeoville.

I have had enough of it!

Order! I heard it the second time, yes. The hon member must please withdraw that remark.

I am reluctant to withdraw it, Sir, but I shall do so. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: I think the hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Order! Well, the hon member did do so, but he did so sotto voce. The hon member for Yeoville may continue. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if I may, I would like to continue, without those sort of interjections, to deal with the merits of this measure.

You started it!

You make an inference in regard to all members here and then you want to go free!

Well, have a select committee. Come on! Have a select committee.

Just tell us why Harry Oppenheimer did not want to take you with the bank.

That is not true, and you know it.

Order! The …

Sir, why does …

Order! I think I should have an opportunity to say something about this as well. The hon member for Yeoville has given a personal explanation about something which is very close to his heart and which he considers to be a personal matter. I gave him the opportunity to do so. I now kindly request the hon member to come back to the Bill under consideration.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Turffontein, with continuous interjections, sitting right next to the hon member for Yeoville, is making it increasingly difficult for the hon member for Yeoville to deliver his speech, and I would ask you to call the hon member for Turffontein to order in this regard.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Sir, I want to start off by saying that I think it is vitally important that there should be no misunderstanding regarding our attitude to the assistance of farmers, whether they be in the independent states or the self-governing states. We believe that ordinary bona fide farmers there do require assistance. They require assistance because those territories, in the case of the self-governing states, are still part of South Africa, and in the case of the independent states they were part of South Africa. We believe that some of them may at their option eventually return to a form of federation or confederation with the rest of the RSA.

Secondly, in our view the states concerned have insufficient resources to cater for all their people’s needs and therefore do require aid.

Thirdly, the independent states themselves find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain aid elsewhere than from the RSA.

The hon member who spoke just before me, made the remark that we claim to be the exclusive champions of the Blacks in South Africa. Sir, we have never claimed to be the champions, either exclusive or otherwise, of Blacks in South Africa; Blacks speak for themselves, and in any case—in the very point which he made—there is the distinction in South Africa because of the tragedy of what has happened—that the countries concerned—the TBVC-countries—are ostensibly politically independent, but they are not economically independent. After some recent events, some doubt also has to be cast on whether they are actually politically independent in the true sense of the word in all cases.

The tragedy of this is that here we have states that were intended to be independent but that are certainly in no way economically independent. The very introduction of this legislation demonstrates that that is indeed a fact. The hon the Deputy Minister certainly cannot deny that because, if he did, he would be proving that there was no need for this legislation. What is happening here, Sir? Instead of those states just receiving aid voted in terms of a budget of this House they are being given assistance in a whole series of indirect ways, assistance they receive in addition to the budgetary aid already given them. Some of those ways in which they are assisted are authorised by this Parliament, and this measure before us now is one such example. Others, however, are not authorised by Parliament at all. There is ample evidence that funds voted for completely different purposes have been channelled to the TBVC countries in order to assist them in their financial plight.

In addition to that there is also ample evidence that the TBVC countries have gone to the extent of approaching commercial banks to cover budgetary shortages and that these loans have been guaranteed by the Government of South Africa, which means that the figures in respect of those shortages are not reflected anywhere in the General Affairs Budget. A whole variety of means of financing the TBVC countries has been evolved, and this is yet another method of financing them in a way which actually amounts to off-budget financing. We do not believe there should be off-budget financing. In every case of financing we believe the amount involved should be clearly stated. The public should know about it. Parliament should know about it. We should make that decision here.

Our objective is to ensure that the assistance intended to be given to bona fide farmers does in fact go to bona fide farmers, either personally or to some co-operative or other partnership or association or to a corporate body, the ownership or control of which is in the hands of bona fide farmers who are either citizens or permanent residents of South Africa or of the TBVC countries. We certainly do not believe that we should, by way of legislation passed by Parliament, provide finance which could be channelled to what we call the “Uhuru hoppers”, who go from one independent state to the next—even some of the TBVC countries—and who, in some cases, have exploited situations and have obtained substantial financial benefits, without following normal, acceptable practices such as tenders or negotiated contracts. As far as we are concerned there is a case for entrepreneurs from abroad to embark upon bona fide and properly tested projects in the TBVC countries. Activities such as those should be encouraged but no form of abuse should be allowed and this Bill now before us contains no protective measures which will ensure that doubtful practices do not occur.

The purpose of the Land Bank is to provide money by way of loans to South African farmers. Our objection throughout, over many years, has been to Land Bank activities where the money is not being used to assist farmers. Every time that happens we raise our voices in protest because such activities are contrary to the purpose of the Land Bank Act. We believe that what is important is that the Land Bank should provide assistance to ordinary individuals who want to farm and, by doing so, enable them to remain on their land. That is the purpose of the Land Bank, as we have said before, and that is why it frustrates us to see money not being spent in order to further those particular purposes.

In the committee, we took the attitude that we wanted to ensure that the money made available by the Land Bank in the Republic benefited bona fide farmers who, as I have said, are citizens or permanent residents of the Republic or those states. We have not been successful in trying to persuade the majority party in this House to accede to that request, and I wonder why not. If the Government has no intention of making money available to people who are not citizens or permanent residents, why cannot that fact be included in the legislation? The hon the Deputy Minister will have to answer that question.

Another matter which we raised in the committee, and which has not been dealt with, is the term “financing institution”, which is not defined in the Bill. In other words, any company which has financing as its objective falls within this category. We were told that that was not the intention and that the aim of the legislation was to allow parastatal institutions in the TBVC countries to borrow money from the Land Bank. However, despite repeated requests in the committee and numerous adjournments so that the necessary amendments could be effected, either the persons in charge of this measure or the Land Bank or somebody else was unwilling to specify this in the Bill.

Why should it be possible, in terms of this measure, for ordinary companies which are not controlled by permanent residents or citizens to obtain assistance in the form of Land Bank money? We have asked that question again and again, but we have yet to receive an answer.

The second issue is that if the government of a state does not itself have the funds to assist its citizens, it should at least guarantee the funds it obtains. In his introductory speech, the hon the Minister said that the country concerned would guarantee them and that the South African Government would in turn guarantee the Land Bank. If that is so, this will merely be a method of Government financing, because we will be providing another guarantee.

In that case, why does the Bill not contain the provision we proposed in the committee that loans should not be advanced to financing institutions without their having been guaranteed? If loans are to be guaranteed, why should that not be stated in the Bill? If not, why should we simply accept the Bill in its present form? The thing does not make sense. If the intention is that money be advanced only if there is a guarantee, one should be prepared to say so in the Bill.

The third issue is one I have mentioned already, that of residents and citizens. That amendment was not accepted either.

As we discovered only the other day, the Development Bank has actually been lending money for this purpose for some considerable time. It was formed in order to provide money for capital projects, and the intention was never that it provide this kind of finance. It has given farmers assistance of all kinds, including bridging finance and crop finance, which the Development Bank was certainly not established to provide.

Each of these independent states should have its own land bank, that is its own institution to provide assistance for its farmers. That institution should obtain financial assistance, if required, from its own government.

If the government of that independent state does not have the resources, then it is a question of coming to the South African Government and asking for aid and assistance. The way in which this is being done, is a backdoor way of financing certain activities.

The lesson, not only of Southern Africa but also of Africa as a whole, is that aid should not be general aid. It should be aid which is allocated for specific, acceptable objectives and which is adequately controlled. That has been the lesson, for example, of the Lomél Convention initiated by the EEC where the whole concept has been changed over the years because this has shown to be necessary in Africa. The TBVC countries are in no way different to this.

To my mind this measure fails this fundamental test. It fails the test and it fails to have the safeguards which are required. I therefore move as an amendment:

Mr Chairman, I wish to support the amendment as moved by the hon member for Yeoville. He has given our main arguments against the Bill before us today.

I want to reiterate one point which, although I think he made it very clearly, is extremely important. We recognise the need for farmers to receive assistance, therefore we support the principle underlying this Bill. Our difficulty is with the way in which that need is to be met.

We have indicated that there are aspects of the Bill which we do not support. We were surprised that, when consensus was not reached in the standing committee, the Bill was withdrawn but reintroduced some months later without a single change. The issues that were raised in that particular committee had not been dealt with in any way.

One final aspect which gave us difficulty in the committee relates to the question of priorities as to who should receive loans. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South has disclosed certain figures today which actually come from the Land Bank and which tell us the size of loans which have been granted to members of the so-called Coloured community as well as the Indian community.

It is necessary to relate those figures to the total loans by the Land Bank to actually be able to see them in some perspective. During the period 1982-86, that is a five year period, Land Bank loans totalled approximately R29,5 billion. Of that amount, R2,76 billion was loaned to individual fanners.

The figures given of loans to Coloureds and Indians, which I will not repeat, amount to less than one half a percent of the total loans given to individual farmers. That created a lot of difficulty with members of the standing committee who asked whether all farmers within the Republic are being dealt with satisfactorily as far as loans from the Land Bank are concerned.

When one realises that the members of the board of the Land Bank are appointed by the hon the State President, and one looks at them, one realises that they are clearly not representative of the total population of South Africa. One therefore has difficulty in looking at the proportion in which loans are granted and, may I say, one loses some degree of confidence in the basis on which this has been done.

Other than those comments, the hon member for Yeoville has clearly outlined our reasons for opposing the Bill, and I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Mr Chairman, it is interesting that when one puts together the two schools of thought here one finds that they co-operate. I can see that the CP is of course totally opposed to any Black man being assisted in South Africa; be it in the homelands or in the national states, it makes no difference. They regard Dr Verwoerd as their father, but they do not support the heritage of Dr Verwoerd. Had Dr Verwoerd been in this House today he would definitely have supported this Bill. [Interjections.] I worked under him; I know he would have supported it. The CP does not support it because they want to use it in a racist way to be able to say at election time that everything is being given to the Blacks again, as they said here again today. They begrudge those people everything.

The most interesting aspect of the argument advanced by the hon member for Delmas is that we are once again taking State money and giving it to the Blacks. What is interesting is that this money does not come out of the Budget. The Land Bank obtains its own funds on the capital market. [Interjections.] This means that the hon member in fact simply introduced this aspect here to be able to say that we are giving everything to the Blacks.

I thank the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, who explained this matter well. He stated the essential point, that had not been mentioned before, namely that the Land Bank has the staff with the experience in this field. This is the essence of the matter, which points to the difference of opinion between the hon member for Yeoville and myself. The argument advanced by the hon member for Yeoville has to do with a long philosophical disquisition as to whether the national states belong with us or not. His view is that aid should fall under the Foreign Affairs Vote. When the report of the Standing Committee was tabled here I reminded him that he had been one of the great champions of taking certain aid activities in respect of the national states, away from the Department of Foreign Affairs. I recall the arguments he advanced when we questioned the representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not think he was ever opposed to the establishment of the Development Bank. We must be clear and consistent as far as this principle is concerned.

We are dealing her with a banking activity. At this juncture I should perhaps come back to the point that the hon member for Yeoville became very upset about. I am going to tell him what I meant. I think he became involved in something there that I was not aware of. The PFP is constantly attacking the Land Bank. If it is not the flats, it is the people’s interest rates or their loans. I want to put it to the hon members as follows. What bank in South Africa gives its people less than the Land Bank? Mention such a bank to me. Does the Reserve Bank do it? I do not think so. What about Volkskas? I do not think so. Nedbank, then? I do not think so. What about Wesbank? The hon member is acquainted with Wesbank. I think he knows what the top management of Wesbank receives.

Boland Bank!

Boland Bank looks after its people.

That is my argument. We are dealing here with a specialised activity. The hon member is aware of that. He contends that the Land Bank funds must only be used for agriculture. I gain the impression that he is intimating that part of that money goes to the flats or is used to pay the staff too much. I really regard that as a personal attack on the staff and the directors of the Land Bank, and I have already told the hon member for Yeoville that.

However, I wish to pursue the argument that we must deal with these activities under the Department of Foreign Affairs. The next criticism we have—we have heard this in the past—is that the Department of Foreign Affairs does not possess that technical knowledge. That is what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South said here.

We cannot handle a bank within the machinery of the State administration.

That does not work; it is impractical. Not so long ago we even—the hon members opposite approved of this—transferred some of the financial institutions under our control to the Reserve Bank. I feel therefore that we should state clearly that we are dealing here with a certain banking activity, a certain function.

How has that function been performed this far? In order to help the Black farmer in the national states, this function is currently being dealt with by the Development Bank. During the past financial year the Development Bank has made R57 million available for promoting agriculture in the national states.

I just wish to say in passing to the hon member for Yeoville that this is a development activity. I cannot understand how he cannot see that the promotion of agriculture is an upliftment activity. I cannot understand that. Anyone who draws up a programme to uplift undeveloped areas will begin with agriculture. Therefore I cannot understand why he is now criticising the fact that the Development Bank is giving attention to the farmers in the national state.

However, what was the problem that cropped up in this regard? The Development Bank also received requests from commercial farmers. The question now arises whether it is the function of the Development Bank to assist the commercial farmers in the national states as well. It was then that the Development Bank requested the Government to see whether other methods could not be found of assisting the commercial farmer in the national states.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, quite right; the Land Bank was considered. I think that the first offer made by the Land Bank to the national states was initially to help them with short-term credit only, just as the Land Bank assists the co-operatives. It is not stated in the Land Bank Act that the co-operative has to insure specific things. Surely the hon member for Yeoville knows that not everything is stipulated in an Act. After all, there is a policy and there are rules that flow from an Act. However, the national states were not satisfied with this. The solution of this problem was not that the Land Bank should only provide short-term financing.

I want to go further. The hon member for Yeoville maintains that each of the national states must now establish its own Land Bank. For goodness, sake—I almost used the wrong word now—we really have to be realistic. On the one hand he says that we should not waste money, but on the other he wants us to give each of these young countries a land bank with its own land bank economists, accountants and agricultural experts. Surely the hon member for Yeoville knows that that is not realistic.

Are they not independent? [Interjections.]

Yes, there is the World Bank. Surely Africa is not going to establish a World Bank for itself; that would not work. Surely there are ways we can help each other. The hon member made the point that we are wasting money, but now he wants to spend more money. He also says that he doubts whether this financing can be channeled directly to projects for which there is a need.

I think that in general, in his speech he criticised funds made available to the national states in the form of lump sums. He feels that there is inadequate control. However, in this regard the Land Bank is going to deal with specific requests; nor is this anything new. The Development Bank receives requests for assistance for farmers from financial institutions in the national states. This function is now being entrusted to the Land Bank. The financial institutions in the national states now have to apply to the Land Bank for aid for specific projects. Here there is the opportunity for better control—precisely what the hon member says would not happen. Here the Land Bank is dealing with specific projects. Once the bank knows what the specific projects are, it is difficult to imagine how better control can be exercised.

We must also bear in mind that these are not lump sums that are paid in one amount in one year. They are different projects, and if a certain financial institution does not comply with the requirements set, it is cut off. After all, control is far easier if one controls matters per project. The hon member states that the definition of financial institutions is not clear. He severely criticises that, but I think that the hon member is unjust in his criticism. The Land Bank twice proposed to our law advisers what the hon member proposed in the standing committee. I do not want to read out the whole long story to the hon member now, but in the first place they define precisely what the hon member proposed and the law advisers did not find it acceptable. When the legislation was revised they again submitted the proposal of the hon member for Yeoville to specify what they meant by financial institutions. I can give this to the hon member when we leave here. Again the legal advisers did not accept this. They no doubt have their reasons. I am not a lawyer but the hon member is and he will understand it better.

The hon member for Pinelands again raised the argument that was also mentioned in the standing committee, namely that the other population groups living in South Africa do not receive aid from the Land Bank. That argument has been used before. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South mentioned that the Land Bank approves 80% of the applications by Coloured commercial farmers. Eighty three per cent of the applications for Indian commercial farmers have been approved. I have enquired about the situation relating to the Coloured subsistence farmer. Since 1973 we have been making provision for assisting the Coloured subsistence farmer. It is interesting that in the 1987-88 financial year we voted R2 million to assist these Coloured subsistence farmers. The hon member for Pinelands is now objecting to this. I agree that it is not R100 million or R200 million. However, he should be realistic. How many Coloured commercial farmers do we have in South Africa today? The applications of 80% of those who have asked for assistance, have been approved. Provision has also been made for the subsistence farmer.

If one takes this Bill as a whole into account, I really think that a hue and cry is being made about this unnecessarily. I am honest when I say this, because I see this proposed legislation as the best method of uplifting agriculture in our national states. When those hon members object as they are doing, I am tempted to regard this as a matter of their begrudging those people the opportunity for upliftment. I am sorry to say that there is too much unnecessary politicking about this Bill here. Personally I believe that this Bill will serve a very good purpose. It is a practical organisational structure that is being created here by the Land Bank to assist these financial institutions or units in the national states and thereby to assist the commercial fanner. Then, in turn, the Development Bank can help the subsistence farmer. I wish to give this Bill my wholehearted support.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—85: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Cunningham, J H; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Louw, E v d M; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J.

Tellers: Golden, S G A; Jordaan, A L; Kritzinger, W T; Meyer, W D; Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—18: Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Eglin, C W; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Uys, C; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

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

Allow me also, Sir, to tell hon members of this House how much I have appreciated their cooperation during the past few months. I am sure that the rest that we are going to have, has been well earned—at least by some of us. May I wish all hon members well for this holy period. May they rest well and come back refreshed, because there is a difficult time ahead of us with a tremendous amount of work to be done. I trust that all hon members will come back refreshed.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, allow me first of all to congratulate our colleague, the hon member for Eldorado Park, on attaining the young age of 60 today. [Interjections.] He has become such a great and important man that we hear of boxing matches taking place in his hall every Sunday. [Interjections.]

I want to express my sincere appreciation to all participants in this debate, especially for the spirit in which they did so and the high standard they maintained. I was deeply struck by the fact that the upliftment of our people and their progress was accentuated by practically all participants. It is my considered opinion that the absence of the Official Opposition contributed very greatly to the high standard of the debate. It would certainly have been marred by their negative approach and destructive criticism. [Interjections.]

*I trust that their experience at the polls will shock them back to sobriety. [Interjections.] The underhand attacks on our hon leader, attesting to their political bankruptcy, did not pass unnoticed. One can merely hope that the voters have clearly shown them that they want to be represented by a party that has a policy. The Coloureds have become politically aware and on 23 March 1988 they showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that this was thanks to the LP.

On behalf of the LP I want to express our thanks and appreciation to the voters of the Bokkeveld and assure them that this party has only one purpose in mind, viz to move ahead.

†The hon member for Silvertown started off on the high note of placing emphasis on the fact that the Ministers’ Council had revealed its concern for the people by the way in which it allocated the meagre funds at its disposal. The hon member referred to it as a drop in the ocean—which it is indeed. However, what I really appreciate is the fact that the hon member laid his finger on the cause of our shortcomings, and that is that the Whites were clinging to the lion’s share. Like the hon member I too would like to appeal to the Government to open up all the economic resources of the country to everybody so that the reform, which they talk about so much, may become a reality.

The hon member correctly stated that we in the LP have used the system to our advantage. I would like to add to that that once the laws relating to those horrible words like apartheid, division or partition—whatever they would like to call them—have been removed from the Statute Books, this party will prove that the sky is the limit.

*I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives and other hon Ministers with health portfolios on their negotiations with the hon the Minister of Finance. These negotiations reaped benefits. I am referring to the advancement to May of the payment of bonuses. This means much more to the aged than any of us realise. I want to turn to the critics of our negotiation policy in particular and ask them what they have done to relieve our people’s misery. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare thanked me for the Budget and added that in this way I had made a contribution to the election. I appreciate his fine words. At the same time, however, I want to thank the Ministers’ Council, the Director-General, chief directors, all officials and all LP MPs for their contributions in the standing committees, in this House and in their constituencies. Hon members, we are truly a team that is worth its salt. Congratulations!

I want to thank the hon member for Mamre for describing the stature of our leader and of the party in such a dignified way. I agree with him that we are the ones who should be sent abroad to fight sanctions, because the people from the “White House” have been failing for years. Let me state unequivocally today that one can never cure a disease by treating its consequences; one has to treat the causes. The cause is apartheid. That is the cancer that is paralysing the country’s economy. That is precisely why the LP has set itself the objective of eradicating this scourge completely. I agree with the hon member that his ministry must be expanded, because as long as we are subjected to powers that are restricted elsewhere, we are compelled always to make the best of the worst.

The hon member also requested that more bursaries be allocated. I should like to make it clear that we have reached a stage at which we are not capable of accommodating bursary holders in posts, and I therefore want to appeal to the private sector to appoint more of our people.

The hon member for Southern Free State summarised things nicely when he said the LP did not accept the tricameral system as an end, but rather as a point of departure. The Ministers’ Council is in complete agreement with him on that point. I believe the voters of the Southern Free State can be proud of their representative in this House. No one could have made a more ardent plea that one should not regard this part of our beautiful country as the Cinderella of South Africa. I also want to assure him that the respective aspects he broached about the conditions in the towns in question will certainly receive attention.

The hon member was pleased that there was an increase on each level despite the fact that the hon the Minister of Finance made cutbacks. I should be neglecting my duty if I did not point out that if there had not been general cutbacks, our inflation rate would not have shown such an encouraging decrease and the growth rate would not have reached 2,6%. I do not want the hon member to think the aged are being neglected. Negotiations are in progress and we are a long way from throwing in the towel.

This brings me to the hon member for Griqualand West. A lesson the rest of this House can learn from the hon member for Griqualand West is that he knows his constituency extremely well and that he is very close to the electorate. I think his voters can be very proud of their political representative, and especially of the dignified way in which he presents the voters’ case to the House. As a person whose voters also suffered a great deal because of the flood, I have understanding for the dismay of people in the area concerning the conditions, and I want to advise the hon member to knock on the door of the regional office of the Department of Health Services and Welfare with determination. They have taken over the work of the Joint Operational Centre.

The hon member referred to Strydenburg and Holpan, where 21 and 20 classrooms are being utilised by seven and six White children respectively, whereas our children have to attend double-shift classes in terrible conditions. I want to assure the hon member that the relevant Minister is very concerned about this matter and will do his best for our scholars at all times.

I now come to the hon member for Esselen Park. He began his speech by saying he was sorry the hon the Minister was not present. I want to assure the hon member that I am never absent. I may be absent in a physical sense sometimes, but never in spirit. My throat was rather dry and I ordered a cup of coffee, but I followed everything on the monitor. I hope the hon member did not regard my physical absence as an insult, and I should like to apologise if that was the case. He made a plea for greater decentralisation of functions in the respective regional offices of the Administration’s own departments. I should like to assure the hon member that this process is in progress, and when it has been completed it will definitely contribute to greater speed in dealing with certain matters.

With reference to the hon member’s enquiry about the speedy despatch of information between the branches, the regions and head office, I must inform him that facsimile facilities have been installed in all these offices, with the result that information can be sent through immediately. Branch and regional offices also have Treasury orders at their disposal which enable them to effect payments at their own discretion.

It was with appreciation that I took cognisance of the hon member’s suggestion concerning making housing available to officials when they are transferred, and I shall definitely take this further with my colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture.

I can give the hon member the assurance, however, that individual cases have come before the Ministers’ Council and that houses were bought or rented officially to comply with the requirements.

With regard to parity for all personnel in the Public Service, I have to inform hon members that an announcement has been made that this will become a reality this year. With reference to the hon member’s enquiries about transport schemes, I want to inform him that my department is instituting an in-depth investigation into more effective control measures, to ensure not only that applications are dealt with quickly, but also that the most suitable tenderer is appointed to render a particular service.

As far as education is concerned, bursaries or loans are granted as from the first year, and as long as the bursary holder passes, bursaries are paid to him throughout his studies. Law and medical students are expected to prove themselves first. The hon member referred to a young man with a BSc degree, as well as computer qualifications, who was treated discourteously. I want to assure the hon member that no discourtesy will be tolerated in my department. I should like the hon member to provide me with the necessary facts. I can give him the assurance that the matter will be investigated immediately and, if necessary, appropriate action will be taken.

With reference to the summary termination of stop orders, I should appreciate it if hon members would draw the attention of my department to particular cases. The financing of the other departments takes place as explained in my budget. The details of this will be spelt out during the discussion of each hon Minister’s vote.

The hon member for Vredendal thanked me for the percentage increase of 6,8% in the Budget. I should like to inform him that the Ministers’ Council was able to succeed in negotiating a percentage increase of 14,19% for the 1988-89 financial year in contrast with the previous financial year.

The hon member also wanted to know whether the hon member for Macassar had ever rendered proof that 15 children were travelling in a bus, whereas 30 children were running alongside it. I am still waiting for this proof. The hon member is not even here to supply answers today.

In reply to the question as to the truth of the hon member for Macassar’s allegation that tenders in certain places were delayed, I can merely say that previously it took longer before tenders were submitted to me. This is now dealt with by a special team of experts in my department, and this process eliminates all possible delays.

I should like to thank the hon member for Heidedal for his support. The matters he broached will be investigated by the Department of Education and Culture, as well as the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture.

The hon member for Alra Park appealed for an open South Africa in which colour will not be a factor. I should like to assure the hon member that this is what all of us are striving for and that we are doing everything in our power to achieve that ideal. I want to thank him for the appreciation he expressed to me, as well as for his synopsis of how we are actually involved in a general affair as far as maintenance grants are concerned, because all little children who may not live with their White fathers are passed on to the Coloured community. We thank the dear Lord that at least we realise that all creatures are His. Our Christian principles do not allow us to disown these children, as some biological parents and even the laws of our country do. [Interjections.] Hon members’ support is appreciated.

†I now come to the hon member for Northern Transvaal. I wish to thank him for his support. He pleaded for the appointment of a co-ordinator to liaise between the management committees, the regional offices and head office in order to expedite housing matters, so as to eliminate unnecessary criticism in this regard from the community we serve. I am sure that the responsible hon Minister is taking cognisance of this recommendation and I should like to advise the hon member to take up the matter further with him. I should also like to thank him for supporting the Budget as well for his positive response to what has been achieved. The hon member has most ably described another structure to alleviate the problem in respect of time. May I, as a gentle reminder, refer the hon member to the ministerial representatives who have been appointed for just that reason.

*I now come to the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal. The hon member expressed his thanks at the beginning of his speech as well. It was absolutely wonderful to receive so much thanks. He expressed how happy he was about the substantial amount that was budgeted for Education and Culture. It is always encouraging to listen to someone who appreciates the value of education. We also want to express the hope that our children will make full use of the opportunities that are being created here.

I now come to the hon member for Rawsonville. He requested that reform should take place more quickly, and said that the pace of reform was too slow. I should like to assure him that since the tricameral system was instituted, more reform has taken place in the constitutional sphere in South Africa than took place in the period from 1948. The relevant Ministers will react to the other aspects broached by the hon member.

I now come to the hon member for Grassy Park. I want to thank him for his support. I have taken cognisance of his explanation of the distressing problems the community is experiencing, something that requires immediate attention. I assure him that the respective Ministers will react to the aspects he broached, and that these aspects will receive the necessary attention. He said that the problems that had been experienced with study bursaries had been resolved expeditiously. That is conclusive proof that the Ministers’ Council does everything in its power to act in the interests of the community at all times.

Apartheid in education is attacked regularly by the Ministers’ Council as well as the House of Representatives, and I should like to give hon members the assurance that we shall never cease these attacks, not until full equality has been attained in all respects.

With reference to the creation of posts in the Public Service, I want to make it very clear that the Ministers’ Council tidies up the situation regularly, but that no leeway is possible at the moment because all budgets are being cut. A committee of enquiry will be kept in mind and will be appointed as soon as the economy has recovered.

I now come to the hon member for Bokkeveld. I should like to congratulate the hon member on his superb victory and the way in which he could show the Official Opposition in the clearest possible way what a Labourite is made of. [Interjections.]

It was a revelation to listen to the quality of the hon member’s maiden speech. He also made quite a few penetrating inputs. I want to give him the assurance that as the LP’s representative in the Cold Bokkeveld, it is his bounden duty to address his representations about matters that he discussed to the respective Ministers. The Ministers’ Council will assist him in improving the quality of life of the people in his area and in realising all the fine prospects mentioned by the hon member. I thank the hon member for his support.

I now come to the hon member for Border. In my introductory comments, I referred to the quality of the debates and the high standard that was maintained. I said I ascribed this to the absence of the Official Opposition. How right I was! I see the hon member is not here today, but I hope he is following my speech on the monitor. The hon member made only one positive statement, and that was that he was pleased about the increases. After that the hon member—characteristically— merely plodded along.

†The hon member stated that he was going to show this House how the Ministers’ Council as a whole had failed this House and the people we represent. He then proceeded by putting up a show of his comprehensive knowledge of the budget by referring to projected estimates based on a five year plan which, unless he is able to prove the contrary, was obtained from the hon member for Schauderville.

At that point in time, ie 1985-86, the hon member for Schauderville was the chief spokesman on finance for the LP. He was furnished with this confidential document by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for study and comment. By the abuse of a confidential document which, in fact, is the property of the Ministers’ Council, the hon member for Schauderville has made himself guilty of a breach of faith. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Border then put up an act, endeavouring to compare these estimates with the actual allocations of the various departments. It is an absolutely normal procedure to have projections in excess of the actual budget. Yet this great pretender wishes to know what has happened to the difference. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the budgets approved in this House were used to the full. It was Shakespeare who wrote, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players”. However, the hon member for Border happens to be a most dismal actor, because he ventured where angels fear to tread. His bluff has been called.

*The hon member had the audacity to accuse me of blatant lies. He should rather admit to this House that he does not have the foggiest idea of how a budget is estimated and negotiated. I should like to tell him how this is done. [Interjections.]

For the purposes of Parliamentary control, the main practical purpose of the estimate of expenditure is the annual summary and explanation of the Government’s expenditure proposals for the purposes of appropriation. The Budget forms the arithmetical basis according to which one can make sure that money is spent in accordance with the allocation and therefore the wishes of Parliament.

The budget system identifies the broad objectives of the administration inter alia and emphasises these policy objectives with a view to allocating means. It has to address the following, therefore: The need that has to be supplied; the problem that has to be dealt with; the benefit or result that has to be attained and the expected output.

In order to comply with this, it is essential that financial planning be done of implementation programmes that will achieve certain objectives by using the long-term means that are necessary to do so. This is where the hon member misses the boat completely. He is looking for the difference between money that was estimated in 1985 etc and amounts that have in fact been allocated at this stage.

†He also accused the Ministers’ Council of gross negligence; of being unable to negotiate and of allowing R720 million to slip through its fingers. I am of the opinion that only a person of gross ignorance, one who is unable to comprehend, could misunderstand the reality of the Budget to this extent.

*The hon member claimed repeatedly that the supply lines had been cut after our hon leader had gone swimming.

The hon member’s line has been cut.

For his information I want to say that our hon leader and his party swam in sea water—sea water which was created for everyone by God. [Interjections.] His conduct evoked admiration and respect from many parts of the world. It reconfirmed the LP’s sense of purpose and the Official Opposition experienced the reaction of the LP’s conduct in the Bokkeveld last week. The hon member said that they were not in the inner circles, and that is true. At the rate at which they are retrogressing, I cannot see that they will ever get there. [Interjections.]

I want to thank the hon member for Riversdal for his contribution and the answers he gave the hon member for Border. I am pleased that he reminded the UDP of the ultimatum they set the hon the State President. I want to assure hon members that once again it was simply a lot of hot air.

The hon member concentrated mainly on school transport. As he rightly said, there are many shortcomings, but I am pleased the hon member said that we shall have complaints investigated immediately. If there are cases in which it can be proved that investigative officials have given the contractors prior warning, I want to assure the hon member that our department will take firm action.

I want to congratulate the hon member sincerely on his little girl who wrote the cute letter. The hon member must congratulate her on behalf of the House. She has made history, because her letter is going to be published in Hansard. I do not think she is going to have any problems in passing matric at the end of the year.

The intimidation of children by investigative officials is regarded in a serious light, and I want to advise hon members to bring such irregularities to the attention of my department. The hon member can be sure that this whole House, or atleast this side of the House, places a high premium on the safety and progress of our children.

The hon member gave some valuable pointers in connection with transport services, and use will be made of these where possible. As I have said, thorough consideration is being given to the matter.

Routes are usually given in full in the advertisements and as far as extending routes is concerned, I want to assure the hon member that there will be no hesitation in doing so if there are deserving applications and funds are available. The hon member made a positive contribution, and I thank him sincerely for doing so.

†I want to thank the hon member for Ottery for his support, and on the whole, for his positive approach to what has been achieved. I also want to thank him for taking the Official Opposition to task for their irresponsible actions. I am referring to their absence during the initial debate on the Budget before this House. I am in full agreement with his viewpoint that our people are not interested in revolution. I can assure him that the LP, from the outset, has worked towards the social and economic upliftment of our people and that we shall continue on this path until that goal has been fully achieved. Since the hon member preferred to be discourteous when requested to give clarity regarding the “skurwe” flats, I have elected to ignore that part of his speech.

*I also want to express my thanks to the hon member for Daljosaphat for his support and his positive contribution during the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, it is my privilege to move:

Agreed to.

Order! Before we come to the first item on the Order Paper, I should like to draw the attention of hon members and in particular the hon member for Reservoir Hills to a speech which he made in this House on 24 March 1988, in which he said inter alia the following:

I should like to advise the hon member for Reservoir Hills that the hon member for Rylands feels slighted by this remark, and I have no option but to call upon the hon member for Reservoir Hills to withdraw that statement.

Mr Chairman, may I point out, with respect, that those references were made in general terms and no specific reference was made to the hon member for Rylands. It was not alleged that he was corrupt, and in general terms I do not think that anyone could take exception to the statement that I made. I said: “If a person does these things.” I did not suggest that the hon member for Rylands, who is not present, was the person.

Order! I would like to advise the hon member for Reservoir Hills that there were certain circumstances under which the hon member made these statements. These circumstances related to actions taken by the hon member for Rylands in recent weeks. In this light I would like to ask the hon member for Reservoir Hills to withdraw this statement.

I bow to the Chairman’s request.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, we are aware that the national Budget is being presented at a time when determined efforts are being made to undermine the expansion and growth of our economy, thus placing severe constraints on the ability to improve the quality of life of all the people of this land. Therefore it is absolutely imperative that the Government must move faster and accelerate the pace of reform, despite the pressures from the left and the right, if we are not to have a deep polarisation in our country. I believe that there is evidence that people who have in the past been committed to peaceful reform, are now thinking very seriously where they should stand—on the left or on the right. A situation like that is untenable if we are going to find peaceful answers to the problems of our country.

This is also the feeling of our friends abroad. The pace of reform must be seen to be moving faster so that the goals that all of us have set for ourselves may be achieved within a reasonable period of time.

I acknowledge that the Budget has been welcomed, having regard to the circumstances in which it has been presented, but two matters which were highlighted in this House yesterday were inflation and productivity. In the course of his address the hon the Minister referred to the fact that Israel was able to bring down its inflation rate from about 400% to 16% and that workers had contributed by accepting a cut in their salaries. I do not believe that such a development will be possible in South Africa, but I think that the same goals can be set and realised if productivity becomes part of the religion of this country. Unfortunately the historic background of master and servant in this country has given the people of colour reason to ask why they should be called upon to produce more, when the rewards and returns for their endeavours are not commensurate with the work that they have been putting in historically towards the development and prosperity of this country.

I believe we need a new ethic and a new approach. We need to bring to the forefront a realisation that the future of this country depends on a partnership between capital and labour, and that labour must be given its rightful place in the decision-making process and in the planning and operating of factories so that the workers, the majority of whom are people of colour, do not consider themselves as mere workers making profits for the companies by whom they are employed.

Only recently we read about Japanese motor assembly plants that were being set up in America and which were taking American workers from the United States to the assembly plants in Japan to give them an introduction to the work ethic of the Japanese people. I was pleasantly surprised to read that these American workers were prepared to accept the norms demanded of them by their Japanese employers. They felt that this was the ideal thing, that a worker should go to the factory in a spirit of co-operation feeling that he is a partner in that enterprise and then go back to the plants in the United States and emulate the qualities to which he had been introduced in Japan.

I believe that if South Africa is to progress and to prosper, and productivity is the hallmark of progress and prosperity, and if we are to achieve these goals, then a new approach—not that of master and servant, but a realistic and working partnership born out of mutual respect between worker and employee—must be created.

Secondly, it implies that people from the broad spectrum of South African society, transcending considerations of colour and race, must be identified, trained and evaluated on the basis of merit as speedily as possible so that they may play their role in whatever position employers have to offer. In other words we cannot have a preponderance of Whites in management and a whole number of other people of colour as employees on the lower rungs of production. I believe that people of colour must be seen to be recognised, and that recognition must be demonstrated by their presence in responsible positions in the factory or in the office.

When I was in Frankfurt I read an article written by Mr Klaus Nagorp, who has visited this country and with whom I spent many hours. This man is very critical of racial discrimination, whether in this country or anywhere else. At the time of writing it was a few days after the restrictions had been placed on several organisations in this country. Notwithstanding that, and despite being critical of such moves, he said the following:

That comes from a very critical commentator. He also said it was equally true that those who portray that everything is well in South Africa are doing that country as much harm as those who are planning to impose sanctions, boycotts and disinvestment. We must therefore find the happy medium, and that happy medium naturally lies in investments and other stimuli to expand our economy and to provide job opportunities for all those who are being educated.

Secondly, I do not think anyone should stand up in defence of those things that are wrong in South Africa. We have to identify the challenge and address that challenge and find the answers as quickly as possible, but this must be done through the process of dialogue and discussion.

More importantly, I believe that notwithstanding the fact that sanctions have been imposed in different ways by different countries, thinking people, including some of those people who are participating in the programme to impose sanctions, now realise after the passage of a year or two that it has really done nothing to improve the lot of the people of colour in South Africa. It has not accelerated the pace of reform. If anything it has had a negative effect and has, in fact, imposed restraints on further development and progress in this country.

The extent to which this campaign has been orchestrated is demonstrated by the fact that two weeks ago, in Frankfurt, I saw a document published by people who are propagating disinvestment, sanctions and the denial of bank loans. Their target was Eskom. They wanted Eskom to be denied funding facilities in West Germany.

I mention Eskom for the simple reason that at the moment it is concentrating all its energies on extending power to the townships where Black people are residing. We know of these programmes. We know that the privatisation of Eskom is underway. We also know that Eskom has been functioning economically, and that it provides power even to Mocambique, and supplements the power needs of Botswana and Lesotho. Having regard to all these factors, if somebody wants to nail that organisation down and cripple its growth, it is an indication that the canvassing for boycotts, sanctions and disinvestment is not intended to help the people of colour in South Africa, but is part of a programme designed to bring South Africa to its knees economically—for whose benefit I do not know. I highlight Eskom, because I think it clearly points out what the intentions are of those people who are propagating sanctions and boycotts.

On the question of the Small Business Development Corporation of South Africa, I believe that it must not be seen by those benefactors who helped to capitalise this corporation as something to soothe their consciences, or as a manifestation on the part of the Government of its desire to see the evolution and progress of the people of colour and the underdeveloped sectors of our community. Far from it—small business must play a positive role and be seen as a process of evolution until such people become partners in the mainstream of economic life in our country. I think questions have been raised on this score. I would like to believe that the Small Business Development Corporation is not merely helping Black people to enter into small businesses, but is the opening of a new door, so that increasingly, with the assistance that is required in the way of education, funding, etc, they will become part of the mainstream economic life of our country. That alone will ensure peace and prosperity in our country. It must not just be a means to an end. In other words, ‘let us keep them satisfied with half a slice of bread’. It must be seen as a complementary component of the economic life of the country, complementary to the larger corporations and with the potential to grow and expand, and to go places, in all seriousness.

I also want to refer the hon the Minister of Finance to a development which has pained me very greatly. Some weeks ago, when I was still here, I clarified with the then hon Deputy Minister of Finance the question of the relaxation of trade with Turkey, the reduction to 3% the duty level on imports from that country. I went to him and asked him if he was serious about it. I asked him if all the factors had been taken into consideration before the decision was taken and I received a categorical assurance from him. I believe that it constitutes a tremendous error in public relations to suddenly withdraw that understanding and to say that investigations are being carried out. I want to pose this question to the hon the Minister: Why are we so bad, absolutely useless, as far as public relations are concerned? Here is a case in point.

I am seriously pained, because this has given many people an opportunity to make claims which are not favourable to us. They have been saying that Turkey is being used as an outlet for our exports, because we have been shut off from other markets. This is all because it was done in such a fashion, obviously not taking into account certain realities which obtain in our country. I would have thought that before such a consideration was taken up, an investigation would be carried out by the Board of Trade to inform the relevant authorities as to what the implications of such a move would be. I believe a great deal of harm has come to this country, particularly in regard to our business ethics and morality. We have not done this before, and an agreement which was arrived at a couple of months ago is suddenly suspended.

Counterproductive.

It is counterproductive, particularly for a country like South Africa. If the agreement was not entered into after thorough investigation, I could understand it, but to have gone into it fully, and suddenly, at the end of two months, to retract, reflects very poorly on us. This is the first occasion, I think, that South Africa has done something like this.

I am pained and I would like the hon the Minister to understand my feelings on this matter. I am sure that this applies to lots of people in our country who are concerned about the image that we are projecting abroad.

In the course of our debate yesterday mention was made of labour-intensive and capital-intensive industries. I want to deal with this briefly in the presence of the hon the Minister of Finance. In South Africa there is a tendency to divert to capital-intensive industries, because in that way many labour problems are avoided. In South Africa, however, there is a need for more job opportunities to be created and I believe we should find a happy balance between capital-intensive and labour-intensive industries. We are a developing Third World country and for the foreseeable future one of the most important priorities of our country will be to provide work opportunities for the young men and women on whom money is currently being spent to provide them with the necessary education so that they can man jobs in this country.

Mr Chairman, I rise in the final moments of this debate to raise two particular issues with the hon the Minister. I want to have it placed on record that I am indebted to the hon the Minister for affording me a few minutes of his time to raise these two issues. I thank him for this.

I want to say that I am very impressed by the hon the Minister’s call for the maximum utilisation of available resources and also the maximum utilisation of our scarce resources. I also want to say that I was very impressed by his appeal for putting an end to the wastage of public funds.

I again want to raise an issue in this House that I have previously raised with the hon the Minister of the Budget in this House and to which I believe I was not given an adequate answer. I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether there is any justification for the usage of entire secretariats that have been provided for all the hon Ministers who are responsible for this administration, as well as the utilisation of the entire staff of these hon Ministers during election times. I have indicated in this House that there was evidence in all the by-elections that we had last year that the entire staff of all the hon Ministers were in the field during the two weeks prior to the elections, aiding and abetting …

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

Mr Chairman, under normal circumstances I would take such a question but I have a restraint on my time. I will discuss the matter with him after this debate. [Interjections.]

All that I want to ask the hon the Minister is whether there is any justification for this state of affairs. I want to know if he should not in fact do something to put an end to this wastage of public funds. [Interjections.]

The other issue that I want to raise with the hon the Minister concerns the whole question of the appointment of further Deputy Ministers for this administration. I believe the hon the State President has indicated that where there is a need for the appointment of Deputy Ministers, this will be done. I would like to tell the hon the Minister this afternoon that in my humble opinion there is no good reason why further Deputy Ministers should be appointed for the administration of this House. I say so advisedly because I find that even the present hon Ministers of this House do not have sufficient work to engage all their time. [Interjections.]

Before I resume my seat I should like to send this information across to the hon the Minister of Finance. I should like him to look at the documents that I have before me and to tell me whether this in fact can be reconciled with his often-stated and welcome support for the prevention of wastage of public funds.

Mr Chairman, it is unfortunate that the hon member for Springfield refused to answer my reasonable question, but for the record I must say that it is not proper to generalise. If he has any specific evidence of some members of the staff who were involved in the election I believe that he should name the Ministers concerned.

Are you denying what I said?

Yes, I am denying it and as far as I am concerned I am denying it on behalf of many of my hon colleagues.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Deputy Minister deny the fact that those members that are on the Ministerial councils were found day in and day out to be using Government cars to go around canvassing for voters in their area?

Mr Chairman, I was responding to what the hon member for Springfield said when he said that the staff members such as secretaries were involved in the election. I deny that categorically on behalf of my colleagues. [Interjections.]

Coming from a constituency that has been badly affected by the recent floods I want to place on record my appreciation to my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance. The Treasury’s contribution of R141 million which has been earmarked for the disaster relief fund is indeed welcome to the people who need it so badly. I know how much the people who have received some assistance from the fund appreciate this assistance and how much it has assisted in restoring a measure of normality in some people’s lives. However, regrettably there have been some inexplicable delays in many instances where even until now cheques for the floods of September 1987 have not yet been received.

Many unfortunate people who suffered successively in September 1987 and then in February 1988 have not yet received assistance. I realise that it is a mammoth task to process applications which may run into thousands, but some ways and means should be found to expedite these payments.

I also want to express my appreciation for the fact that research is being carried out into methods and means of providing assistance to the people in the lower income groups with regard to the sales tax that will be included as VAT in the price of food. The fact that this assistance will be phased in with the new tax system needs to be reiterated by my hon colleague in his reply to this debate as I believe that it is important that when VAT is introduced, some relief is given to the unfortunate people in our community.

The hon the Minister will recall our impassioned pleas in this House for the exclusion of basic foodstuffs from GST during previous debates.

I want to say that to place a tax on basic food for the poor, and thus contribute towards such diseases as kwashiorkor and TB, is not only cruel but totally undesirable in a country in which there is really no need for people to go hungry. Therefore, I want the relief measures that are envisaged, to be implemented.

On the question of the proposed VAT system, it is necessary for my colleague to direct his officials to pre-empt any possible leaks which were so evident in the collection of GST. There will be some people who will always look for ways and means of evading tax and I think the Exchequer should be one jump ahead of these people and look to see how any possible evasion can be avoided.

While I am on the subject of VAT, allow me to welcome the exclusion of medical services from this tax. This will be of particular benefit to the aged and the infirm in our country. I want to give my colleague a hefty pat on the back for increasing the duty on beer, spirits and cigarettes, for I believe that any loss of tax from basic foodstuffs can well be made up from those people who can afford the luxury of beer, spirits and cigarettes.

The necessity.

My hon colleague says these are a necessity but I will prove to him now that they are not a necessity but an imposition on people’s health. I want to tell the hon the Minister that the smokers of our world need to be protected from this health-damaging fad. I will support an increase of an amount large enough to have an effect on the habit itself. I say this because smokers also imperil the health and lives of non-smokers, who become their victims. Allow me to quote from the latest issue of the Readers Digest some facts about the evils of smoking:

It then goes on to say:

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he is able to give us figures for the amount of carbon monoxide emitted by just one motorcar running in the street for 100 metres, and what amount of poison it contains. [Interjections.]

In reply to that I want to say that I do not stand here as a scientist. I am quoting from an article that appears here. The hon member has a habit of asking people for statistics.

[Inaudible.]

Yes. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he agrees or disagrees with this point. If any person quotes statistics, he should have some background knowledge of what he is quoting.

I am quoting from an article about cigarette smoke, not about the emission of harmful gases from petrol. The hon member can gather those statistics for himself. I am not here to give him those statistics. [Interjections.] I do not think there is a need for this nonsensical question.

I was reading from this article and it says here:

This is for the benefit of the hon member for Camperdown.

I also want to say that it says here that:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he can tell this House if there is anyone that did not smoke and did not die? [Interjections.]

There is a time for living and a time for dying; that we all understand. However, there is no point in accelerating your death unnecessarily and causing harm to others. [Interjections.] The point I want to make here is that the smokers cause harm to non-smokers. This is a matter of concern, and for that reason I address a plea to the hon the Minister to treble and quadruple the tax on cigarettes in order to protect the non-smoker from the smoker’s bad habits.

Mr Chairman, I quote further:

The hon the Minister of Health has made an appeal for us to support April 7 as a non-smoking day in South Africa. He has done this advisedly, since he is aware, as is the whole world, that the effects of smoking on health are harmful.

[Inaudible.]

Much has been said about the rising spiral of violence and the present state of emergency, but there is no one in this country—unless he or she is hell-bent on destroying this beautiful land—who would not like a return to a sane and peaceful living for the people of our country. There is no doubt in my mind that there seems to be a madness abroad in our land where, unfortunately, values of the past have been somewhat eroded. I say “somewhat”, for the reason that there still remains much goodwill among the people of this land.

I am saddened, however, by some recent happenings and I would like to place these happenings on record. Firstly, I should like to say that the recent tightening up of the provisions of the Group Areas Act set the clock back, and we can ill afford this. This, I must concede, is through no fault of the party to which the hon the Minister belongs, although this Act has been implemented by the NP. In recent times they have eased up on the implementation of this Act. However, I say that the efforts of the Conservative Party in wanting to implement the provision of this Act throughout the length and breadth of our country are causing untold racial conflict and are indeed putting the clock back.

Before the general election for the House of Assembly last year, this insidious Act was allowed to be overlooked. Unfortunately, however, the implementation of the Act is a sure vote-catcher, and it was very effectively used as such during the elections. I now look forward to the proposed amendments to this Act, which I see as a forerunner to the ultimate repeal of the Act.

My appeal is that the prejudices of the right-wing political parties should not deter us from the path of reform. I believe that we cannot afford to put the clock back in our country. In our country there are extremists on both the extreme left and right of the political spectrum who, by word and deed, do not wish to see the reform initiatives succeeding. Therefore, those of us who count ourselves moderates in the middle, need to get a move on and save the future for our children and grandchildren.

The other aspect which I am concerned about is this spiral of violence that is prevalent in the Pietermaritzburg area. I spent many happy years of my life in Edendale, Sinathini and Mount Partridge and I know that lovely part of this country. Now I see how hundreds of people are being killed, maimed and injured and thousands of women and children are suffering because of this madness that prevails. I am not going to blame anyone for this but it is a matter of concern. Whatever the causes are, I believe that the sooner this is stopped the better it will be for all. It is important that we should recognise that there is this problem. As such this may be happening in an area in which we are not resident, but it has recently spilt over and I want to appeal for sanity to prevail. There is no doubt about the fact that there are two factions or sides to this problem. Both sides should establish a measure of restraint and see to it that this violence stops. We cannot afford to let this continue.

Mr Chairman, I would very briefly like to touch on the Group Areas Act. During very recent by-elections for the House of Assembly in Standerton, Schweizer-Reneke and various other areas an hon Deputy Minister from the House of Assembly stood up in Standerton and made some remarks about the Group Areas Act. He said that they would never, if they could possibly help it, repeal the Group Areas Act. I would like to ask if it is right for an hon Deputy Minister of that House to make such a statement. The hon the State President, belonging to the very same party, helped to pass some laws through Parliament to bring us into this House to help eradicate the very same things that this hon Deputy Minister was speaking about at that by-election. Not only that, but the audacity of that hon Deputy Minister to come and sit here in a Black House and ask us to rubber-stamp his laws is, like the hon member before me said, proof of the contempt in which they hold us. If an hon Deputy Minister can say that those laws will under no circumstances be repealed, why should he come into this House at all—at any time? He should at least have the courage of his conviction to stay out of this Black House. I am surprised that our colour has not worn off and affected those hon White Ministers that usually do come here. That has not happened. We have had a good relationship with hon Ministers when they come here. However, at the same time they appease the AWB and even the Conservatives. I myself have friends among the Conservatives and they have a specific political idea. I do not begrudge them their views, because I also have my own political views. On the other hand, especially hon Ministers of the NP should under no circumstances go around preaching group areas.

Next I would like to speak about foreign affairs. The hon the Minister of Finance should spend far more money on foreign affairs. Many of our people have been sent out to various countries to speak on behalf of South Africa. However, I want to ask whether the various Ministries that send these people out to speak on South Africa’s behalf, select these people or whether they spend the money simply because those people have made some friends among some MPs in the various Houses. I do not think money should be spent in that way. I very strongly believe that the taxpayer’s money should not be thrown away unnecessarily.

A person who is sent out of this country to speak on behalf of South Africa should, first and foremost, be appointed on merit. The man should know South Africa itself. He should also know the policies of South Africa and where we are headed. People who are sent out willy-nilly simply for the sake of being sent out are doing South Africa more harm than good. It is unbelievable how much harm some of these people are doing to this country.

If any of us think that the people on the other side of the border are blind because they are Black, then I want to tell them that they are not blind and neither are they deaf. They ask one certain questions about what happens in this particular Parliament. They ask one questions about one’s country which at times are very difficult for one to answer. Therefore I maintain that the hon the Minister must bear in mind that the people he sends out on behalf of this country—whether they be White, Black or Brown is immaterial— must be chosen on merit. The money should not be spent simply because the person in question is a friend or a friend of a friend, which I think is happening in Parliament today. I think this is happening because a lot of this comes back to one.

When one travels beyond our borders, one hears about this. One even hears names mentioned. People mention the names of people who have been there and they tell you what those people said, and that they are still waiting to see what will happen. It is very unfair for any person, regard less of who he is, to go out of this country and then perhaps to attend a meeting at which he is questioned about something in particular which another hon member of Parliament has said without approaching the Government in regard to the promises he has made. Our people have been going out and promising people in various other areas, including other governments that they would help them with certain matters, but then failing to do so. Today we are accountable to the South African public for those people who have been sent out of the country to speak on behalf of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, having listened to many speakers here yesterday and today, and particularly the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, I must say that he spoke very brilliantly. However, he failed to outline the various economic problems in the country. He is quite used to delivering a very stereotyped speech on each and every occasion. I think it was an inconclusive speech.

On the Friday before last there was a very prominent visitor in this country, namely Mr Latif, who was a member of the Pakistani Cabinet. He visited Cape Town as well. He was Minister of Housing and Public Works. I, as the chairman of one of the largest Islamic institutions south of the Sahara, was invited to welcome him before prayers at the mosque. Before the prayers, he had driven in an Escort. He noted that it was the second time since he came to Africa that he had driven in an Escort. He had also taken an Escort in Nairobi. So I asked Mr Latif whether he saw some trademark of the country where that Escort which he took in Kenya was manufactured. He said: “No.” I told him that it came from South Africa.

I told him that Pakistan and other countries are blind to the fact that all the surrounding countries in Africa are making much noise and insisting on boycotts on goods from the Republic of South Africa, but they themselves are totally dependent on South Africa. I said: “The Escort you took, I am sure, was bought from South Africa. Anything they need for their daily requirements— jam, fruit, anything they want—they buy from South Africa. They are totally dependent on South Africa. They cannot do without South Africa. They cannot survive without the supplies from South Africa. They are influencing the outside world that is trading with South Africa to stop its trading and boycott South Africa, while they themselves want to trade with South Africa and buy South African goods.” He asked if they were totally dependent on South Africa. I said: “Yes, Sir. I would say they are greatly dependent on South Africa.”

I also highlighted many things to him, such as that foreign countries are investing in this country. I asked why Pakistan does not also send some people to look at investment in this country. I said that we have many Indians coming to the country. Some Indian entrepreneurs have gone to Transkei to trade here. He promised me that he would make an effort to come back to South Africa some other time and look into this in the right way and then he might be able to advise some entrepreneurs in Pakistan to take advantage of it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Do I have two more minutes? Then I might as well sit down.

Mr Chairman, my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, in the reply to our own affairs Budget, quite appropriately highlighted the procedures which result in the final product. Of course, this Budget is not really the final product. As far as our own Administration is concerned, it can change and we can deal with the additional appropriation in the next financial year.

Much has been said, on numerous occasions, by someone whose main task is to make mischief about my association with the hon the State President and my presence in the Cabinet. Recently the House of Representatives had an election where they scored a good percentage poll. However, we are not only presenting to our community our efforts to accelerate the pace of reform in this country. We are also presenting a programme of self-initiative.

I am proud of the fact that my presence in the Cabinet results in the fact that we gain many advantages. Nobody takes cognisance of the fact that the hon the State President himself has stated in this House what I achieve in the Cabinet. If only hon members and especially that one critic could have an insight into the discussions we have, especially in so far as the allocations to the Administration of the House of Delegates are concerned.

This Budget is a development budget and it is an inflation beater. I would therefore like to add my voice to the congratulations expressed by hon members on both sides of the House to the hon the Minister of Finance.

The Constitution deals with own affairs but it also states that one performs certain actions as a result of subscribing to a principle of a national norm. I believe the hon the Minister of Finance has explained to the country about the different messages that have gone out from the different Houses with regard to social welfare pensions. It was decided that all pensioners would get an increase of R60. An increase in social pensions would, however, have meant that we would have to take money away from housing and education because the Exchequer has not provided us with the necessary funds. The Treasury has not provided any administration with the necessary funds to do so. I would like my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance to clarify this point once again in his reply for the benefit of our constituents.

A great deal has been said about certain adjustments to our tax system and the comments were both positive and negative. I think, however, that generally even newspapers critical of the Government have praised the hon the Minister of Finance—even if it was in a cautious manner.

Let us look at insurance companies, their capabilities and what they are doing. They have the capital but they appear to be producing many millionaires instead of using the capital productively, at a time when we need extensive job creation for the masses instead of the creation of giant skyscrapers across the country. That is the direction in which the money of the giant insurance companies should go.

When I refer to this Budget as a development budget I want to say that we have deficiencies. I am pleased with what has been allocated to the Administration of the House of Delegates in comparison to the general increase in the national expenditure when compared to last year. The money that has been allocated for the expenditure of our Administration falls within that percentage increase. We also have other development programmes that are not included in this Budget. There are cases such as the dental faculty at the University of Durban Westville in regard to which we went to the Cabinet, as well as the long overdue hospital in Phoenix. For the benefit of the hon member for Phoenix I want to say that we will definitely receive the blessing of my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance.

I read in the newspaper that the Government is going to give more to the House of Delegates and punish the House of Representatives because of the stances that we are adopting. I hope that the journalist who wrote that article now has the facts and will swallow his words. This Sunday I should like to read an article stating that he was wrong in his prophesy.

We are critical of the Government but in a different way. We criticise within the structures and we do so in our own style.

With regard to development we have a problem which is shared by the Black and even the Coloured communities and that is that we will be unable to satisfy the housing needs of the great majority of the broad mass of our people because of the high prices we have to pay for land, particularly as a result of the unfair manner in which we were treated from time to time when the Group Areas Act was applied.

As a result of the artificial shortage we have to pay an artificially high price for land for housing purposes and there is absolutely no way that we can assist the masses. Here I want to appeal to my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance to assist us, because we are dealing mostly with displaced people. We are dealing mostly with victims of the Group Areas Act. We are dealing with areas that cannot provide housing because of the inability or the unwillingness of local government bodies to identify land for Indian housing.

We are exploited to the extent that people are taking advantage of us. We are requested to dance to the dictates of local authorities and members of local authorities. Last year I mentioned an example of a municipality on the East Rand which informed me that someone was offered a commission if a particular piece of land was to be declared an Indian area. I did not give the name correctly but subsequently corrected it. What amazed me was that last Thursday the hon member for Reservoir Hills woke up, as he usually does, and said the following words:

I do not know when I denied that statement. I made that statement but I corrected it slightly and I corrected it on Thursday 6 October 1987 in Hansard, cols 3824-5, so it is clear that people who want to try to score points against us make incorrect statements in this House.

There is a dictum which states that God is great, and God will ensure that the ultimate truth will triumph. I do not want to use this debate for that particular purpose but I always carry a tape in my pocket and that tape has excellent recordings on it of the people who are used to make mischief and one day I may play that tape at a Press conference.

Also, members have the democratic right to join any political party, but if they want to join political parties they should not use the columns of the Sunday Tribune or the Tribune Herald to take a swipe at me.

I want to say that if the Indian community, even in a socioeconomic survey, had to choose between Mr P W Botha and Mr Colin Eglin, there would be massive support for Mr P W Botha. I did not say in this House that the Indian community looks to the hon the State President for leadership, but let us look at reforms. It is true that the NP is the majority party in the Central Government. We hold no brief for any White political party and we do not want to take sides in the arena of White party politics, but do not attack the NPP and do not attack me, because I am now going to substantiate the claim that the Indian community has no faith in the PFP, and that it will have no faith in the PFP as long as it lasts.

Do they have faith in you?

The Indian community has faith in me in spite of all the negative propaganda in the Eastern Transvaal and Tongaat elections. It is common knowledge that the PFP is dying; it is being deserted; it has been routed in the arena of White politics. It needed a piggyback operation. In the same way the PRP was dying and it also needed a piggyback operation. When the announcement was made, PFP members on the Johannesburg City Council resigned. There was a person in Johannesburg called Mr Dinky Pillay who joined the PFP originally and I hope every home is given a photocopy of the article on the reasons for his resignation. He said the PFP was an exclusive White club. They treated him shabbily. It looked as though the country club and the clubhouse were forbidden territory in the PFP so they decided to take in the two caddies. As far as reforms are concerned, however, where the PFP controls the citadels of power they promote and practise apartheid, and they have treated our community shabbily.

Order! I regret to have to interrupt the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council but the time allowed for this debate has expired.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by making two brief announcements. Before I do that I should like to mention first of all that this was a historic debate, firstly because it is the first time since we have had the new dispensation that the first round of Second Reading Budget debates took place in a House other than the House of Assembly. From that point of view this was a historic debate.

Allow me to thank hon members of this House for the outstanding quality of this particular debate, not that I wish to imply by saying that that previous debates have not been of a similar quality. The Second Reading debate on the Budget usually develops rapidly into a political debate, which is also necessary. However, the high quality of financial speeches extended way beyond the normal pattern of Second Reading Budget debates. For that I wish to thank hon members, and the quality of their speeches will stand in Hansard as a tribute to this historic debate.

You must thank us with money.

I know that when it comes to my colleague here the dictum that there is no such thing as a free lunch is more than ever true.

I now wish to proceed to the two brief statements. The first concerns the savings bond for senior citizens. In the Budget Speech on 16 March this year mention was made of the continuing need for a special savings instrument for senior citizens and it was announced that such an instrument would be introduced.

Discussions have taken place with various groups of financial institutions, but agreement is still needed on several points. It is therefore not possible at this stage to provide further details of the instrument or the implementation date.

It should be emphasised, however, that all participating institutions will offer the same rate of interest, while the conditions governing the new instruments will be completely uniform. It is therefore immaterial which financial institution is chosen by the investors neither need funds be moved between institutions now, since the implementation date will be the same in all cases. Mr Chairman, I think we should take note of this, and potential investors should also take particular cognisance of this fact.

I also have a second brief announcement to make on internal registered stock. Wide interest is at present being shown in long-term government stock, and the Treasury and the Reserve Bank are being flooded with offers by investors for this stock. The Department of Finance has consequently decided to issue further Internal Registered Stock 13%, 2005 by means of tap sales. In order to give all investors equal opportunity to invest in this stock, offers for this stock can be made to the Reserve Bank in Pretoria until 17h00 on Wednesday, 30 March 1988. Only offers at reasonable interest rates will, however, be accepted. Enquiries may be made at the Reserve Bank. Mr Chairman, that is a most important issue as far as the financing of this year’s budget is concerned.

First of all, I should like to respond to my colleague the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I want to refer immediately to his own reference to his presence in the Cabinet. This is not a mutual admiration club, but I should like to place on record—since the record ultimately shows no emotion—the contribution that this hon Minister is making towards the development of the community he represents together with his Ministers’ Council and his hon members of Parliament. I want to commend him for one particular aspect of his presence in the Cabinet, namely the manner in which he conducts his negotiations on behalf of his people. I say this because ultimately that is part of his success. From that point of view he is a skilled operator in the good sense of the word and a skilled negotiator. He is also a relentless pursuer of the goals he has in mind for his people.

Ultimately he will achieve what he is striving for, but what I appreciate, as a person representing this portfolio at this stage, is his deep understanding of the fundamental truth that this country can only afford so much at this stage. Any fool can print money, but it becomes fool’s money in the end. He understands that fundamental discipline which is currently required in our economic and financial management of this country, with a view ultimately to increasing the size of the cake. The closing of the gaps that, unhappily, exists and the achievement of so many of our other common goals—all of these things—can only be realised if we do it on the basis of a sound economy. What is needed in our economic management right now is to exercise discipline in terms of our Government expenditure; to rearrange and redistribute the tax burden; and at the same time to prevent at all costs the over-exploitation of both the tax base and our borrowing requirements.

If we can do that and if we are willing and able to exercise those disciplines on the basis of cooperation and a deep understanding of what is required in our country, then I have hope that we shall be achieving those laudable objectives. I would like to thank him for making reference to a national norm.

This brings me to the question of pensions. Concerning salaries I would like to make it very clear, and my hon colleague can testify to this on account of his presence in the Cabinet, that towards the end of last year I submitted to the Cabinet certain figures pertaining to the Budget that was delivered the other day. Those were the estimates and they were established at that stage, having cut Government expenditure as applied for by the various departments and the three administrations by more than R7 billion. Having cut those requests by more than R7 billion we still had a problem financing the Budget. As figures stood at that stage the carry-through effect of staff increases from the financial year ending now, was almost equivalent to the natural growth in our revenue base anticipated at that stage. In other words, it was patently clear that unless at that stage we decided on a tax increase, we would not have been able to fund a general salary increase properly. The natural and logical thing to do, was—as we did in 1985-86 and in 1986-87— to restrict salary adjustments to only two areas: To allow the increases of people on salary scales and to earmark a modest amount, in the vicinity of R250 million—scaled down to R215 after allowing a special deal for the first time for long-service recognition—to restrict salary increases to those two areas. This boils down to an overall increase in our personnel cost bill of just under 4%. That was the responsible line of action to take. Our staff in the Government sector paid from the Central Budget had to contend with only a modest increase. When it came to our pensioners, equally we said that the best we could do this year would be to earmark an amount of about R110 million for a one-time R60 bonus. These amounts normally are given straight to the pensioners. The various old-age homes do not normally claim part of that bonus. Therefore that goes straight into the pocket of the pensioners.

I am the first to acknowledge that it is inadequate, but can anybody ever say that one can ever do enough for the poor, the sick or the needy? No, Sir. If one’s yardstick is one’s desire, then there is no end to one’s sympathy and compassion. However, if of necessity one’s yardstick is what one has available then an equitable balance must be found between what one can afford in these various areas of expenditure.

Therefore we decided to recommend that the sacrifice be spread across the board as far as possible. What was our objective? Our objective was not only that we should tackle inflation on account of quantifiable issues by way of monetary policy and overall strict financial policy but that at the same time, as a Government, we should also set an example to the rest of the country by breaking the vicious circle between salary increases and price increases. That is the break in the psychological conditioning that has taken place so far. As I said in the Budget Speech, our battle against inflation is as much a psychological one and a battle against expectations as it is a numbers game.

The bottom line, then, when it comes to the three own affairs administrations, is that if any administration sees its way clear to taking funds away from its other services—housing, education, or whatever—and spend them on pensions, it is completely free to do so. However, circumstances being as tight as they indeed are, I thought it extremely unlikely that an administration would do so. Still, despite my opinion, it remains within their area of responsibility.

What are the implications? The implications are that if one takes away from education, which is also on a very tight budget, one will create a bottleneck there and one will create a permanent liability in so far as one’s pension allocation is concerned, to be carried through next year and the year thereafter. One must remember that our entire financial management system has changed rather dramatically over the past few years and we are approaching a very refined system of priority setting whereby we can say that this country can only afford so much in terms of a certain generic expenditure and so much in terms of other generic expenditures.

In the first instance that balance in relation to the relative expenditures is a political decision because we as politicians translate our mandate at the ballot box into priorities. We may differ with one another on the basis of priorities, but we should not differ with one another when it comes to the potential of this country to support the overall volume of expenditure in the Budget. I think this is a most important factor. Therefore, however much compassion we may feel, in terms of what is affordable this year, we cannot do more than we have already done.

Already, since the Budget was delivered, we have seen some parameters changing in the international world. My colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget made an outstanding speech yesterday referring, inter alia, to the profound effect international economic developments have on our own economy. We have only one shot a year at this moving target, a target which stays on the move for 365 days a year. We have but one shot at it and it is the shared responsibility of both the Cabinet and the Ministers’ Councils to do our very best within the constraints within which we are forced to operate, and this was the best we could do at this stage. That does not mean, however, that we have abandoned our pensioners. It does not mean that we have abandoned our salaried people. No, Sir, we should be doing our salaried people a disservice if we were to start printing money in order to pay them because we would be debasing our currency if we were to start doing our financing in an undisciplined and distorted manner in relation to standard and healthy norms.

That is why—and this has been mentioned in many speeches during this debate—this Budget is a cautious Budget. It is a Budget that seeks to protect the progress we have made so far. We have made progress in disciplining Government expenditure, and to the extent that Government expenditure, in the eyes of so many economists and observers, is the villain of the piece when it comes to macro-inflation factors, this Budget is an anti-inflationary Budget. Also, in terms of the method of financing this Budget, it is an anti-inflationary Budget.

It is clear from its guidelines for monetary policy that it is also taking a more cautious and restrictive stance, so as to prevent an overheating of the economy. We will be doing our people a disfavour if, in times when the economy is picking up as a result of private sector activity, we run our affairs, from a Government expenditure point of view, on the basis of overheating the economy and increasing the inflation rate.

What then, are, the benefits that we would like to achieve through this Budget for the man in the street? Firstly, through a modest—but in terms of real money it is not that modest—beginning of restructuring the tax load we want to achieve tax relief for the individual. What are we therefore trying to do? Our aim is more after-tax money in the pocket. That is objective number one.

Objective number two is to protect the value of the money that a person does put into his pocket, by doing everything we reasonably can, within our power, to bring down the inflation rate. This will protect the value of the money one puts into one’s pocket after tax. That is a fair approach and we have a unique opportunity right now, based on the circumstances in our economy, to do something really material about the objectives we have.

To summarise, before turning to specific points raised by hon members, I think that this Budget achieved its objective in three areas. Firstly, the Budget is the financing of Government expenditure. I think that from that point of view we achieved a reasonable result in the way we are exploiting the tax base and in our borrowing requirements. Our deficit before borrowing is coming down and we are approaching healthier norms which are possible at this stage of the economic and business cycle.

Secondly, the Budget, being so large an amount in our economy, is also a policy instrument. I would like to argue that from a fiscal and monetary policy point of view, this Budget is achieving its objectives, based of course on the great variety of variables as we perceive them at this stage.

Thirdly, the Budget also means something for the man in the street, and I think the fact that we are introducing SITE for the married women—also for other people, but particularly for working wives—and in the process giving away more than R500 million on an annual basis, is significant. Separate taxation for 83% of working wives, I think, is no mean feat at this stage of the game. Also, I think the adjustment of our rates, increasing the level at which maximum rates become applicable from R60 000 to R80 000, is an achievement at this stage, and so are certain reductions throughout.

I do believe that from these three points of view our Budget is a reasonable success at this stage and I think that the comments that we have received from all over and also from hon members in this House underscore it as well.

I would now like to refer to specific points raised by hon members. I want to begin by saying—this has been said before but it needs to be repeated— that the Standing Committee on Finance is definitely the single most successful aspect of our new constitutional dispensation. To spend seven days asking a variety of people for their opinions is to my mind just about as far as democracy could ever wish to go where budgets are concerned. It never used to be that way. Even the lobbyists in the private sector had the opportunity of addressing hon members. I was very happy to observe the restraint and the objectivity with which hon members responded in this House and outside in private conversations to the very active lobbyists. It gives vested interests the opportunity to come forward and explain what the implications will be. The law-makers—that includes all of us—can then evaluate the respective weight of all the representations to ultimately arrive at better budgeting and better legislation. This will eventually translate into better government. The benefits of the Standing Committee on Finance were also evident from the speeches of hon members in this House.

I was glad that the hon member for Laudium, in spite of his criticism of the Budget, made mention of the wide acceptance that the Budget enjoyed. This was obviously underscored by other hon members.

I mentioned that the Budget is cautious. I would not at this stage support any idea of an ambitious budget. It would be a disaster for the country if the Budget was not cautious at this stage in the next steps that it took and if it did not protect our achievements. I would rather opt for a cautious stand in the dangerous environment in which we find ourselves.

I would like to tell the hon member that in so far as value for money auditing is concerned I am 100% in favour of it, as is the hon member. I am very happy that the Auditor-General has made great progress in setting-up a unit in the office of the Auditor-General to do just that. One should, however, always bear in mind that a state cannot be run like a business in all respects because of the very duties that a state takes upon itself at the hands of the democratic process. The hon member can rest assured that the Auditor-General is in fact engaging professional staff for that purpose.

The hon member touched on a very sensitive issue, namely the per capita expenditure on education. I personally found it unfortunate that the hon member placed his own view on record without going into enough detail with regard to the differences between the per capita expenditure for Blacks and Whites specifically.

For seven months I had the honour of handling that portfolio. My predecessor was my colleague who has just entered the Chamber, the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology. I am sure that he will bear out what I have to say and that is that a comparison between Black and White education, based purely on per capita expenditure, is as useless or as insignificant a yardstick as one can possibly wish to apply in this environment. Why is this? It is because the salary of a teacher is paid according to qualifications across the board in all the education departments.

It is simply a fact that if there is one department where one has a typical pattern of a developing country it is the Black education department. Here one finds a large percentage of so-called underqualified teachers. Let me say immediately that at that time I found so many of the so-called underqualified teachers were the best possible teachers that one can find, because, quite apart from their professional knowledge, which I and the inspectors could not fault, I found so many of them had that factor without which no teacher can be an educationist and that is the ability to give love, affection and security to each pupil. Those teachers, being so-called underqualified teachers, earned less than their qualified counterparts. If one examines the qualification profile of Black Education Departments then one will see it differing so drastically from the other departments, particularly from the White department, as a result its influence on per capita expenditure is so profound that it certainly does not result in a yardstick which makes any sense.

I just wanted to put that on record—and there are other arguments as well. It pertains to capital expenditure by farmers when it comes to farm schools. That is also not added in there. There are other examples.

Another hon member talked about one education department and I wrote a note to my colleague here, the hon the Minister of Education, and he confirmed that for this community there is only one medium of instruction and that is English in all the grades.

However, that is not the case in Black education departments. In so many schools there the first four years are still taught through the medium of the home language. How anyone can argue that one can just by the stroke of a pen merge all education departments and resolve that particular issue, is beyond me. I am sorry, but I cannot understand how one can argue on that basis. I think when that particular vote comes up the hon members can pursue this further.

I want to take up another issue with the hon member for Laudium in which—unless I understood him—I think he was being very unfair and that is his references to public servants. Now there may be public servants who work from nine to five, but there are private sector people also who work from nine to five. However, in my experience I do not have a single official working from nine to five—not one. My experience has been that the people carrying responsibilities, the directors and managers in the public service, certainly do more than their duty and I think we owe them a word of gratitude for their devotion.

The hon member said that the wine lobby must be too strong for me and he also said that wine is the drink of the more affluent. That is not true. Neither of these statements is true. The first one is untrue because the Government has an explicit policy to promote the use of wine with food. That is a more natural way to consume an alcoholic beverage. One can do battle with the fact that we allow alcohol in this country, but let me tell hon members that people, also as far as that is concerned, will satisfy their needs. That also goes for my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister when it comes to tobacco. People will satisfy their needs even if it is illegal. So while we have it we should handle it in a proper way. That is our policy. That is why we do not tax natural wine and we are also not taxing sorghum beer, because there is a great element of nutrition associated with sorghum beer.

When a wife works for her husband there is no special deal in SITE, even under the new system of SITE, if I can put it that way. We will help Hansard to correct that spelling.

He asked about medical expense. The answer is no. If the figure exceeds 5%, only the excess will be deductible. The first 5% is not deductible.

It was reported to me this morning once again that some clever fellow in the private sector has alread devised a method. He says: “Okay, fellows. My employees will no longer pay a contribution, since they receive no tax deduction but, since I am their employer, I will get the tax deduction so I will pay the whole contribution.” I have some news for people who practise that kind of fancy footwork. If there is one thing we are going to do it is to eradicate that kind of evasion or rather, avoidance of tax, because tax evasion is a criminal offence and it carries a jail sentence. Tax avoidance is equivalent to creative bookkeeping or that kind of thing. Let me say that we are going to eradicate this kind of tax avoidance.

I now turn to the rebates on dependants. The Margo Commission said to us that if we wanted to help dependants—and the tax amount here is R18 million—we should not use the tax system. The Margo Commission is right. The tax system is the bluntest of all instruments with which to help a person. Identify a person and help him; do not give a rebate when it comes to tax. If hon members ever hear the full story about the film industry, they will understand why the Margo Commission came to that conclusion. There is therefore no real problem there, since other means can be found.

As far as the minimum tax is concerned, obviously if we did not impose it on a so-called retrospective basis, we would have had nothing. Dividend declarations and all these other things would have been done in such a way that we would have had nothing. What we are asking here is for companies making a profit, declaring dividends, but not paying taxes to pay tax in advance, because it is not a real tax in the sense that the money is gone for ever. It is a tax that stands as a credit so the moment the company moves into a taxable position, that credit is deducted. Obviously, there may be some special cases in which hardship may ensue and in those circumstances it is possible to consider some kind of alleviation. However then, as with all tax, once one starts make exceptions the whole tax might as well be destroyed. That is why I cannot agree with my hon colleague there. If we start making exceptions on VAT at this early stage we might as well forget it. We have to make our tax base as wide as possible and keep it that way, otherwise we will again narrow it and push the rate up further. We therefore all have to decide this time to defend the integrity of as wide a tax base as possible.

As far as the Life Offices’ Association—life assurers—is concerned, there again the Margo Commission had a majority recommendation that we should tax them as companies. That would have trebled or quadrupled the very modest tax they pay. That is a vast industry and what are they paying? They are paying R270 million. Look at the treasury—the entire industry is paying more or less R270 million per annum. On our way to implementing the recommendations of the Margo Commission fully, or finding an alternative system with the co-operation of the Life Offices’ Association, we increased the tax they pay by R170 million for this year.

In terms of overall amounts that is certainly not a very large amount and it will certainly not, in our opinion, have an adverse effect on saving. After all, the best way to stimulate saving is to reduce tax so that the man in the street has more money in his pocket to save after he has provided for himself.

There is at least one point on which I can agree with my friend the hon member for Laudium and that is his statement that we should all become more productive. I agree with him as far as that is concerned, except when it comes to making babies. I think our population growth is a little too brisk for the potential of this country and we should exercise a little restraint there.

I wish to thank the hon member for Southern Natal for what I think was a very sound and constructive contribution to this debate. I do not wish to repeat what I have already said. He also referred to many other matters that I have already addressed, and I do not wish to repeat that. He referred to TBVC funds. Let me say to him that he is probably aware of special committees under the chairmanship of …

I did mention that.

Oh, you did mention it. That must have been while I was making a note. I also place a lot of faith in that method of getting that situation in order.

I wish to make haste. I thank my colleague hon the Minister of the Budget for his comments. I have also referred to a number of issues raised by him. I am happy that he is supporting deregulation.

In fact, a very interesting thing happened. I can tell hon members that last year a lot of us came to the conclusion that there must be something happening in the economy. One could not travel at more than 60 or sometimes 80 kilometres an hour on the Ben Schoeman Highway; the whole place was just one beehive of activity. Nevertheless the figures never showed it at that stage, and we came to one conclusion—I consulted the advisers on this, and there was only one conclusion that was a common denominator in all their comments—and that is that the informal sector must have picked up pretty quickly. Indeed, it picked up to such an extent that at some time during December this country almost ran short of cash, because the informal sector is the place where cash changes hands, as opposed to cheques and other fancy instruments.

Deregulation will be supportive of the informal sector, which will be the single most important employer between now and the end of this century. Every important contribution we can make towards furthering that objective will be very good.

The hon member also linked an agrarian lifestyle to a very high rate of population growth. My previous comments relate to that.

The hon member said that we should begin to implement an economic strategy. He is certainly aware of the fact that the accepted strategy of the Economic Advisory Council is currently being translated into action programmes, and many of them have already begun to be implemented. His comments on the Budget in this sense were very apt. It is intended for prosperity since that will give us the opportunity and the means to increase our pensions etc, and it represents a broadening of the base, not only for tax but also for development. I thank him for that.

The hon member for Camperdown is a man of great energy. He gave us a new definition when he said that the root of all problems is self-interested greed. I think that that just about sums it up, also as regards the problems that we have in protecting our tax base.

He made some very important remarks about the fact that one is seeing a disappearance of the line dividing the various financial institutions. We are all very concerned about the fact that the building societies and other institutions level the accusation at the life offices that they are becoming deposit-taking institutions and that they are translating their tax benefits into higher interest rates, which then enable them to draw money away from building societies, etc. I do not wish to comment on the truth or the meaning of this particular type of accusation. All I am saying is that it is receiving our highest attention at this stage. We shall have to sort this out in the near future.

The hon member may not agree, but at least he will understand why the overall allocation of funds, for the House of Delegates as well—the same applies to the other administrations and departments—cannot be responsive to all our needs, and that Funds had to be restricted. He termed the amount insufficient. If he is still of that opinion, I respectfully submit that he should try to understand us.

Finally, there is one point I would like to take up with the hon member. I would like to differ from him as far as his statements on corruption are concerned. I do not wish to get involved in that issue but I do want to say that from a State management point of view, if accusations are levelled from whichever platform, there must be substantive evidence before the State can instruct high level investigations into it. This sound method of doing it is equivalent to the basis on which the Advocate General operates and I think we should stick to that.

Mr Chairman, I accept the hon the Minister’s explanation, but what worries me is that last year, in the Chris Ball issue, there was no substantive evidence that he had funded the advertisements of certain organisations, and yet a commission of inquiry was instituted against him. That is what led me to my deductions.

Order! What is the question?

I understand the question.

Mr Chairman, the question is whether there was any substantive proof against the Director of the First National Bank?

Mr Chairman, there is a vast difference between the way in which the hon the State President handled that particular issue and the simple blunt levelling of an accusation of corruption. If we look at the relevant Hansard I think what I say will become evident.

The hon Mr Thaver must be thanked for the measure of support which he gave the Budget. He made an impassioned plea for more money for the SA Police. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that issue, as long as we can afford it, for one simple reason: One needs much less money for crime prevention than for having to solve the crime, for conducting the prosecution and for looking after the culprit for a long time. That is an expensive exercise.

The hon member also made a very good case from the overall security point of view. That hon member also made mention of one department of education and, observing from a distance, there certainly seems to be some room for rationalisation from an educational planning point of view. However, I respectfully submit and I reiterate what I said earlier, that I do not foresee any possibility of achieving better results by ignoring the fundamental requirement of education, namely its cultural content, in integrating. I mean that an integration of education departments and the actual execution of the act of educating a person as such, will inevitably destroy so much of the basic purpose of education, namely the transfer of cultural values. We should preserve our cultural values. I believe there are also areas where we should share certain responsibilities and disciplines.

The hon member for Stanger also talked about the quadruplication of services, and I would not like to comment on that any further. I think we did talk about it earlier and I thank him for the praise that he had for the Budget.

Initially I was not going to mention this but since it is on record I would like to say something concerning his remarks about the adoption of neglected children by couples of mixed population groups. I would like to place on record that I believe there is ample scope for the hon member to take up that issue, because—as the hon member explained—there is a lot of good work to be done along those lines.

The hon member for Northern Coast called this Budget the best one since the late 70s and I would like to thank him for that.

It certainly was the most difficult one since the seventies because over the past four years we have become used to working under adverse circumstances. It was therefore very hard for us to adapt to a modicum of prosperity and to construct a budget under those circumstances. In any event we did our level best and I think we have succeeded in reasonable measure.

He spoke about an increase in productivity. I agree with him that productivity is a long and involved process and that it should become a way of life. We should instil that in our children from a very early age.

He expressed gratitude for our handling of the flood issue. I should like to say that in this regard, too, we are extended a helping hand to people in a manner which I believe is exemplary to the rest of Africa, and I wish to thank him for making mention of the fact that we could do it in this country without a major upset of our economy. We are doing it in a very responsible manner and our hon colleague who is responsible for it, together with our other hon colleagues sitting here who are rendering the necessary assistance, are certainly deserving of our praise.

The hon member for Cavendish spoke about the growth in the number of public servants. I think that should be discussed further when that particular Vote comes up for discussion because there is also certain specific information with regard to the type of growth that we experienced in the number of public servants, that is relevant to this kind of situation.

I should like to point out to hon members, however, that we currently have a freezing of posts in the Public Service and that a great of motivation is necessary to have even one additional post created or to obtain permission to fill a vacant post. That is the kind of discipline that we are feeding into our system and I think this is contributing towards a far greater degree of financial discipline and fiscal discipline in particular.

With regard to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture I should like to say that as far as VAT is concerned, it is early days yet. We have done our homework but we are particularly committed to discussing it in great detail with the private sector. We have already held certain preliminary discussions with Assocom and similar bodies and there is no way that we intend going it alone. We shall be publishing a draft Bill later on during this year, inviting comment from the public and all interested parties, and it is our view that we must generate the greatest possible measure of co-operation and input in order to get the legislation right and to make it operational on as smooth a basis as possible as early as we possibly can in the new year. Certainly, we have already taken the private sector into our confidence and we shall be sharing these confidences with a view to implementing the best possible tax system.

I do not agree with the hon member that our other measures are a blow to savings. In fact, I want to reiterate the point I made earlier, namely that if one takes less tax from a person one puts more money into his pocket and then, if one has the right kind of real interest rate patterns, one will certainly generate the necessary savings.

There is a most important point when it comes to savings. We should not only concern ourselves with the quantity or the level of savings but also with the productivity of savings. In other words, we must look at the quality of savings and at what they are used for. One of the hon members was right in saying that what we need to do now is to generate savings for the purpose of creating jobs. We must not do so for the purpose of chasing paper or of making young millionaires but rather to create competition for them. I also think it is time for us, when we talk about savings, to critically examine not only the quantity of savings but also the uses to which they are put.

I agree with the hon member that we should accelerate privatisation. We have done our homework and privatisation is now being pursued on a large scale and certainly in a most responsible manner.

I should like to emphasise to the hon member that unlike the case in Britain we do not have as many opportunities as they had because they pursued a policy of conscious nationalisation and we are different in that respect. We must be very careful because a large number of State monopolies came about as a result of our peculiar circumstances in South Africa and we must ensure that we do not merely transform State monopolies into private sector monopolies. Very special action must be taken in the process to generate the necessary competition, otherwise one will not achieve price stabilisation in the process.

I do not agree with the hon member for Red Hill, who said that this was a budget for now. I say that he is wrong. It is not a budget for now. We were criticised that it was perhaps too much a longterm budget. It is certainly a budget which does its level best to lay a foundation for the future. I disagree with the hon member from that point of view. However, he is right on another score. Social reform goes hand in hand with political and economic reform. At least there I think we can agree.

I think it was the hon member who said that the root causes of low productivity are political. I do not agree with him on that. I think if he qualified his statement more, we could have had a fruitful debate on this issue. What about the extremely low productivity of the rest of Africa? In think the hon member was referring here to so-called apartheid.

The hon member made an appeal to me and said that this Budget will not be able to be sustained, because salaries must follow cost increases. That is exactly the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to break this vicious cycle and the causal relationship between prices and salaries. We are showing the way. That does not mean that we will achieve this overnight. No way. It cannot be done. Again, that must also become a way of life. That is why the hon the State President had all those talks with employers and employees, to instill in them a conviction that in the long term it is in their own best interest and in the best interest of their respective businesses and of our country that we all tone down our demands when it comes to wages and prices.

I am happy to have found sympathy with the hon member for Tongaat. He said that the hon the Minister of Finance cannot satisfy all people at all times. Well, I am happy to be able to agree with him on that. Whatever we do, some people are happy and other people are unhappy. When we abolish certain tax expensing advantages the general taxpayers are happy, but the particular interest groups, having had the benefit of that tax expensing, are very unhappy. In the end therefore our yardstick is to look at what will be in the long-term interest of the country.

This Budget did not look at the two by-elections we have already had and the one we are having today. The governing party received a knock on the nose as far as the by-elections are concerned. We know that it is unpopular not to give permanent pension rises. It is unpopular not to grant general salary increases. However, we did that in the interest of the country, in the interest of fiscal discipline and of combatting inflation over the longer term. We were prepared to do that, and in the process some people cannot always be satisfied. However, those people who will enjoy the benefit of lower inflation and tax will certainly be satisfied.

The hon member referred to my famous after-dinner speech and after-dinner legislation. I want to put on record that when I took up this position, I inherited a particular position with regard to long-term insurance which had been unresolved for three years. I invited people to my office and said to them: “This issue is unresolved. Let us get it out of the way.” We met again a few months later and nothing had happened. We again met and I sent officials and finally we decided to rectify the matter and get it over with. I choose to go into the lion’s den to do it, because I thought it was only fair to them. Again, I am afraid that an unpopular decision sometimes has to be taken in the general interest. I do not have anything against long-term insurance. Goodness me, I have policies myself! If the hon member then refers to me as a person, I have a direct interest in a great deal of profitability for them. It is certainly not the opposite, as he suggested.

The hon member Mr Seedat also made a plea for law officers. He referred to that very unfortunate incident at Scottburgh. I can only say that I agree with him as far as his criticism is concerned.

I want to say to the hon member for Havenside that there is no way that apartheid caused the kind of inflation that he talked about. I have the figures here of other countries where there is no apartheid whatsoever—in fact, their situation is quite the opposite. Our dilemma is that we have no parallel. If we want to talk of apartheid or non-apartheid or any political system we should be able to sit down and quantify what the alternative is. As far as we in the NP are concerned, there is no parallel to our particular situation in Africa.

I have said it before and I want to repeat it in this House that more blood was spilled in Africa in Black against Black power conflicts than was spilled in Africa in Black against White power conflicts. If one wants to resolve the potential conflict between Black and White in South Africa one must also think along the lines of resolving the potential Black against Black conflict in South Africa. That is why we have our present policies.

Although all these matters are not discussed in public, we are confident as a result of our contact abroad that if one ignores the group concept in South Africa—also within the Black communities—one does it at one’s peril. Equally so, if one ignores the fact of freedom of association one will do it at one’s peril. Neither of these phenomena is strong enough to support a constitutional framework completely and that is why we must find the happy medium between the recognition of groups and the freedom of the individual.

There is no logical solution to this variable equation. I am sure hon members will remember their mathematics, namely that one equation and two variables have an infinite number of solutions. There is therefore no logical solution. There is, however, an emotional solution and that is to be found on the basis of negotiation between these two interest groups. Accommodation has to be found within one constitutional framework for both the group and the individual. This is our challenge and there is no way that one can ignore these realities. If one does, one does so at the peril of one’s own political party and moreover at the peril of the country in which we live.

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture made the point that the Ministers’ Council had not been found wanting. I want to underscore that point. I have had many representations from my hon colleagues and I do not want to reiterate it.

The hon member also made a plea for more coverage of Indian cultural activities by the SABC. I think there will be an opportunity to discuss this with the House.

I now come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Hon members may have their own differences in this House but as far as I am concerned I want to pay tribute to an hon member, regardless of which side of the House he sits, if he is able and willing to go to international forums and speak on international television to put the case of South Africa. I want to thank the hon member for his contribution at great personal discomfort and sacrifice at times. He made mention of it and I will not take it any further.

I took cognisance of some of the very true statements that he made. As far as special treatment for Turkey is concerned, there will certainly be an opportunity to discuss it with my hon colleague here who handled the situation in full. I was not deeply enough involved to be able to respond completely to the points of the hon member.

I now come to the hon member for Springfield. He handed me some documentation concerning the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I cannot involve myself in this particular issue. There are certain codes …

Do you condone it?

No, I cannot say that I condone it—I do not know the circumstances. I can only say that there are certain guidelines within which a Minister acts. Why does the hon member not come and talk to my hon colleague here so that they can sort out these problems between themselves instead of bringing it to me? [Interjections.] Yes, that is the way in which we should behave in the interests of our country. That is really the way in which we should be handling it.

I do not think that it is a fair comment—if I may have the hon member’s attention for a moment— that even present hon Ministers have insufficient work. I think that is a nasty comment and it does not behove the hon member. [Interjections.] I really do think so because I have had personal experience of the total dedication of Ministers in this Ministers’ Council and I have found them on aeroplanes in a state of utter exhaustion, not because they had been attending to their own affairs, but because they had been looking after the people whom they represent. I can testify to that. [Interjections.] That kind of thing does not happen by itself.

The hon member for Lenasia East asked for more money for Foreign Affairs and I can only agree with him. However, let him discuss that on the basis of his own internal priorities with my hon colleague.

The hon member for Durban Bay made a most important point. It is exactly the inter-dependence, and sometimes the total dependence, of certain African countries on South Africa which we must develop, but in a very sensible. If we boast about it too much we are placed in an untenable position politically. It is something that we must pursue with great vigour without writing it on the walls because that is the essence of Africa.

One day there will come a time when the political barriers will be broken down and then this country will provide a springboard into those markets. Those are our natural markets where we will have the advantage of proximity and of expertise because after all who knows Africa better than we? Then we can really come into our own.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, this Bill emanates from the recommendations made by the South African Law Commission as a result of its investigations into the law of evidence. With this Bill South Africa is taking the lead in the field of hearsay evidence.

I believe that in certain academic circles the opinion is even held that our law in this regard is better than that in many Western countries including England and the USA. The Bill also provides for judicial notice for tribal laws. We in this country are going through a process of a adjustment to tribal customs and laws, on the one hand and on the other, the Western system of laws. We also have the problem of urbanisation with the mixing of the various tribes and hopefully we shall have laws to suit the South African situation.

The Bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 so as to make the husband or the wife of an accused a competent but not compellable witness at criminal proceedings and to regulate further at criminal proceedings communications between spouses made during the marriage.

I believe we had a Mr Hoffman in this country who was an authority on the law of evidence but he left the country to settle in the UK where he established himself and has since been knighted. It is a pity that we are losing top men in all fields.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I must fully agree with the hon member for Umzinto that the Bill definitely makes provision for improvements.

We also notice that the Bill makes provision for a wife to give evidence against her husband. The Bill also makes provision for indigenous law to be taken into account. From the various factors and motivations of the Bill we on this side of the House we have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has been waiting very patiently for this Bill all afternoon and I am not going to delay him from having his way any further. Therefore, I merely want to say to the hon the Minister that we supported this Bill in the standing committee and it was thoroughly discussed there. We naturally support the Bill in this House.

Mr Chairman, I shall take my cue from my fellow speakers and not elaborate too much. [Interjections.] I beg your pardon. Somebody says I am wasting the hon the Minister’s time.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

If the hon the Minister says I am wasting his time, I am prepared to withdraw. [Interjections.] The hon member must keep quiet. I am not wasting anyone’s time.

Order! The hon member should not take any notice of interjections. The hon member may proceed.

As far as clause 1 of this Bill is concerned, I applaud the commission. Indigenous law in this country has been neglected for many years. It was not embodied in the statutes of the country, but what is more significant is that long before Jan van Riebeeck landed in South Africa there were tribal laws and customs, and tribal courts. Even today in the rural areas of our country one finds what are known as “Indunas” who are something like Ministers and they implement these tribal laws. I do not think this applies in urban areas but up till now in the rural areas this indigenous law has existed. It was accepted to a certain extent in our courts of law but only in part. This Bill enables it to be utilised more fully.

I also agree with clause 4. Hearsay evidence has always been a controversial issue in courts of law. This Bill clarifies that situation implicitly and it is an enabling clause.

Most important of all are clauses 6 and 7 of this Bill. As things stand, until this Bill becomes law—if it is passed today and until the hon the State President appends his signature to it— spouses cannot give evidence in court against each other. The hon the Minister will agree with me. However, this clause now makes them competent. This means that spouses can voluntarily give evidence against each other, but they cannot be compelled. That must be made clear. No court of law can compel any person to give evidence against his or her spouse. That is the difference about which I should like to ask, the difference between competent witnesses and compellable witnesses.

This is an enabling Bill which streamlines the application of evidence in court and I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, with regard to the Law of Evidence Amendment Bill, we have had difficulty with hearsay evidence up till now. During our discussions one very important case came to mind and that was the Kanyapha case of 1987 AD—it was an AD decision—in which the accused murdered his father-in-law and assaulted his wife.

His wife was a main witness. Now, she was not competent to give evidence because of her marriage, and on appeal it was held that the part relating to the murder was not admissible because she as a wife could not give evidence in that respect.

In order to clarify that situation this Bill was drafted in such a way that in terms of section 7 of the Bill as it stands, the spouse can become competent to give evidence, but not compellable. I think that clarifies the situation.

The matter of marital privilege in civil proceedings, in regard to which we have had trouble before, has been brought into line.

We have only had difficulty in regard to clause 3 relating to the admissibility of documents. The committee felt, after discussing the Bill as a whole, that it is a necessary Bill which achieves a measure of elucidation. I think it is a good Bill and we support it. The clauses were all approved at committee stage.

Mr Chairman, I think it is appropriate for me to thank the hon members of the Standing Committee on Justice for the fact that they addressed this matter. It is also true that the hon members of the Standing Committee on Justice do not summarily accept everything which is submitted to them. They give matters the necessary attention and study the Bills submitted to them. All of them are undoubtedly well-qualified to deal with these matters.

For example, they rereferred a certain clause of this Bill for comment. It so happens that this specific clause, which deals with the permissibility of a copy of a document, has been withdrawn and bearing in mind the comments of the committee, we shall rerefer the matter to the Law Commission and request them to consider the matter.

I want to tell all the hon members that they have not raised a single point which really makes it necessary for me to reply in detail, except that I should perhaps add to what the hon member for Camperdown said.

†I do not think that the hon member for Camperdown intentionally omitted making reference to this particular clause in its entirety. However, I do not wish to leave under hon members under the impression that it is now completely competent for a wife or husband to give evidence, but definitely not compellable, since there are exceptions. I quote:

In other words, a person is also compellable—not only competent, but compellable—and then the number of offences is given. We have not brought about a change in this regard. A change has been effected in that it is indicated that a husband or wife is competent to give evidence for the prosecution in criminal proceedings. That is the change. Therefore those cases where at this point in time a husband or wife is in fact also compellable, are not at issue at all. I want to make that very clear.

Finally, I think that the hon member for Actonville indicated that he was satisfied with the changes as far as hearsay evidence is concerned, whereas the hon member for Umzinto expressed unease about the fact that so many competent people—not competent witnesses, but competent lawyers—are leaving the country. He referred to Hoffman.

I searched my memory and I remembered that Hoffman was the author of one of our textbooks, but the hon member should update his knowledge—as I wish to do—of the very learned authors on the issue of evidence that are still within the country. If he had read the report he would have seen that special reference was made to Prof Schmidt, who is currently regarded as one of the very learned academics on the issue of evidence. He was actually involved in the research that led to the final recommendations. Apart from him we have several other academics who are very widely recognised and learned in the field of evidence. However, what about our judges? They have to adjudicate our problems of evidence. I think I should really take the hon member to task for trying to argue the case that we have become poverty-stricken with regard to the issue of evidence. With all due respect to Advocate Hoffman, I think we still have sufficient learned people to carry us into the next generation and century if necessary.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the Scientific Research Council Bill provides for the continued existence of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and for the management thereof by a board. The objects of the CSIR are to research, to foster industrial and scientific development and thereby to contribute to the improvement of the quality of life of the people of the Republic.

The object of this Bill is, firstly, to extend the objects of the board; secondly, to provide for the reconstitution of the board; thirdly, to abolish the executive committee; fourthly, to provide for the separation of the functions of the chairman of the board and the president of the CSIR; and fifthly, to authorise the board to determine the remuneration of employees. At the standing committee we effected an amendment to subsection (7). I quote:

1. (7)
   1. (a) The Minister may from time to time reserve any matter provided for in this Act, as a matter in respect of which a decision of the Board shall be subject to the consent of the Minister.
   2. (b) The Minister and the Minister of Finance may jointly from time to time reserve any financial matter provided for in this Act as a matter in respect of which a decision of the Board shall be subject to the consent of the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.

I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research is a market-orientated organisation and it is committed to building a sound future for South Africa. One of key strengths of the CSIR, as acknowledged by the market place, is its depth of experience in technology and development. We believe that the future of South Africa is largely dependent on developing a sound technological basis. I believe that this will only be possible by steering the CSIR towards greater market orientation and client participation.

The Scientific Research Council Bill is designed to provide and promote further development in this direction. The Bill provides for greater autonomy in operational matters such as relationships with educational institutions, employee training, the purchase of properties, borrowing and investing of funds and obtaining shares in private companies. I must stress that these activities must take place in consultation with the Minister.

We are living in an era in which there is an ever-increasing demand to keep pace with other advancing countries and this Bill provides greater powers to expand modern technology for the public sector as well as the private sector on a broader basis. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, there is no question that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has done, and continues to do very good work in some fields. Even those of us who do not know much about scientific development but who glanced at the report of the CSIR will have immediately recognised the tremendously innovative spirit. It is not only the Americans, the Germans and the Japanese who are innovative. South Africans have also become very innovative in applying the laws of the physical sciences for the betterment of the life of the ordinary human being.

The council is also engaged from time to time in matters relating to the ordinary sciences as well. I think the council must be commended for that. Of course, South Africans of all groups are now beginning to play a part.

Hon members will undoubtedly have read in the newspaper last week about the scientific expertise of a man who is not professionally qualified. His name is Nadasen Jamboonathan and he is one of the experts in the technique of microsurgery. Here is this man, who is a technician and who is not professionally qualified, assisting surgeons. Microsurgery is a very difficult-sounding name. The work itself is infinitely more difficult. It makes possible the sewing back of a severed limb onto the body. It makes possible the joining together of severed arteries and the connecting together not only of tissue but of sinew. We therefore have to compliment the people who have been doing this.

Unfortunately, opportunities were not given in the past, with the result that a very brilliant physicist, the son of a Mr S K Naidoo, a businessman from Durban, was given no opportunity in this country. As a consequence of this he went to Germany. Today he occupies a useful niche in the academic as well as the applied world of physics in Germany. That was a loss to us.

The up and coming generation needs encouragement and the council certainly can do more than it is doing at present. It can do more by making opportunities available, and not only for the purposes of scholarship and training, which it already does. It provides financial assistance and so on but it can do more. I have no doubt that we can lend the hon the Minister, who is a responsive Minister and who, fortunately, unlike some of his colleagues, does not practise apartheid in his field, our full support. All we are asking him to do is to see to it that the pace of reform is accelerated at that level as well and that greater opportunities are made available to all South Africans regardless of race or colour so that they may make their full contribution, not only towards the work of the council but towards the country as a whole.

Mr Chairman, I want to take the opportunity presented by the debate on the legislation before us, firstly, to compliment the chairman and the officials of this organisation. I believe that the extent to which the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has contributed over the years to the growth of this nation is not widely known. It has had very many distinguished personalities in its employ and they have certainly served as a catalyst for the industrial development and growth of our country.

I want to join my colleague, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, in asking for greater opportunities for men of colour to serve in this organisation. I furthermore ask for the research that is conducted by this organisation to percolate down to the widest possible spectrum of South African society, because more than anybody else I believe that the developing and underdeveloped sectors of our community need to have the benefits that accrue from the work that is being done by the CSIR.

I also welcome the fact that the CSIR is now adopting an approach which is in keeping with those of similar organisations elsewhere in the world, namely that it will have an understanding with the private sector and that the private sector will contribute to the research carried out by this organisation for the mutual benefit of both the segments involved. I would like the hon the Minister to convey to Dr Garbers and his colleagues our appreciation for the work this organisation has been doing in the past and will do in the future. We deeply appreciate its plans for the future and wish to the CSIR well.

Mr Chairman, the political uncertainty increases the brain-drain from South Africa and stains both the economic and the social system. As a result I find it necessary that organisations like the CSIR should be doing such a tremendous amount of work in order to propagate technological and scientific advancement in industry. I am particularly concerned that the market research carried out by the CSIR should be employed more widely in the industrial sector. I realise that it is the industrial sector that should be looking for assistance when it comes to technology, but more propagation through the media and other means should be done in the communities so that people will make use of the advancements of the CSIR.

I too join hands with my colleagues in supporting this Bill, because it is of tremendous value to South Africa.

Mr Chairman, allow me at the very outset to say to the members of the standing committee that our department has great appreciation for the excellent, down-to-earth and efficient way in which this Bill has been handled in that standing committee. The Bill is not an easy one. It is actually a completely new Bill, intended to put the CSIR, as far as its research is concerned, on completely new tracks. This will lead to research information and results being transferred to, and implemented in, the industry itself so that the technological fraternity of South Africa can make a noticeable improvement to the economy of the country in its effort of creating wealth for the country and all its people.

I wish to thank the hon members. I also wish to thank hon members for supporting the Bill.

The hon member for Central Rand gave an overview as to what the contents of the various clauses of the Bill entail. I also wish to thank the hon member for Havenside for supporting the Bill and also for his contribution in explaining what is meant by the various clauses of the Bill.

I wish to thank the hon member for Reservoir Hills and also the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as well as the hon member for Bayview for the very kind words expressed towards Dr Garbers and the staff. I would also like to include—I think it was meant this way—the board of directors of the CSIR which I think did an enormous task in introducing to the structure of the CSIR a totally new approach. I want to assure hon members that it did not go without pain. I still receive letters—I had another one yesterday—from people complaining of so-called “bad treatment”. Although they had a golden handshake they still complain about the so-called “bad treatment” dished out to them in the process of restructuring the CSIR to become more market-orientated and to be able to provide a better practical service to the South African industry. I wish to thank hon members for highlighting this issue.

I also want to join hands with the hon members because I think there are ample examples of excellent scientific engineering and innovative research work by individuals within the CSIR. Today we reap the benefits from this in our industry. One only has to look at our armaments industry to realise how enormous a part these individuals have played through their research efforts and the transferring of their research to the private sector.

I fully agree with hon members that we have a great number of scientists and entrepreneurs outside the CSIR who can also make an excellent contribution to development research and to the introduction of innovative ideas into the industrial world. We should, however, then create the opportunity for them to do so. In so far as my department is concerned we will look into this matter and I am sure that we will be able to create a situation where these people can make the necessary contribution.

I think I have referred to most of the points made by the hon members. I support most of their ideas expressed here and I again wish to thank them for their very kind words towards the management and the council of the CSIR.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.