Order! I have to announce that the vacancy in the representation in the House of Assembly in the seat of a member elected in terms of section 41 (1) (c) of the Constitution has been filled by the election of Dr B L Geldenhuys with effect from 14 April 1988.

Mr Speaker, if reform is to succeed in our country, we must have a positive economic growth rate, there must be progress in the social sphere and our country must be safe for our people in all respects. Of course, this means money and the hon the State President appealed to everyone in this country to tighten their belts, put their shoulders to the wheel, be productive and work harder. That is why it is so essential that we accord our education and training opportunities the highest priority.

Hon members in Opposition benches obviously say it is a waste of money to spend it on Black education—as though it were White money we were spending on it. Nevertheless it is important that we try to keep up in the technological field. What hon members of Opposition parties do not wish to accept, however, is that South Africa is a developing country with a high birth rate. If we therefore wish to aspire to the ideals of providing a fair standard of living for all our people, we must act more positively.

It is important for us to levy taxes. I have never heard of a country or a state where no taxes are levied. I think it was Franklin D Roosevelt who said, and I quote:

The youth of South Africa are the backbone of this beautiful country of ours. They are actually our future and, in this space age in which we live, enormously high demands are made of our youth to prepare themselves in the academic sphere in particular. I want to put the question: Is there not too much emphasis on the academic training of our children today? We are proud of the standard of our education but I am afraid it is sometimes so high that we as parents cannot keep pace with our children’s education. I wonder how many hon members sitting in this House today would pass if they had to sit the matriculation examination again.

The other day I read a very striking report in a newspaper—I think it was in Die Burger—in which the term “sompompie” (sum pump) was used instead of a calculator. I found that such a wonderfully descriptive name. Today all our children carry such sum pumps about in their pockets. [Interjections.]

What type of pumps are sitting opposite?

I really do not know. They have no pump at all! [Interjections.]

Order!

Lewis Brown, an American educationist, said the following:

Are our youth being trained sufficiently today for the most important career and the most important future awaiting them, that of parenthood, that of a stable family? Today parents are so caught up in the hurry-scurry of life to set economic standards for their children and to give them everything they did not have that they hardly have the time to see to the emotional requirements of their children. Do they still have time to communicate with their children?

Today it is taken for granted that we accept it will be moonlight and roses all the way when two young people get married—that it is a natural phenomenon in which everything will simply go right. I think, however, that our country boasts of a dubious achievement in that our country has one of the highest divorce rates in the world because one out of every three marriages ends in the divorce court. In 1985 the marriage of more than 17 000 families landed on the rocks, involving more than 20 000 children. There is something very wrong somewhere and we cannot merely pass it off as a sign of the times. We cannot simply go on shrugging our shoulders and allowing our youth to say: “Oh well, if it does not work, then we shall get divorced.” Children from broken homes have more behavioural and academic problems than children from stable families.

Not only is the number of divorces increasing but also the neglect and abuse of children. A phenomenon which is increasing in our modern times is the number of single-parent families. In 1986 the HSRC published a report on single parenthood in Pretoria. They conducted a random survey at 300 schools and all the implications of this single-parent care were emphasised.

If we want to be honest, we have to admit that most single parents are women. Such women are breadwinners and also have to be educators of and housekeepers for their children. If they do not have the stability or the emotional strength required, they cannot succeed. In many cases they simply do not have the money and means to be able to do this because husbands who have to pay maintenance often default and they have trouble with this too. It is a fact that some of these women even give up their children specifically because they can no longer endure the emotional strain. In my constituency there is a Std 9 class in which 60% of the children are from single-parent families. This is disturbing because those children create so many social problems such as truancy, poor school performance and running away from home that that principal and his staff cannot cope with those problems.

Today it remains the ideal for the husband and father to be the breadwinner of the family while the wife and mother remains at home to see to the needs of her family, but unfortunately this is no longer the case today. According to the Bureau of Market Research, 45% of all women with dependent children—30% full time and 15% part time—are already working away from home today. These women do not work for luxuries; they work to maintain the economic well-being of their children; they work because our country needs them in the economy as well.

The cost of living is high and basic foodstuffs expensive. I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Rosettenville who appealed to as yesterday to take an in-depth look at this cost of just keeps escalating.

Today only 25% of families in South Africa are still traditional in the sense that the woman does not work outside the home. The family is the cohesive factor. Somebody said:

I now ask what the solution is. What are we going to do to help solve the problem? The key lies in education, training and guidance by competent people with the experience, background and emotional maturity to take the lead in this regard.

I am pleased to hear that schools in the Cape Province have family guidance programmes which have already been incorporated into the primary school programme, and are being offered in conjunction with youth preparedness in high schools. We all know, however, that that youth preparedness programme is so important that we are unsure whether we can incorporate this family guidance as well.

At present a seminar is being presented in Natal on “Family Life Education” and the pediatrician who made the introductory speech printed out to those senior teachers and principals the factors one could recognise when children were ill-treated. They work in very close co-operation with a splendid organisation which operates nationwide, namely Famsa, the Family and Marriage Society of South Africa or the “Familie- en Gesinsvereniging van Suid-Afrika” and I am proud to be able to say today that I am involved in this organisation. The OFS is also co-operating with Famsa, which provides information to teachers responsible for family guidance.

Let us be honest today. I have the greatest appreciation for the standard of our education and for the splendid people involved in education who prepare our children academically. Do they have the knowledge and expertise, however, specifically to make time to train our children in that very important aspect too?

It is extremely important that our children be informed on the importance of marriage; the give and take in marriage; the unselfishness; dealing with stress; drawing up a budget and the importance of buying judiciously in times of high inflation. These are all things a person should know and of which one should be aware when one gets married. Is it a wonder that our couples prefer to live together than marry today? They are afraid of finding themselves in the divorce court one day.

I am now being asked how we will fit this programme into our scholastic schedule. We certainly have beautiful, expensive schools but they are closed for half the day. Can we not start thinking of extended school hours now?

Before their hair stands on end and the teachers all say they already work too hard for insufficient pay, I want to say that I am not talking about formal education. Let us keep our children at school during the afternoons and give them meals there so that they can do their homework under supervision, with these programmes incorporated, and have group discussions. So much has already been said about a lack of communication between our children and the other population groups. Let us do something about that too; let them take part in sport. Children will then arrive home in the afternoons at the same time as their parents and communicate in a relaxed manner with one another. Children can then discuss this very important aspect with their parents.

Now hon members will probably ask me where the money for this is to come from. The hon the Minister of Finance is already calling upon us to save! I want to associate myself with the hon member for Pinetown, who requested yesterday that paid education should be looked into. When I served on the Transvaal Provincial Council in 1984, that ordinance was discussed and adopted. Let us put it into operation now and include our parents in this most important aspect.

Communication is important; lack of it is the cause today of all the problems we are experiencing nationwide and worldwide. We have to bring our people together. A sound family relationship with a strong religious basis remains the foundation of our national life. It would be worthwhile to spend more time and attention on the preparation of our youth, specifically to achieve that object.

It will not help us at all to prepare our children academically for a career and to forge ahead in the material sphere if we do not also teach them to live.

It is a great privilege to support this Appropriation Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon member for Edenvale on what I considered to be an excellent speech in which she addressed fundamental problems in our society. Some of the suggestions the hon member made ought to be followed up.

In respect of the Budget I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Finance on his attempt to curtail Government expenditure, as other hon members have already done here. In that sense this is a new turn that matters have taken.

Under those circumstances the determination of priorities is of the utmost importance. If there is a great deal of money it is easy to determine priorities. I do not envy the hon the Minister and his advisers; they need the wisdom of a Solomon to do these things.

However, I should like to associate myself with the appeals made from this side of the House. I am thinking of the speeches made by the hon members for Cape Town Gardens and Pinetown on the issue of the provision made for Black education. I honestly think that the provision made for that in this Budget is not adequate for the material need that exists. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister to do something about that if it is in any way possible.

In addition I also want to associate myself with the hon member for Sea Point on the provision made for universities. When it comes to financial provision, the universities are the last institutions which ought to be affected, because they must in fact build the future of our country.

I want to come back to the political debate which took place here, but firstly I want to make a final observation to the hon the Minister of Finance, pursuant to the remark made here yesterday by the hon member for Berea. We know—it has been stated time and again in this House—that if the growth rate of 3% is maintained until the end of this century, we will have an unemployment rate of, at its very least, between seven and nine million, of which 80% to 90% could be Blacks. This is the stuff of which revolutions are made. In other words, the growth rate will have to be increase considerably to keep pace with our population growth.

The observation made by my colleague that without foreign investment, and unless we are able to defeat this sanctions campaign, we shall be unable to maintain that growth rate was a relevant one. This brings me back—as the hon member also indicated—to the internal policy of this Government because it is the internal policy that is making it difficult, even for those overseas friends of ours, to continue to support us.

These are quite simply the facts. I do not think that the hon the Minister is directly responsible for the situation, but unless we are going to seek an answer to our problems our situation is going to worsen year after year.

I listened with great interest to the political debate between the CP and the NP. One cannot really call it a debate, but rather a party-political power struggle between the two parties. Let us be honest about the facts. I am not saying this gloatingly, but the product of the NP policy of the past 30 to 40 years is sitting here on our right-hand side. [Interjections.] It is the NP’s policy that they have been pursuing for the past 30 to 40 years that created this product. It created a climate in which it is possible for members of the White electorate to support the CP to an increasing extent. [Interjections.]

But surely you were part of it. [Interjections.]

The hon member is saying I was part of it. He does not know what he is talking about, but I shall leave it at that. [Interjections.]

I do want to say, however—I have said this before—that the NP came into power on two platforms, which kept it in power for years. One was its appeal to Afrikaner nationalism, the other the utilisation or exploitation of racial feelings and prejudices in South Africa, something which is traditional in South Africa. Those are the two fundamental platforms from which the CP is building its onslaught on the White voters of South Africa today. It is as simple as that. It is therefore owing to that climate that was created that we in South Africa today are sitting with this problem among the White voters.

Does that mean that we are going to govern this country? [Interjections.]

I listened attentively to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He had three central themes, namely that the CP wants to and will come into power in order to retain the racial identity of the Whites in South Africa. Secondly it wants to come into power because it wants to ensure the national identity of the Afrikaners in particular. Thirdly, to be able to achieve that, the right to self-determination of the Whites in South Africa is essential. I do not think I am interpreting them incorrectly. [Interjections.]

Let me ask this question immediately: Who and what are threatening the racial identity of the Whites in South Africa? We have been here for more than 300 years without such legislation. There is only one possible way, whatever happens, in which a race can be destroyed, and that is when it is wiped out physically. That is the only way. Why people are therefore afraid for the survival of the White race in South Africa I do not know. There are Indians in South Africa—they are a small group of people—that have survived here for a century without any protection of rights, without political rights or participation, and with all the other discriminatory factors to which they were subject. They never feared for their survival as a racial group. I want to ask the same question about the Afrikaners as a people. They do not need laws. No people whose identity means something to it needs protection in the form of laws, or even in the form of political domination. The Afrikaners continued to exist in spite of everything that hit them, in spite, too, of its defeat in the Anglo-Boer War.

I just want to say that the CP is a panic-stricken party. [Interjections.] It is a party of fear. I, too, am afraid. I am afraid that if the CP ever finds itself in the position—it has been said here and I want to repeat it—in which it can implement its policy, I foresee a completely unprecedented blood-bath in this country. [Interjections.]

However, I must say at once that when I listen to the NP speakers I welcome the changes that have occurred. I also welcome the speech made yesterday by the hon member for Innesdal on the myths that have to be eliminated. [Interjections.] What message is the NP trying to convey to us these days? The former hon Minister of the Budget and Welfare who has now been appointed Minister for Administration and Privatisation in the Office of the State President, was unfortunately unable to be here. I wanted to deal with the speech he made here. However, I shall not deal with that speech now but would just like to quote the following from it:

Let us now ask whether this is true; whether it is correct? Is it not mere rhetoric? Is it not mere empty words? I am thinking of the concept of own communities, of the Group Areas Act which must be maintained. What else is this but the same kind of national identity which has to be maintained at all costs? What else is it but our own concept of group areas for other people? Is it not domination, plain and simple? How can we say we are moving away from racial discrimination and domination if we do these things? When we decide that there must be separate local authorities, is that not domination? If we decide there must be separate amenities—no other people sharing them with us—is that not domination? If we decide that 13% of the surface area of this country is sufficient for the Blacks—one of the hon members pointed that out here; I think it was the hon member for Turffontein—is that not discrimination? Can we say it is in any way fair or just that only 13% of the surface area of the land should be made available for up to 21 million Blacks? If we include the people of Moutse, Botshabelo and Ekangala in other structures against their wishes and without consulting them, is that not domination? What other result do these things have but to exclude the Blacks from political power? Year after year I have listened to the plans which exist in this connection, but I do not have the time to go into them now. Yesterday the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North told us that the less we saw and heard, the more rapidly things were being accomplished in this connection. I could not understand what he meant by that, that is to say, if I understood him correctly.

The hon member for False Bay spoke about 3,10 or 30 years. However, I want to say in all seriousness that we do not have 3, 5 or 10 years to take the initial steps in this connection. I want to say in all earnest that the entire legitimacy of this Parliament is being jeopardised to an ever increasing extent when one finds oneself in the situation in which the vast majority of the people are not part of those structures that have representatives in the legislature and in the executive. That is what I fear. In the outside world the question is being asked to an increasing extent whether this Government is in reality legitimate. I do not accept those accusations. However, I do want to say that as long as we have the situation in which the majority of the Blacks, the majority of South Africa’s people, are excluded from participation, the doubt as to the legitimacy of the authority which exists in South Africa is going to become ever greater.

Mr Speaker, the hon member will probably pardon me if I do not react to his speech, because he merely repeated a few stereotyped points of view on behalf of his party that have in fact missed the boat.

I want to deal with the Official Opposition. In previous debates during this session the Official Opposition has always been severely embarrassed as soon as the practical implications of their policies were analysed. This debate contributed further to completing this unmasking process in that we were able to make a proper analysis of their racist and also dangerous standpoints in the light of economic realities.

No one has highlighted them better up to now than the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance in his speech a few days ago. Nevertheless the CP with its spokesmen’s statements are always working within a context of an economy consisting of White, Coloured and Black components. In other words they want to carry the idea of partition over to the economic sphere. They simply ignore the composition of our economy. This standpoint of theirs has a bearing on their laissez-faire attitude regarding the consequences of their policy. It is based on the wild dream that they can disentangle the country’s economy.

I think the absurdity of this view is best illustrated by the following quotation I want to take from a publication explaining the aims of a series of seminars which Black businessmen intend holding soon:

Those who firmly believe that our economic salvation and prosperity lies with Free Enterprise and those who believe that free enterprise has failed and must be rejected outright. The former includes the privileged class, the haves, the private sector, which historically happen to be White whereas the latter includes the majority of Blacks as represented by worker, political and community organisations.

There is another group in the middle such as Black Business, who do not reject the Free Enterprise outright, but contend that the true free enterprise has never been practised in South Africa. In other words, their view is that given a chance the true free enterprise can flourish and be our Salvation.

†I fully agree with what the hon member for Yeoville said in this same debate and that is that we can only succeed if free enterprise is seen as the common pursuit of everyone in South Africa and not a preserve of the Whites. This reality is not accepted and, in fact, the idea is not even entertained by the Official Opposition.

*The Government on the other hand, must deal with the economy in the light of realities. One of these realities is that the economy determines the viability of all reform, improvement and change. That is only possible if this change can be supported by the economy. On 5 February 1988 the hon the State President announced comprehensive economic adjustments which have now been brought to the implementation stage in the Budget speech. That of course gives the lie to those who say that reform has come to a halt in the Republic. The entire economic sphere has been taken into consideration and in the light of these facts adjustments and reform were initiated. This Budget truly represents a watershed—within the harsh realities attempts have been made, in the light of scientific advice, to establish a healthy economy in the interests of everyone. I think the hon the Minister has succeeded.

I represent a constituency in which the local economy is to a greater extent or almost entirely determined by multinational companies that are very closely associated with the motor industry. The largest multinational company there is of course Volkswagen.

There are few industries that are more sensitive to the general economic and political climate than the motor industry. At the same time it is the most important industry in the region in which my constituency is situated, namely the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage metropolitan area. This industry reacts very quickly and is usually the first to do so in the economy and therefore the improvement in the economy has already had an immediate salutary effect in our region. Since the beginning of the upswing in August last year Volkswagen alone employed 1 700 new workers. Volkswagen has consequently also reacted very positively to the hon the Minister’s Budget speech. They put it as follows:

They went on to say:

That was their reaction and therefore I want to thank the hon the Minister for the fact that this Budget was neutral in respect of this large industry.

However, the entire industry is still, relatively speaking, in a slump because during 1987 201 000 passenger cars were sold, which is 33% lower than the figure for 1981, and the figure for 1987 is equal to the average of the seventies. The motor industries have a guideline which specifies that the sales of new passenger cars ought to comprise 10% of all cars in the country in order to assure a proper income. The so-called “car park” figure in the RSA is at the moment three million vehicles and therefore according to this guideline 300 000 cars have to be sold. It is estimated that this year 240 000 cars will be sold and that represents only 7,3% of the “car park” figure. The average age of the cars in the “car park” is also increasing. This industry has suffered great losses which can only be recouped over an extended period of time.

An additional factor which may not be disregarded was mentioned recently by the managing director of the Delta motor company, namely that local motor manufacturing companies now have to make provision for carrying the costs of retooling because there have been threats that overseas companies would, as a result of foreign pressure and the attitudes of governments, withhold these from South Africa. That is going to place an additional financial burden on the motor industry.

Having thanked the hon the Minister, I also want to ask him to preserve his perspective on this extremely sensitive industry which employs 250 000 people in the Republic and as such is the second largest private employer. At first glance things are going well, but there still are major handicaps.

My own constituency and its inhabitants are much more dependent on the trials and tribulations of this industry than any other community. More than 17% of our municipal taxes are paid by Volkswagen and Goodyear. They are provided with 26% of the electricity and nearly 30% of the Blacks in KwaNobuhle are dependent upon these two multinational companies.

In the light of this I want to put a few questions to the CP spokesmen, because quite recently on 22 March they held a public meeting in the Uitenhage town hall to introduce their candidate in the coming election to the public. The spokesman of this candidate was a former member of this House and also the CP candidate whom I beat in last year’s general election.

Today should like to find out from the Official Opposition’s spokesmen what they have to say in regard to certain standpoints to which that hon gentleman paid homage. On behalf of the CP candidates he issued a policy statement saying that Uitenhage should become a White town. That implies a curfew, and although that might perhaps ensure that we will become a White town, we would also become a ghost town.

According to this man all parks, halls and sports centres which have already been declared open for the use of everyone, will summarily be closed to people of colour and be available exclusively for the Whites. I merely want to add that so far there has been no talk of any tension or incidents as far as these facilities are concerned.

He also said that all permits which have already been issued in terms of the Group Areas Act will be summarily withdrawn, including permits for the central business district which has not as yet been declared open and which is now being dealt with in accordance with the permit control system.

Against the background of what I said about these two multinational companies, namely Goodyear and Volkswagen—he mentioned them specifically—he said that if these companies were forced to reconsider their presence in the RSA and naturally also in Uitenhage because of this unviable conduct which the CP envisages, or if they wanted to “push off’ (will trek), as he put it, his answer was merely: “So what, we will wave you goodbye!” Sir, is that not the same kind of irresponsibility, disregarding the consequences, which is so typical of the CP statements?

That was what Mr Manley did at the UN!

This “So what!” statement is a typical example of the kind of statement which is made by Bishop Tutu and the Rev Boesak when speaking about disinvestment. Although the consequences will cause disturbing damage, they simply ignore that aspect. Reality is truly extraneous to the thinking of those CP municipal candidates. After the meeting one of the commentators put it as follows:

It is probably common cause that multinational companies find themselves under increasing pressure, especially the American companies. Statements of this kind make it far more difficult for these companies to resist the pressure of disinvestment and to counteract it. The CP must take cognisance of the consequences of statements of this kind, because we shall have to pay very dearly for that kind of irresponsibility.

Mr Speaker, I want to make a few observations about South Africa’s credit standing abroad, but before I do that, I should like to place the following on record so that no misunderstanding about this can arise in future.

Last night we listened to the speech made by the hon member for Innesdal, and the hon member for Roodepoort referred to something the hon member for Innesdal had written, and I quote the hon member for Roodepoort as follows:

Cannot be achieved in South Africa—

Yesterday evening this was put specifically to the hon member for Innesdal, and in a long speech he did not repudiate one word of it. In fact, he said that it was a myth that South Africa’s future constitutional dispensation could be worked out without also including the ANC. We now want to ask the hon the Leader of the House whether he agrees with this statement of the hon member for Innesdal—that the ANC should form an indissoluble part of a future constitutional dispensation in South Africa. [Interjections.] If the Government does not want to believe what he said, we can very easily make copies of his article available to them.

There is dissension in their ranks! [Interjections.]

In certain respects I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Finance on a budget in which he tried to save. I must tell him, however, that he was only partially successful. He was only partially successful because he had to batten on the corpses of the errors of the past in order to prepare an economising budget for us.

This is correct when one considers the mistakes made in the past. Let us look at an example from as recently as 1985. In 1985 a report appeared in Die Burger in which reference was made to South Africa’s foreign debt during the preceding four years. It was stated that our foreign debt had grown by 177%. Expressed in rands our foreign debt had risen by 638%. [Interjections.] When this is compared …

Whose fault? The Government’s fault?

The Government’s fault, yes. [Interjections.] I shall come to that. I shall still say why I maintain that it is the Government’s fault. [Interjections.] It is the Government’s fault because credit rating abroad depends inter alia on a country’s credibility in the outside world. I put it to the hon the Minister of Finance today that this Government has no credibility left in the outside world. [Interjections.]

Nor has it any credibility at home! [Interjections.]

Foreign diplomats are not only saying this to us; they are saying it to other people as well. They are saying that this Government simply cannot be believed any more. This Government, they are saying, promised people the paradise of reform in South Africa, but what remains now is an absolute quagmire of uncertainty. [Interjections.] More important than this is the fact that one’s credit rating abroad also depends on one’s credibility at home. Today I want to put it to the hon the Minister of Finance that this Government has no credibility at home either. [Interjections.]

A few years ago we were told very clearly that power-sharing—hon members can look up the old documents of the NP; it is stated therein— was the most dangerous policy any people could work out for its future. Today power-sharing is being held out to us as the utopia in which we will create a wonderful new South Africa. [Interjections.] Today it is being said—it is being said in murmured NP conversations—that a non-racial community is the solution for South Africa. This is being said in quiet private conversations by MPs of the NP. [Interjections.]

Who are they? Mention their names!

I am not going to tell the hon Minister who they are. [Interjections.] No, I am not going to say who they are. I am not prepared to commit a breach of confidence of that nature. [Interjections.] While Black franchise, a few years ago, was still being labelled as a destructive process if it should ever be introduced, it is today being held out to us as the utopia for a new South Africa. [Interjections.]

A third factor which hampered South Africa’s credit rating, and is still doing so, is the fact that the present Government can no longer deal properly with the present security situation either. The Government must not think that is improving the security situation in South Africa by releasing communists and allowing foreign television cameras to be present at unrest situations. They would do well to pay heed to the arguments and advice of Mr Kissinger to the Israelis when he said Israel should not make the same mistake as South Africa by allowing foreign television cameras to be present at unrest situations because it undermined their image in the outside world, and with it the position of Israel.

When we approach the foreign debt situation I want to draw attention to how the foreign debt situation has deteriorated under the regime of the present hon the State President. In regard to the short-term foreign debt in 1980 I am quoting from the Quarterly Bulletin of the SA Reserve Bank of December 1987. According to this publication the short-term foreign debt of South Africa was R6,1 billion in 1980. In 1985—five years later…

What would you say is the ideal figure?

The hon the Minister may as well listen to what I am saying. He is going to get an opportunity to reply to this. [Interjections.] In 1985—five years later—the short-term foreign debt of South Africa was R43,273 billion. In five years, during the regime of the present hon the State President, the total foreign debt rose from R12,5 billion in 1980 to R60,142 billion in 1985. If this is not an example of how poorly South Africa is being administered I do not know what other examples one could still enumerate.

Let us however take cognizance of what the NP’s own mouthpiece Die Burger is saying. I am not referring to the CP’s mouthpiece. I am not referring to the Patriot. The hon members of the NP cannot therefore say that I am repeating the so-called lies which we ostensibly tell about these things. What did Die Burger have to say about this on 20 November 1985, and I am quoting:

Does the hon the Minister understand why I am saying that he is introducing an economising budget over the corpses of the errors of the past? What else did Die Burger have to say? It said:

The hon the Minister of Finance could have avoided this problem if he had applied sound business principles throughout. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the hon the Minister did not display sound business principles and that he has now had to introduce a budget in which he had to announce serious economising measures by inter alia freezing the salaries of public servants. [Interjections.] They must now take their medicine.

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Minister may as well listen to what I am saying. [Interjections.] They are now taking a beating for the mistakes the hon the Minister made a few years ago, according to Die Burger. [Interjections.]

Economic Outlook of the University of Natal pointed out that since 1980 there had been a real annual growth in the gross domestic product of 1,1%. When this is taken in conjunction with the population growth it means an annual real slump in the per capita revenue of 1%. Together with this one should also take into account the dramatic depreciation of the rand. I am mentioning two examples by way of illustration. Firstly I am referring to the depreciation value of the rand against the American dollar. In 1980 one was still able to obtain $1,28 for every rand. In June 1986 the rand depreciated to 36 American cents to the rand.

I just want to mention something as far as the Deutschmark is concerned. During the period in which the hon the State President and his Government have been governing this country, whereas R1 was equal to 2,5DM in 1977 we now have the situation in which R1 is not even equivalent to 1 DM. This testifies to the maladministration of the South African economy, and we now have to pay the price for the mess they have made of it. [Interjections.]

I want to mention a further example. In 1986 the inflation rate was as high as 26%. I concede that it later subsided to 15% and even lower, but why was it standing at 26% at that stage, a situation which forced this country to its knees?

When we think of the outflow of capital to the outside world, Economic Outlook tells us that for every American dollar borrowed an estimated 79 American cents leave the country. We are asking the Minister of Finance what measures he as Minister has taken to ensure that, in respect of every American dollar which he borrowed abroad, 79 cents do not leave this country. [Interjections.]

When we ask what went wrong with our economy we must also take a look at home at this monster of a bureaucracy which has been built up and which the hon the Minister of Finance has allowed to be built up because it was he, after all, who appropriated the money for it.

Let us see what they say in this connection in their own mouthpiece Beeld. I am quoting from a report which appeared in Beeld of Thursday, 31 May 1988, as follows:

I know the hon the Minister of Finance is not listening and that he is not going to reply to this because he cannot do so. [Interjections.] The report reads as follows:

We are placing the blame for this on the hon the Minister of Finance for he, together with the Cabinet and the NP, allowed a top-heavy structure to govern this country, so top-heavy in fact that it is threatening to topple over. Consequently the CP will ensure that it topples over sooner, within the next year or two, than hon members on the opposite side may think.

Mr Speaker, I must tell you that I am at a complete loss this afternoon. [Interjections.] If, as a professor, that hon member was like the politician or MP he professed to be here this afternoon, I must say that there is one institution which should be very, very grateful—and that is the University of Potchefstroom—for having managed to get rid of him. [Interjections.]

What was the hon member really saying? I cannot try to react to everything he said now, because that would take up all my time, but what did he say about foreign debt, for example? How many times has the hon the Minister of Finance explained foreign debt? In talking about foreign debt and mentioning those amounts, was the hon member talking only about the Government’s debt?

Make your own speech!

This hon member talks about things he knows nothing about. [Interjections.] The private sector is responsible for the greater part of this foreign debt. The hon the Minister gave the figures, but perhaps he will give them again in his reaction to this. I want to ask that hon member and his party very nicely please to write down those figures so that they do not come forward with such foolishness again. [Interjections.]

Here they are! Do you want to see them? [Interjections.]

Did he write this? [Interjections.] I assume the hon member either cannot write or he cannot understand what he has written. [Interjections.]

He said the Public Service was a monstrous bureaucracy. I hope the public servants have taken cognisance of this statement made by the CP in respect of the Public Service. [Interjections.] Yet the CP requests higher salaries for this so-called “monstrous bureaucracy”. The public servants must take cognisance of this. [Interjections.]

He then made another wild general statement, only to use it again when he spoke about the Government’s standpoint on the ANC. The Government’s standpoint on the ANC has been spelt out repeatedly and ad nauseam, and it is as clear as can be. This Government is not prepared to negotiate with people who perpetrate violence. [Interjections.] That is well known. It has been said by the hon the State President and numerous hon Ministers—I have lost count of how many. It has been put down in black and white, but that does not suit the CP. The CP simply ignores statements made by the Government if they do not suit the CP. They make their own deductions, pretend that these are statements made by the Government, and that is what they build their arguments on. [Interjections.] I am really dismayed.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said a very important thing here yesterday, viz that we must take the past and build upon it. I want to ask some of his younger hon members, when they talk about the NP and its policy, to do so in an historical perspective instead of doing what the CP is inclined to do, viz to pretend that South Africa originated in 1982, as if everything that happened before 1982 no longer matters, and everything that has happened since 1982 has happened in the only South Africa that has ever existed.

Let us place only one aspect in historic perspective this afternoon. Let us take the question that we should be discussing in South Africa today, viz political rights. I am not referring now to little figures and things that are quoted out of context, but to the big problem of political rights. It is true, after all, that the issue of political rights for all people in South Africa has been a problem since the earliest times, and I want to take hon members through the history of this problem quickly.

Hon members know just as I do that political rights were an issue even in the time of the Free Burgers and the VOC. Wars were waged because of this. At the time of Union, political rights were an important focal point and the issue, at the time was the political rights of Black people. Every generation of the NP and every NP leader has struggled with the burning issue of the moment and sought solutions to it at a given point in the development and evolution of the NP’s policy.

That is how Dr Malan and Adv Strydom laid the foundation of two very important factors that I want to debate and follow through this afternoon. I want to indicate that the NP still uses these important basic principles from the days of Dr Malan, Adv Strydom and Dr Verwoerd as basic principles for the further development and evolution of NP policy today. It is not true, as the hon members of the Official Opposition maintain, that we drew a line through everything that existed in 1982 and then began anew in regard to all aspects of these problems.

The reality that was accepted in the time of Dr Verwoerd, when the Uhuru cry of political freedom resounded over Africa, was that political rights would also have to be granted to Black people and people of colour in South Africa. With that problem he established the principle of political rights for Blacks as well. He dealt with the problem by establishing national states for them.

Unlike the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member Prof Olivier, who argued that we should grant political rights in the European style if we do so, we know that the Westminster system, as implemented in Europe, has not succeeded in Africa and therefore it cannot be used as a model. After all, we know the difference between the built-in protection for minority rights in the composition of the European countries and the situation in Africa, which is a multinational country, in which we have to protect minority rights by means of structures, and cannot do so as a result of the inherent composition of the population groups of countries. There is also a fundamental difference as far as the PFP is concerned.

I want to quote two very short passages expressing what Dr Verwoerd said about the acquisition of Black political rights. I quote from a speech he made in 1961:

Even in 1961, therefore, he said “where possible”. The hon members of the CP only remember parts of the past, however.

The CP maintain that they are in favour of Dr Verwoerd’s policy and that they adhere to it, but I want to quote what Dr Verwoerd said about the Coloureds. During the week the hon member for Swellendam and the hon member for False Bay indicated very clearly the policy of the CP concerning this question—hon members must not forget that that is why they turned their backs on the NP—of the accommodation of Coloureds in the constitutional system. Now they boast that their party has been in existence for six years, but they do not even have a solution to this problem yet, not to mention the more important problem concerning Blacks. Even at that time, however, Dr Verwoerd said:

If, therefore, the CP were to say that they adhered to Dr Verwoerd’s policy, they would simply not be telling the truth, and the matter must be placed in perspective.

Where do you stand?

I stand by the NP.

There were further developments. After all, the hon members of the CP were in favour of the policy of separate development when some of them were still members of the NP, not so? I do not know if they are still there. [Interjections.]

There are many people and many hon members of that party who have never understood the policy of separate development. They have understood only the “separate” section of that policy, but have never accepted the “development” part. If one develops other people too, one must ultimately accommodate them. Even in 1946—hon members must listen to how interesting this is—Adv Strydom wrote a letter to Dr Malan in which he said the following about people of colour:

This was said as long ago as 1946. Yet these hon members of the CP claim that the NP made a totally new beginning all of a sudden in 1982. In his speech yesterday the hon member for Roodepoort said something that amounted to our having drawn a line through the NP’s past.

In our publications we indicated exactly what the NP stood for, however. It need not be difficult for them to know that, but it does not suit them. Just because they do not have a policy that they can develop and on which they can base their arguments, they have to misrepresent the NP policy, as it suits their arguments, and then pretend that that is the truth. They then base their arguments on that, so that they can mislead the voters in this way. I say here today that misleading people serves no purpose. [Interjections.] It will not last.

Are you apologising?

I am not apologising for anything. It is not necessary for me to apologise for anything.

In this booklet, NP… and what about the Black People?, which was written by the new hon Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry, the following is spelt out very clearly:

It is true that in the NP’s course of development and in the evolution of its policy, there were people who no longer saw their way clear to contending with the problems and the challenges of the future. In 1969 a group of these people split away from the NP and formed the HNP, and in 1982 what remained of this group eventually broke away as well and formed the CP. [Interjections.]

It is every person’s right to fear the future and not to see his way clear to contending with problems. I want to ask those hon members, however, not to mislead the voters as if it were possible to do now what people like Dr Verwoerd, Adv Strydom and Mr Vorster were unable to do, viz to move the Blacks right out of South Africa. Speeches were made here by the dozen proving that this was not possible. Yet those hon members present that to voters as if it is possible to have a snow-white South Africa somewhere. They are misleading the voters, and I ask them not to do so.

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

I do not have time to reply to questions now. There is no such question. [Interjections.]

It is probably characteristic of the times we are living in that two Great Trek festivals are being celebrated this year. The CP is trekking into the past with their ox-wagon, whereas the NP, with an inspiring leader and a well-equipped scouting group, is trekking into the future on the foundations laid by Dr Malan, Adv Strydom, Dr Verwoerd and Mr Vorster. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members on this side must make fewer comments now. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, we, the NP, are prepared for the future. We are prepared for the problems. We do not cling to the past. We do not try to improve on the past. We are trying to work out a better future for everyone in South Africa. That is why it is a wonderful privilege for me to support the Budget of the hon the Minister of Finance, because it is a buildingblock for the future.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sunnyside spoke in a fairly motivated way about the future under the NP. I think he was one of the few hon members who spoke with motivation.

He began his speech with the words: “I am at a loss…’’He did not mean it in that sense; he was referring to the hon member for Losberg. However, if one reads through the debate of the last few days, one clearly gains the impression that the NP was at a loss, simply because the policy of the NP was not clear to anyone. This applies not only to the right-wingers, but also to the leftwingers. When the hon member for Sunnyside said that the CP did not have a policy, he made a big mistake as regards the perception among the conservative public. I reject their policy. I agree with the hon member Prof Olivier that if it were to be consistently implemented, we would have a blood-bath in this country. It is nevertheless wrong to say that as far as the conservative South Africans, the Whites, are concerned, the CP does not have a policy.

But I said they were misleading the people by pretending that they had a policy.

The trouble is that the NP does not have a clearly-defined policy with which the CP’s policy can be compared. [Interjections.] What has happened in this debate is that for the past few days the NP has been trying—sometimes successfully—to shoot holes in the speeches, policy, etc of the CP. However, at no stage was there any indication of a policy which the voter could use to draw a comparison. [Interjections.] That is why the people are at a loss here. In my opinion the only person who successfully kicked up dust was the hon member for Turffontein. He with spoke great enthusiasm.

I want to come back to a remark made by the hon member Prof Olivier, in which there was a great deal of truth. He said that an increasing number of questions were being asked about the legitimacy of Parliament and the legitimacy of the Government. It is clear to me that the legitimacy of the Government is slowly but surely disintegrating on all fronts.

†It is losing legitimacy in the South African population as a whole. What is it doing in this process of losing legitimacy? It is actually trying to hijack Christianity and to use it in order to prop up its own legitimacy. We now have the holy war—a claim by the NP that it is on the side of Christianity. The hon the Minister of Law and Order started this most recent holy war exchange in his speech on 1 March.

*That was the day after the clergymen marched to the Cathedral here. He then said:

We have no problem with that. I think South Africans will find it very easy not to choose communism. He went on to say the following in his speech:

He says that this is a Government which has chosen Christianity. He went on to say:

And he carried on in this vein.

†What happens is that the Government now appropriates Christianity—I am not a theologian, just an ordinary member of the church, but I can see it come through here—for its cause in order to say that those who are against them are part of the forces of darkness. To me that is a sign of bankruptcy. It is a sign of desperation to try to prop up its legitimacy. As someone who is merely following this tennis match between the theologians and the Government I find it most confusing. On the one side the State says it acts for Christendom. There is a long history of governments and individual leaders who appropriate Christendom for themselves and then move against an enemy because they classify them as forces of darkness. This holy war which the hon the Minister of Law and Order introduced, and which has now been dragged out by the hon the State President, can only have disastrous consequences, not only in terms of relations between the State and the church, but also in the sense that it is totally confusing for ordinary church members who see political leaders appropriating religion and Christendom for themselves.

When one looks at the actions of the religious leaders in the St George’s Cathedral before and after the event it makes no sense to classify that action as a revolutionary step. When those church leaders used rhetoric such as “standing up for the oppressed” it had nothing to do with revolution. In the letter which Archbishop Tutu addressed to the hon the State President on 8 April 1988 he refers to a very interesting historical aspect, which I believe is relevant. This was quoted from a paper which was delivered at the Volkskongres in 1947. I think many people may have heard this quotation before. It was taken from a paper delivered by Dr C D Brink of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1947. This is what he said at that stage when the NP was not in power— there were still poor Whites:

That is the language of a churchman of the Dutch Reformed Church at a stage when that society was not wielding power. If we cannot understand that the disenfranchised are not merely in a similar position but in fact in a worse position and that they therefore will and must act on behalf of those who have no political say and must voice their opinion, then we are living in Cloud Cuckoo-land. [Interjections.] If one takes this to its full consequence and believes that the hon the State President and this Government can wage a holy war with success by classifying all of those who are not in support of the Government as the forces of darkness, then we are making a very big mistake indeed. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, allow me in the first place to react at once to what the hon member for Durban Central presented to us here. I just want to set him straight, because he referred here to a so-called holy war between the Government and certain church leaders. That statement is devoid of all truth. There is no such thing.

Read the letters your State President is writing!

The hon State President reacted to a small group of church leaders who are waging a struggle. It is by no means a struggle to uplift the underprivileged of this country. Their struggle is concerned with quite a different matter. It is concerned with bringing a radical Marxistic government into power in this country. That is what it is concerned with. [Interjections.]

I shall come back to that hon member later. Allow me to react to what the hon member for Constantia said earlier in this debate. He tried hard to indicate a so-called division on this side of the House. He tried hard to make out a case that there were fundamental differences among hon members on this side of the House and even among hon members of the Cabinet, which were ostensibly crippling the NP.

Surely there are differences!

Today I should like to tell the hon member for Constantia as well as the hon member for Losberg that they are fishing on dry land, because the NP has never been more united and purposeful than it is at this very moment. [Interjections.]

The fact is that not only did the NP return to this House less than a year ago with an overwhelming majority, but it is purposefully carrying out the reform mandate given to it by the voters of South Africa.

The drastic and imaginative economic reform measures, as announced at the beginning of this session by the hon the State President, and as taken further in this Vote and elsewhere, testify to this. Examples of this are the measures to combat inflation, the measures in regard to tax reform and the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation. Do these things come from a government which has been paralysed by internal dissension? No, Sir, the hon member for Constantia is merely trying to conceal the embarrassment of his own party behind a very thin smoke screen.

During the course of my speech I should like to deal with this embarrassment within the PFP. In this connection I associate myself with the hon member for King William’s Town, who earlier in this debate dealt very effectively with the PFP inter alia.

Since the general election a year ago we have seen how the political groupings to the left of the NP have disintegrated like maize kernels in a hammer mill. The largest of these, the PFP, that until recently was still the Official Opposition, is staggering around without a leader. Day after day the PFP has to watch helplessly while its supporters leave the sinking ship.

Where did you win a seat?

Various hon members of this House have left them since the election. As was recently illustrated in Johannesburg, too, city council members have begun to follow their example. That is merely the tip of the iceberg.

One of their rescue boats, the NRP, with whom the PFP formed an election pact around the KwaNatal Indaba, has already sunk. The other rescue boat, the Independent Movement, broke in two at its launching. These are now floating around in two halves, namely the NDM and the Independent Party of Dr Dennis Worrall. They are bobbing around the PFP, feverishly trying to pick their shipwrecked political survivors.

When we consider the NDM, we find that they, in the words of the hon member for Durban Central during the recent no-confidence debate, are bobbing around in two circles, an intraparliamentary and an extraparliamentary circle. They are rowing around in circles in the hope that somewhere between Dakar and Harare their two circles will coincide.

Within the parliamentary circle this movement is very quiet. To tell the truth, their presence in this House is pretty rare and the contribution they make rather small. We need only listen to the contribution their leader made two days ago in this House. I think it was a disgraceful contribution for a leader to make.

Outside Parliament these two halves of the rescue boat are dreaming naive democratic dreams. These dreams, cruelly disillusioned, will go up in smoke as the NDM seeks a freer association with the ANC and its cohorts. The ANC has only one purpose in mind, and that is to establish a one-party dictatorship in South Africa by violent means. The NDM will definitely not survive the next election, and consequently I do not want to spend any more time on it.

Let us rather consider the other half of what was the same rescue boat during the election—the Independent Party. If ever a political party has come into existence in South Africa which was based purely on opportunism, it is this party. In an interview with the leader of this party, Dr Dennis Worrall, as reported in the Natal Mercury of 22 March 1988, the following inter alia was said:

Mr Speaker, imagine that! A party without a policy that first wants to canvass supporters and then, in accordance with the wishes of these supporters, work out a policy!

Such actions may be typical of the diplomatic world, but in hard, practical, political terms it testifies to one thing only, namely weak, opportunistic leadership.

The leader of this party then had the following to say in the same article.

We are eager to bring our message to the people of Natal.

What message? These political acrobatics continue in the same article, and I am quoting again:

Imagine that, a party without a policy, and it is laying claim to the support of two other political parties, one of which is sitting in this House!

Today I want to ask the PFP: Is this correct? Do they support this Independent Party of Dr Dennis Worrall, or not? There is silence.

The voters of South Africa are entitled to know where Dr Dennis Worrall and his party are going. He must tell us, although it is not difficult to guess if one looks at his bedfellows and the statements that are being made in this connection. So, for example, the Natal chairman of the scuttled NRP made an appeal to all ex-NRP supporters to join Dr Worrall, while Mr Bill Sutton had the following to say in his epitaph to the NRP:

Dr Worrall’s support for the proposals of the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba confirmed the suspicion that the Independent Party supports Black majority rule as the only constitutional solution for the voters of South Africa.

This suspicion is supported by the memorandum of association of the Independent Party. Although it is very vague—a mere collection of unrelated words without firm concepts and open to wide interpretation—there is one aspect which emerges clearly. Just like the PFP, the IP does not recognise the multicultural character of our South African nation, as it is manifested in the rich diversity of communities, each of which forms a minority distinct from each of the others. Equally this IP does not recognise the fact that the rights of these minorities must be protected in order to prevent one group dominating another.

In fact, Sir, I want to know from Dr Worrall where and how the IP differs with the PFP in regard to policy, because his unqualified support for the Indaba proposals brings him into line with PFP policy. In fact, the hon member for Constantia admitted earlier in this debate that there were no fundamental differences among the left-wing groups.

One gets the impression that the Indaba propagandists—the so-called Indaba Office in Durban; that pressure group that distorts opinion polls and spreads lying perceptions abroad—is also abandoning the PFP ship; that they would now prefer to convey their ideas—those same old ideas we already know so well—into the political arena on the back of the IP.

What we see here is nothing but a take-over of PFP policy by the IP. The PFP would do well to take cognisance of this. The IP is pulling the rug out from under their feet.

Finally it is clear that the IP has nothing new to offer. In fact it is battening like a parasite on stereotyped policies which have already been unequivocally rejected by the voters of South Africa at the polls. All that that party can rely on is the platform skills of its leader, Dr Dennis Worrall—an individualist, whose leadership is in any event under suspicion; a person who was not even able to take his election partners with him, who has failed even before he has begun. No, Sir, the voters of South Africa will not allow themselves to be led to the gallows to the strains of “Chariots of Fire”. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I gladly support the Bill under discussion.

Mr Speaker, I was delighted to hear the hon member Mr Hattingh say that the NP is not divided. I should now like to ask him whether he agrees with the speech made by the hon member for Innesdal last night. [Interjections.] Now that hon member is very quiet, Sir. He simply does not have the courage to tell me whether he agrees with the hon member for Innesdal or not. [Interjections.] Do other hon members of the NP perhaps agree with the hon member for Innesdal’s speech?

If it were true that the whole of the NP agreed with that speech, there would be hope for South Africa.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member say that another hon member does not have the courage to do something? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Parktown may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I want to address the rest of my speech directly to the hon the Minister of Finance. First of all I want to state that it is my privilege to support the amendment moved by the hon member for Yeoville. I should like particularly to refer to the second leg of that amendment, the leg referring to the taking of steps to remedy the serious situation developing in the health services in South Africa.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to listen to my plea today because should he agree with what I have to say we will already have taken a major step forward in improving health services in South Africa.

In February 1984 the then Minister of Finance, Dr Owen Horwood, repealed section 16 of the Income Tax Act. Since then the Medical Association of South Africa and the Dental Association of South Africa have made repeated representations to the Government and to the hon the State President that section 16 should be reinstated. The hon member for Yeoville and I have raised this matter here in Parliament on many occasions, only to be refused by this hon Minister and his predecessor. They have both repeatedly refused our requests.

Recently, however, the Margo Commission gave both MASA and the Dental Association an opportunity of giving evidence in favour of the reinstatement of section 16. When one studies the recommendations of the Margo Commission one will find the commission reported very favourably in connection with the reinstatement of section 16, not only for the benefit of the medical profession but also for other essential professions, as they put it. It also recommended that the concessions should be extended to members of the essential professions who are salaried employers.

What do you regard as an essential profession?

Doctors, accountants, dentists, teachers, lawyers—those people who make South Africa a different country from the rest of Africa. They are the really involved people. [Interjections.] It also recommends that there should be certain prescribed procedures which will not only give these taxpayers an opportunity of claiming for these visits but will also eliminate abuse. That is what the hon the Minister always advances as a reason for refusing to reinstate section 16—the possibility of abuse.

It is, however, the opinion of the medical profession—I agree with that—that the White Paper’s response to these recommendations is disappointing and also unclear. I hope the hon the Minister will agree with me in this regard.

I will therefore be very grateful if the hon the Minister will respond to the following questions. In order to clarify these questions, I should like to quote the White Paper in this regard. The White Paper states, inter alia:

There will indeed have to be provision for the deductibility of the direct costs incurred by medical practitioners …

That is the first point that worries me—

This is the second point that worries me. Thirdly, it states:

These are the three points that are of great concern to me.

With the aforementioned as a background, I should like to put the following questions to the hon the Minister. Firstly, will concessions apply only to overseas visits or will they also include postgraduate courses or conferences within the Republic of South Africa as recommended by the Margo Commission? Secondly, will these concessions be extended to other essential professions—the hon the Minister and I do not have the time to debate the definition of “essential professions” although I think that the word “essential” is very important—again as recommended by the Margo Commission? Thirdly, will these concessions be extended to members of essential professions who are in salaried professions? I am referring here to fulltime professional medical men and that sort of category. Fourthly, what is the meaning of “that the practical application of this concession will be investigated further”? Finally, when can we expect a final decision in this regard? I can only express the hope that when the hon the Minister replies to this debate on Monday he will also reply favourably to these questions of mine.

I am sure the hon the Minister has often heard arguments in favour of the reinstatement of section 16, and we have also heard his arguments against it.

We are not against the principle.

Very well, Sir. It is also well-known that contact with members of the health care professions and other professions in other parts of the world is essential for the proper development of new techniques and better management. The result of this can only be better health care for our people, which is the aim of all of us.

I agree.

The hon the Minister agrees. I am becoming more and more hopeful this afternoon!

It has been my privilege to be invited to work as a cardiac surgeon in two countries behind the Iron Curtain on seven different occasions for a combined period of six months. There I found that my colleagues in those cardiac units had very little knowledge of modern cardiac surgery, and the results were not up to the standard one would expect of modem units. Why were they so behind in this regard? As a result of political and economic factors—I think we are coming a little closer to the situation in South Africa now and perhaps this will serve as a warning to us—these medical men were starved of contact with other centres in both Europe and America. In addition, lack of foreign currency and the deterioration in the value of their own currency had reduced the availability of current medical journals and textbooks. In fact, they pleaded with us to send them journals that were five or six years old simply in order to maintain contact.

It was not a pleasant experience for me to see the results of this lack of overseas day-to-day medical contact. Are we not beginning to experience the same problems in South Africa? I saw the dreadful and fatal mistakes that they made in the operating theatre. I wish that I had the time to inform hon members of my exact experiences there and how I had to struggle to maintain a reasonable standard.

I want to say that my experiences there emphasised the need for our profession to have contact with advances and developments in other parts of the world. With this in mind, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether this is to be our future in the medical profession? The hon the Minister has a habit of pulling faces when he is not happy with what we say to him!

*He develops something of a bad taste in his mouth. [Interjections.] I should like to give him some good medicine today. It is already happening in South Africa today—the hon the Minister of National Health Services and Population Development who is sitting next to the hon the Minister of Finance, knows that this is happening—that our health standards are deteriorating due to many factors.

†We in South Africa are now facing a hostile world. The medical profession finds it increasingly difficult to maintain contact with countries overseas, and many countries and congresses are totally out of bounds to South African doctors.

The increasing costs of air travel and hotel accommodation and the devaluation of the rand have made it too expensive for many of us—even us doctors; only politicians can still afford to go overseas!—to visit congresses, even those in countries where we are still welcome. To overcome this, the reinstatement of section 16 is essential. This would make it possible for many members of my profession as well as other professions to visit these sorely needed congresses and conferences, undertake postgraduate studies and maintain contacts.

Not only is this a matter of urgency, but it is also essential if we are to sustain the high standard so jealously guarded by the medical profession, of which I am proud to be a member.

I believe it is the duty of the hon the Minister to reinstate this tax concession as a matter of urgency. I hope that the hon the Minister will do another good thing this session and accede to this request next Monday.

Mr Speaker, in the main I agree with what the hon member for Parktown said. There is not the slightest doubt that it is necessary to help doctors and scientists travel overseas to build up contacts, etc. I do have two remarks to make, however, the first being, of course, that when one is a member sitting on the Government side one also has to take the financial aspects into consideration, even if one basically does agree with the hon member.

[Inaudible]

My other remark concerns that hon member’s argument that we should not be isolated or cut-off. I request hon members of that party to seriously help us oppose organisations such as Namda which is trying to undermine and isolate us.

On the wider South African stage White politics inevitably plays a major role and is of the utmost significance. In many respects White politics is definitive and decisive in South Africa. It is common cause and needs no further argument.

Anyone who thinks, however, that on this panoramic South African stage the politics of people of colour, for example of the Coloureds, of the South African Asians and very specifically of the Black people, are of lesser importance, is being led dangerously astray, is heading down a street that comes to a dead stop, or should I rather say, a street in which one stops dead.

The emphasis in our debates in this House of Assembly naturally falls more frequently on White politics, but unfortunately—chiefly because of the AWB-CP participation—there is such exaggerated emphasis on White politics alone that it could create or intensify the impression that Black politics is of lesser significance, or perhaps something totally different, a complete side-issue, something taking place in another country altogether.

Do you agree with Albert?

I am speaking about the realities of the situation in South Africa. I am not talking petty party politics here. [Interjections.] In the AWB-CP dream-world all people of colour do, in any event, have their own country somewhere away from this White country, South Africa. That is their dream-world, not reality.

The point I want to make is that we in the House of Assembly—I am speaking about all the parties—should guard against creating the impression, even inadvertently, that in the House of Assembly and within the context of the White struggle raging out there, if I may call it that, we regard only White politics as being of any significance.

I repeat that I am not talking petty party politics. An hon member on this side of the House spoke to me yesterday in the lobby about what one should do in South African politics. Listening to him I realised he meant White politics in South Africa. He did not include Black politics or the politics of people of colour in the discussion. We would be living in a fool’s paradise if we thought here only in terms of White politics.

We are going to oppose the CP; we want to win back a few seats. We shall, of course, be winning our seats back from them. [Interjections.] If we were to win back seats from the CP and, in the process, were to harm human relations, or do damage to the fact that the reality of South Africa includes the entire political spectrum, it would not be worth it.

The reality of the situation is that there are various population groups and peoples living in this country. They were here before, they are here and here they will stay. These groups are all actors playing roles on this one big stage. Each one is playing a specific role, but it is a role in the same stupendous drama, the drama of South Africa on the one big stage, this country, South Africa.

This drama, however, unlike a classic Greek drama or N P van Wyk Louw’s drama, Raka, has not already been written, with a good or bad presentation being the only remaining issue. As far as this South African drama is concerned, all South Africans, and in particular its leaders, are progressively writing this living drama or spectacle. In other words, whilst we are performing this drama we are also writing it. From the human point of view, it is not a drama that has already been written. We can therefore exert a significant influence on the closing scenes of at least the present act of the South African drama.

It goes without saying that population groups therefore form the power bases, or as Chief Buthelezi likes to put it, the “constituencies” of political parties and movements. Broadly speaking, population groups therefore form the power base of White politics, Coloured politics, Indian politics, Zulu politics or whatever Black politics—each with political parties and groups active within its own context. I reiterate, however, that all are nevertheless on the one stage, this country, South Africa.

After all, the various population groups do not exist in total isolation; not in geographic isolation either. It goes without saying that there is a single South Africa. The present state of emergency is not to be found anywhere else; it is to be found here in South Africa. Surely there is one common fatherland for us all, linked as we are to our various cultural, colour and population groups. We are surely all South Africans, regardless of what population group we belong to, what language we speak, what cultural background we have or what our religion is. That is why we all have a common duty and share a common love and patriotism for our own South Africa, the same South Africa for Whites and Coloureds, for example.

As co-authors of this living drama it is our duty to write the scenes with an accurate, steady and sure touch for all South Africans. The tragedy of this drama is that the AWB and its hand-fed Parliamentary sheep, the CP members, have succeeded, as far as a significant percentage of White voters is concerned, in giving renewed credibility to those aspects of apartheid policy—as a solution to the country’s problems—which have been proven to be impracticable, and I place the word “credibility” in parenthesis. If the consequences were not that serious or even fatal, one could call this a tragicomedy.

Of course, if one of the self-governing areas of our country, for example Kwazulu, wanted to obtain independence, it goes without saying that the rest of us should assist them and not place any obstacles in their way.

And if the Whites want to do so?

If I have any time left, I shall come back to that very interesting question about the possibility of Whites wanting their own separate area. I do not think it is a practical proposition. It could have been an ideal situation, but it is not practicable.

If one of those areas wants independence, we must offer our assistance. If the areas do not want independence, however, independence may not and cannot ever be forced upon any portion of South Africa. For the hon member’s sake I just want to add that the Whites of our country do not want a separate Coloured homeland either; it is not only the Coloureds who do not want it.

Let me continue by saying that it has never been NP policy, not from 1915 to 1988, not from the time of Genl Hertzog, Dr Malan, Advocate Strijdom, Dr Verwoerd, Mr Vorster to that of the present hon State President, for independence to be forced upon any population group or geographic area of this single South Africa. Now the CP must answer this question for us: Is it CP policy that independence should or will be forced upon any population group or geographic area?

No!

The hon member says no. In that case let me just add that the fact that it is not physically possible to force such independence upon anyone is, of course, irrelevant as far as the CP is concerned, because the major portion—the most basic portion—of their policy is impracticable in any event. The point I want to make, however, is that if, as the hon the member said, it is not their policy to force independence upon those areas, surely it is ridiculous, now or for the foreseeable future, to speak of a separate, purely White South Africa. I could put it differently by saying that it is simply ridiculous to deny the existence of a single South Africa. It exists at present, and according to that hon member’s own words, they cannot change it either, because they do not want to enforce it by violent means. [Interjections.]

This is not merely NP policy I am now advocating. It is a real, tangible fact, for anyone to see and experience, that these various populations groups …

And Black franchise?

I am still coming to that.

The various population groups in one country bring into prominence the old philosophic image that hon members can read about in Die Credo van ’n Afrikaner by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. There he indicated what his personal credo was, ie one of circles within circles, in this case actually tangential circles, but circles which also overlap considerably. As a whole these circles are encompassed by one great circle. This diversity within unity is not merely an image; it is the reality of South Africa. What I am trying to say is that there are intense ties and an intense commitment on the part of the individuals within the one South Africa, not only in regard to one another in the group context, but also across colour and group boundaries. That is why the maintenance and promotion of intergroup relations and interpersonal relations in the RSA is of the utmost importance.

To sum up, let me say that there is the White political spectrum with its power base, its “constituency”, its structures, including its constitutional structures and its extreme importance to South Africa as a whole. Equally there are the Coloured and Indian political spectrums with their power bases, each with its “constituency”, its structures and its constitutional structures. Each has the greater degree of significance for the same South Africa.

There is also Zulu and Sotho politics for example. Those are Black political spectrums with respective and distinctive bases, yes “constituencies” and structures, although I must say that the constitutional structures are still completely inadequate at present. They are also of extreme importance to South Africa.

I am saying that the single biggest challenge facing South Africa—I can almost say the all— important challenge—is that of shaping and establishing a constitutional dispensation for this one South Africa, because a series of separate South Africas is a land of make-believe. In this one South Africa the Black people will also have to be properly and adequately accommodated, without one group dominating another.

As I have spelt things out now, it is not a simplistic question of one group, the Whites, as opposed to another group, the Coloureds or the Blacks. One of the most important factors, if not the most important, as far as the shaping and establishing of this dispensation is concerned, involves human relations—inter-group relations and interpersonal relations. In other words, whether this dispensation is going to succeed or not will depend to a very large extent, if not solely, on interpersonal relations and inter-group relations. To tell the Blacks that if they want to live here forever they must do so without any basic rights—without a franchise or anything—is an absurdity which we ought not even to be discussing in this House.

I am also saying that this important factor of inter-group and interpersonal relations is a variable. It is an extreme variable. If, for example, we were to grade interpersonal relations on a scale, we could grade them as being extremely good, very good, merely good, bad, very bad or extremely bad. For the sake of convenience we could therefore classify interpersonal relations and inter-group relations along this spectrum. Time does not permit me to examine the present state of affairs in depth. I merely want to say that at this stage inter-group relation and interpersonal relations are still reasonably sound. They have the potential, however, to deteriorate rapidly. If we adopt the correct standpoint or attitude and create the right constitutional dispensation, they also have the potential of improving very rapidly. All parties, specifically the Whites, play a significant role in determining what these relations—the variable factor—will be in the future.

Let me put it this way, so as not to adopt the two courses of violence—ie the two courses so clearly spelt out by Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche as being either that of the AWB or that of the ANC—and to prevent South Africa from being forced to adopt those courses of violence, it is vital to have closer co-operation between the population groups I have mentioned. This must take place between population groups, rightly enough, but again it is very important to have this taking place at the personal, individual level. We cannot succeed in our objective if an improvement in these interpersonal relations is not forthcoming. Hence my serious plea for everyone to work hard at actively improving interpersonal relations and inter-group relations. I say again that no constitutional dispensation, no matter how good or how wonderful it is, can succeed without that.

I should like to mention a few examples of what we can do and of how important these interpersonal relations are. I shall mention the following example. In our country, this one South Africa, it is vital for better, more incisive attention to be given to—and for much more money to be spent on—Black education. As indicated in the reply someone quoted here, we know that there are more Black children of school-going age who are not going to school than there are White children actually attending school. For the Whites it is vital—for South Africa it is vital—to harness all our financial and interpersonal capabilities to improve Black education. Surely there can be no argument about that. We must do everything in our power to achieve this.

What, however, is happening in South Africa at present? While the Government is specifically doing this, the AWB-CP-alliance says two things. Firstly they say that in doing so we are giving everything to the kaffirs. Secondly they say that in doing things for others we are depriving the White people. In other words, when we introduce better Black education we are necessarily depriving White education of certain facilities. But surely that is not true. We can, after all, maintain educational standards and still do everything in our power to help other people.

I want to mention another example by saying that no constitutional dispensation, no matter how good it is, can succeed if the population development programme does not succeed. We know that South Africa, with its water and other supplies, can cater for 80 million people. We know that if we do not do something about the matter, we shall reach that figure in the year 2010 or 2020. In other words, one can make whatever calculations one wants, do all the partitioning one wants to and work out any constitutional dispensation one cares to work out, but South Africa is doomed to be a backward Third World country if that number of people are to be accommodated in their various South Africas, which are actually one and the same South Africa.

I say again that one cannot succeed with a population development programme in the absence of sound interpersonal relations. One must not tell people that they will never have the vote here in our midst or that they are not part of us. Previously, when the population of Johannesburg was 100 000, I said that 50 000 of them were Blacks. Today we must supposedly tell those Blacks they must go somewhere else, because they come from another country. What idiocy! Apart from the idiocy, one is not creating the right attitude in those people’s minds to help them realise that we have to make this population development programme succeed.

My time is running out. I can, however, quote to hon members page upon page from the Patriot dealing solely with Blacks and with what the NP is doing. They say the Government is going to give in to the universities. Here again it is a question of the Government again doing too much for the Blacks. That is what one finds on page after page.

In this Parliament the CP members have made allegations and asked questions about Blacks assaulting Whites. We know, do we not, that these are manifestations of urbanisation. This also happened when the Whites became urbanised. With the advent of the poor White question at the beginning of this century, criminality and its concomitant aspects became a major problem. This is a major problem in South Africa. [Interjections.] Why, however, must this now be approached from a nasty, racist point of view?

What happened? That hon Minister sitting there, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, was attacked by those hon members of the CP. The hon the Minister replied to their questions. He gave them the figures, and I am now going to quote them.

The Patriot reported on what happened here in Parliament, on what the CP said, on what terrible damage was being done to the Whites and on how the Blacks were carrying on. It was also stated that the hon the Minister had replied. The figures were not furnished, however, because that did not suit the CP. [Interjections.] That is not the point I want to make. The point I want to make is that because they do not report the figures and tell our people precisely what the position is, they are bedevilling interpersonal relations to the worst possible degree. That is what this type of reporting on their part will lead to.

What, however, are the figures? The hon the Minister gave reliable statistics for 1986-87 which indicate that:

That is the reality of the situation. Those are the figures, but does one read about those figures in the Patriot? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must put a stop to this running commentary now. The hon member may proceed.

That is the point I want to make. Let them appear ridiculous if they want to—they have every right to say that there is no such thing as one South Africa—but why are they so dishonest, for example, that they do not report these statistics? They asked for the statistics, they attacked the hon the Minister on that issue, but their newspaper does not report the statistics. It does not fit in with their racist attitude, and this jeopardises sound interpersonal relations.

Perhaps I should quote briefly from the report of the HSRC investigation into inter-group relations, Die Suid-Afrikaanse Samelewing: Werklikhede en Toekomsmoontlikhede. Large numbers of South Africa’s most brilliant scientists participated in this investigation and furnished a comprehensive report.

On the last page of this report the following conclusions are drawn:

Die slotsom waartoe dus in hierdie verslag gekom word, is dat die politieke reeling van verhoudinge volgens die oorspronklike apartheidsbeskouing hom vasgeloop het.

They consequently believe that this cannot succeed, but they state:

The last paragraph reads:

There is a lovely story of a married couple who had 12 daughters. As a friend of mine from the Cape said to me: “Try what may”, they had only daughters. At their last attempt their 13th child turned out to be a boy. The parents called this child Fantastic. Whenever this man introduced himself to people, they laughed at him and he had problems. On his deathbed he asked his wife please not to have that name etched on his grave-stone. His wife had the following inscription placed on his gravestone: “Here lies my dear husband. Throughout his life he never looked at another woman.” Everyone who walked past the grave and saw the inscription said: “Fantastic!”

If we can successfully deal with interpersonal relations we can look at one another—the world will also look at us—and say: “Fantastic!”

Mr Speaker, if I heard the hon member for Langlaagte correctly, he has undergone a transformation. He delivered quite a dispassionate speech, but towards the end he grew hysterical and again showed his true colours.

He said that he did not begrudge the Blacks their independence and an opportunity to govern themselves. In this House it has frequently been pointed out to us, however, that having the Whites govern themselves in their own homeland is not a viable proposition. Like the Blacks, the Whites also want to govern themselves. [Interjections.]

The hon member said a great deal, but once more he neglected to tell the Whites how the minority were going to be protected. In one meeting after another, in speech upon speech, the Government dodges that question. [Interjections.]

I do not want to dwell at any length on the hon member for Sunnyside, but I just want to remind him that after he was nominated last year, he tried to convince people in a speech that the NP did, in fact, have a policy. Everyone in court laughed at him. [Interjections.]

Permit me to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon member Dr Geldenhuys on his appointment today. Today the ranks of the unemployed in South Africa have been reduced by one. At the same time, however, I want to apologise to the hon member. A while ago I told him in an interjection that the voters of Randfontein had rejected him. I thought about this, however, and realised that I was wrong. It is not the voters of Randfontein who have rejected him—they are fond of him, it is the NP they have rejected …

Yes, that is right!

… and they had to take it out on him. [Interjections.]

That is correct! Well done, Arrie!

In the course of the debate I should like the hon member to tell us: “What about Gezina?” [Interjections.]

I now want to dwell for a moment on what the hon member for Innesdal said yesterday. His was the most arrogant and insulting speech ever delivered about the Whites in South Africa. Looking across at the other side of the House, I saw quite a few hon members on that side bowing their heads, but unfortunately there were quite a few of them who, while they were munching away and drinking too much water, were also laughing and were happy about the speech. If I had closed my eyes and listened to the hon member, not knowing he was the hon member for Innesdal, I would have sworn that he represented some suburb of Mamelodi in this House. [Interjections.]

Then the hon member for Gezina—I am referring to the actual hon member for Gezina, not the “What about Gezina?”—said here yesterday that we should not advocate parity on the basis of skin colour. Sir, I cannot really fault that statement, but what I very definitely can find fault with is the fact that when parity is granted we should take more than just parity or skin colour into consideration. We should take productivity into consideration.

That is correct! [Interjections.]

We should look at what people of colour pay for rent and transport, for example.

You are talking nonsense!

Let that hon member say I am talking nonsense; I shall be coming back to him.

Hospitalisation, medical costs …

[Inaudible.]

Order! Would the hon member please resume his seat for a moment. During the course of last year I made a serious appeal to hon members in this House not to address one another by their Christian names, not to use Christian names unnecessarily across the floor of the House and/or use nicknames. The use of Christian names is becoming increasingly prevalent, and I again appeal to hon members to stop doing this immediately. In this House hon members are referred to as “hon members” and they will not be addressed by their Christian names or nicknames, except under very exceptional circumstances, and then the Chair will decide the issue, but it is not going to become the rule in this House. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, when we speak about parity, we must have parity at all levels to prevent Blacks and people of colour having more money in their pockets than the Whites at the end of the month. That is what we want to make clear. There must be parity at all levels, not merely as far as salaries are concerned.

I agree.

Then I just want to dwell for a moment on the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance who actually rejected the late Dr Verwoerd’s policy here. I do not know to what party he belonged at the time—whether he was a liberal, a UP supporter or something else—but the Afrikaners, the Whites, the Nationalists of the time worshipped Dr Verwoerd. He could do nothing wrong in the eyes of White Nationalists in South Africa, and what he did was the right thing to do for South Africa. I want to make it very clear here today that since then South Africa has never had a leader of Dr Verwoerd’s calibre, and I do not think we ever shall in the foreseeable future, except when the CP comes to power. [Interjections.]

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

No, Mr Speaker, I do not have time to reply to questions. The other day the hon the Deputy Minister did not want to answer our questions either. [Interjections.]

We now come to the inflation bug biting South Africa. From the opposite side of the House so much praise is being lavished on the hon the Minister of Finance that he can hardly breathe. [Interjections.] We are just as worried—in fact we have said so before—about the problem of inflation. I nevertheless want to make it clear here today that the way in which that problem is being tackled will again—I emphasise “again”— be unsuccessful.

Prophet?

Visionary!

When we take note of what was said by the hon member for Barberton, we see that if the salary package is omitted from the Budget there has actually been a growth in Government expenditure. What is more, an appeal has been made to employees to tighten their belts. Most of them have already virtually tightened it as far as it will go …

Right up to the backbone!

The very next day the Cabinet is enlarged, of course entailing further expenditure for the taxpayers of South Africa. It was not necessary to enlarge the Cabinet.

Sixty Ministers!

Today South Africa boasts more Ministers and Deputy Ministers than any country in the world.

Do not forget the; Assistant Ministers!

We are one of the smallest countries. We cannot afford this sort of thing. It is this system which the Government has set in motion, however, and which has been a failure to boot, which is resulting in so many millions of rands being spent unnecessarily each year. [Interjections.] An appeal was quite simply made to the private sector. Let me reiterate that I believe in collective bargaining. If an employee can get what he wants from his employer, then that is owing to him.

Notwithstanding productivity?

The private sector has already given proof of the fact that it is not heeding the hon the Minister’s appeal.

In regard to the question of pensions I would very much like to mention that once again the pensioners of South Africa have, in my view, been shabbily treated by the Government. The R60 given to them could just as well not have been given. It means nothing. [Interjections.] I also want to say that if the hon the Minister had divided that R60 by twelve and given pensioners R5 per month, he could have done something better next year in the event of a percentage increase being granted then. The hon member for Jeppe asked where the money for this should come from. By way of an interjection the hon member for George asked whether all the population groups should get an increase when the Whites do. I put it to the hon member that this is an own affair. We are speaking about the Whites. The hon member for George must remember that when the Coloureds decided that their aged should get an increase, not one of them asked what was going to happen to the Whites. [Interjections.] They were not concerned about the Whites.

The hon member for Jeppe wanted to know where the money for this was going to come from. If only we ourselves would start saving, write fewer little songs, look after fewer political prisoners and so on … [Interjections.] What I mean by this is the following. The Government has become the political prisoner of its own policy. [Interjections.] When a Minister holds a meeting somewhere or other, there are always more policemen there than anyone else. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Finance went to hold a meeting in a small peace-loving old town called Leeudoringstad. There were more than 60 policemen there to look after him. [Interjections.] At Randfontein the hon the Minister of National Education held a meeting, and there the whole city hall was surrounded by Casspirs, policemen and Blacks with shotguns. Blacks with shotguns have to protect that hon Minister! [Interjections.] A few days previously some of those policemen had worked day and night on the bomb-blast in Krugersdorp, but they were nevertheless told to go and look after the hon the Minister.

Where are the days when a Minister or anyone in the NP could fearlessly hold a meeting in the full knowledge that his people backed him up? When my hon leader holds a meeting, there are no policemen. Nor is there any unrest, because the Whites in South Africa trust him. [Interjections.] They listen to him and know where they stand with him.

And they love him.

Unfortunately that cannot be said of the other side.

I want to dwell for a few moments on the hon member for Turffontein.

You have not yet said what you wanted to say about me. You started by saying: “The hon member for Jeppe”.

Order! If the hon member is going to be assisted, from both the right and the left, in making his speech, we are going to get nowhere. I ask hon members for their co-operation. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, yesterday the hon member for Turffontein carried on here with statements about the 1977 election. I do not think anyone in this House believed him, even if he wanted it to be taken with a bag and not a pinch of salt. I think that statement he made was as far from the truth as the South Pole is from the North Pole.

What is more, with certain statements he made he launched a scandalous attach on the late Dr Connie Mulder. He said, amongst other things, that Dr Mulder had approached him to contest the election in Rosettenville so that Mr Sporie van Rensburg could be sent to Jeppe to keep the hon member for Overvaal out of that constituency. I had the privilege of knowing the late Dr Connie Mulder for many a long years. I knew him in the days when there was still a really good NP in South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to state clearly that Dr Connie Mulder would never—I repeat never—have discussed NP matters with a rotten UP man.

Order! To whom is the hon member referring in his reference to a rotten UP man?

To the hon member for Turffontein, Sir.

Order! If that is the case, the hon member did so deliberately. He must now apologise and withdraw that statement.

Sir, one never, never withdraws the truth.

Order! If the hon member is not prepared to withdraw that statement, he must withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the member withdrew.]

Mr Chairman, before I come to the type of scandalous conduct that has just been displayed, permit me to sincerely welcome the hon member Dr Boy Geldenhuys back to the House. [Interjections.] It is really encouraging that he was returned unopposed as an indirectly elected member because he was the only candidate. It is a real pleasure for us to welcome him back here once again. We want to wish him everything of the best. We know that he is going to contribute his share in the House. We extend a sincere welcome to him.

Unfortunately, despite the absence of the hon member for Carletonville, I have to argue briefly about some of the matters he raised here. It is not my fault that the hon member is not present In the House; he will have to consult Hansard to find out what I have to say to him.

One thing that is as plain as a pikestaff is that throughout the entire speech he made here he said nothing concrete about the CP, the Official Opposition, and its policy. He simply touched upon a few things here and there—that is how he carried on.

By how many votes did you lose?

It is very important to know … At least I did not run away from my constituency, like certain other hon members of the CP. I stood my ground.

No, your people simply chased you away!

Order! The hon member for Overvaal has made enough interjections. The hon member for Stilfontein may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: This is my first interjection since you took the Chair. Is that too many?

Order! Is the hon member arguing about my ruling?

Yes, Sir.

Order! The hon member will apologise for addressing the Chair in that fashion.

Mr Chairman, I want to address you on this matter.

Order! No, the hon member will not address me. He is casting a reflection on the integrity of the Chair and he must withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must now resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: All I wanted to tell you, when you forbade me to make any further interjections, was that I had made only that one interjection.

Order! That is enough. The hon member for Stilfontein may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Am I to assume that this will also be the case for other hon members who make more than one interjection?

Order! The hon member may not assume that. The Chair will exercise its discretion. The hon member for Stilfontein may proceed.

All the while the hon member for Carletonville harped on nothing but the Whites, Whites, Whites. There is nothing wrong with our speaking about the Whites all the time, but it is altogether wrong of us to forget that in this country of ours we do not only have Whites. Unfortunately we have the responsibility of dealing with all groups in this country. We must look to the interests of all groups in our country, and not only to those of the Whites, and the sooner that truth gets through to members of the Official Opposition, the better it will be for all of us in this country, ultimately for the Whites too.

He simply comes along here and states that there should be parity, but then in all spheres. Then he fired a random shot by saying: “Look at the rent the non-Whites and the Blacks pay.” That was a typically misleading argument that was again used. If there are Whites in this country of ours who are prepared to live in a two-roomed house without inside doors, this Government could supply those houses to those hon members for R30 per month too. The problem with that hon member is that he wants to live in a four-bedroomed house with a family room, two bathrooms and a swimming-pool at R30 per month. Surely that is ridiculous. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. In the Black residential area in the district I come from there are large, beautiful four-bedroomed houses. Those Black people, however, have to pay between R55 000 and R90 000 for them. This Government did not give those houses to them for R30 per month. If they were prepared to five on much smaller pieces of land, we would also be able to give them that land at much cheaper prices. For once in their lives those hon members should just go and have a look at the conditions in which some of the Black citizens of our country are living—they should see whether they would be satisfied to pay R30 per month under those circumstances. [Interjections.]

That is not all, however, because the hon member for Carletonville went on to state that there should be parity, but one area in which there can, in fact, be parity is certainly that of taxation. There is no difference between the tax paid by Black people, Coloureds and Whites. They all pay precisely the same tax on the same income with the same deductions. Where do hon members get the idea that Whites pay more tax on the same income? In public, however, they freely misuse that kind of argument.

Let us go further. They say there should be parity, but surely there are not two different loaves of bread, one for Whites and one for Blacks. Surely there are not two different sets of clothes, one for Whites and one for Blacks. Those people do, after all, pay exactly the same amount of money as I do for the necessities of life. The CP shouts “parity” when they do not even know the meaning of the word.

He speaks so glibly of pensions for the elderly. I have the greatest sympathy, the utmost empathy, for our aged. Do they not know, however, that in practical terms it costs R110 million if one spends R5 per month per person more on social pensions? Hon members do not think about that. What we shall be telling our old-age pensioners, in fact, is that the hon member for Carletonville said we should take away some of their pensions. We can now make public the fact that they have said we should rather take away some of their pensions.

He complained about policemen and the money consequently wasted at political meetings. If it were not for the political hooligans supporting their party, it would not have been necessary for us to use policemen or to waste taxpayers’ money to protect other people whom they do not even have the decency to give a chance to make a speech in public. Surely it is quite clear where these costs originate and why they have to be incurred. Then those hon members kick up a great fuss about the Government not being able to protect the elderly and not being able to maintain law and order. A much better job could be made of maintaining law and order of it were not necessary to deal with these political thugs at public meetings. [Interjections.]

If the hon member for Carletonville—he is not present in the House at the moment—knew the late Dr Mulder as well as he professes to have known him, he would most certainly have known that it was the late Dr Connie Mulder and not Dr Condie Mulder. [Interjections.]

I should like to discuss the Budget and those aspects specifically arising from it. The very first matter that has to be dealt with is this CP cry or credo of: “White taxes for Whites, Black taxes for Blacks!” It has to be dealt with because it has become the credo of that party. Hon members have again heard it ad nauseam here in the House from umpteen speakers. Even the hon member for Roodepoort referred to it again yesterday.

Do hon members know that when the Budget was announced, there was a radio programme in which speakers from the respective parties had to comment? It is actually ludicrous, but that hon member for Barberton’s comment was the following:

That is why they strongly objected to the Budget. That hon member was not the only one. I quote the hon member for Lichtenburg from Hansard:

It is surely very clear what is going on here. It is indeed clear. Those hon members merely want to say once more in devious, racist terms: “You White people, just look how you are being impoverished! Look at how much poorer you are getting! You are being deprived of your money, which is decreasing, whilst that of people of colour is increasing.”

But what is the factual situation? What is the actual situation in this country of ours? Surely those hon members know that there were several factors that contributed to this decrease of R51 million. There was, for example, the unspent portion of the R400 million which was meant for drought-aid to farmers, to mention only a single factor. There were many other factors.

It is very important to place this CP approach in its proper perspective. What is the factual situation? The Administration: House of Assembly gets R5,284 billion. I am now going to put it in much simpler terms, because the hon member for Potgietersrus—he is not here either—informed me that they were not actually financial fundis; they were actually laymen in this field. I therefore want to put it to them differently so that they can also understand it—the Administration: House of Assembly obtained R5 284 million from the Budget. The Administration: House of Delegates obtained R831 million. We therefore have R5 284 million as against their R831 million. The Administration: House of Representatives obtained R2 302 million.

Let us ask the CP why it is afraid to make these figures public among the Whites. Why do they not examine the figures, go to the Whites and tell them exactly what they are getting? No, the negative aspects are emphasised, ie that the Whites are getting R51 million less.

I shall tell those hon members what the factual situation is. Why do they not tell their people that the Whites are getting 62,8%, the Coloureds 27,4% and the Asians 9,8% of all the own affairs budgets? Why do they not make those figures public? Why do they not tell our Whites that this Government does have to look after the other people too, as it looks after the Whites? They keep silent about that because they are politically bankrupt.

Let us continue. This obsession of theirs goes even further. They are walking around effusively saying that the Whites are only getting 9,9% of the total Budget. Only 9,9%, Sir! According to the CP that is the proportion of the overall Budget of this country that the Whites got for themselves. Surely that is the biggest lie one can go around telling members of the public. Surely the Whites have as much right to protection by the Police and the Defence Force and to social services. Surely we get as large a proportion of the joint budget, the general affairs budget. It is not a question of a mere 9,9%. Together with the other people we enjoy all the other benefits.

Thus we could go on. I can forgive ignorance. I can forgive the hon member for Potgietersrus, because he is the one who said that he was not an expert in the field of finance. Although we have said this repeatedly to hon members, however, they simply take no notice of it. I had even begun to think that politically those people have gone completely blind. I really do not know what they are hearing when we try to debate these matters with them.

Let us go even further and analyse these grossly misleading statements of theirs. Here I want to dwell for a moment on the morality of their utterances. The Official Oppositions says that the taxes paid by the Whites should be spent on the Whites alone. They say that the taxes paid by people of colour should be spent on people of colour. They even used the argument that the Receiver of Revenue could, after all, determine the amount paid in taxes by the respective race groups. In the case of personal tax that is possibly true. I concede that, but let us look a bit further. Before getting round to that, I think I should give them a brief history lesson and ask them whether they are aware of the fact that in the late twenties and the early thirties the Afrikaans-speaking segment of our population was very poor. It took many years before they were on an equal footing with the English-speaking segment of our population as far as schools, educational institutions, housing and social services were concerned. In those years it was not morally wrong to have taken money away from the wealthy and to have given it to those who were less well-off. There was no problem with that principle. No one in this country has any problem with the principle that those who are better off should help those who are less well-off to make ends meet, except the CP. For them it is a problem. They say it is right to take money away from the affluent taxpayers, but they also say that the right thing to do is to give it only to Whites who are less well-off. That is the racist manner in which they are trying to influence the Whites out there. I deduce this from the fact that in the top 50% of our taxpaying public there are very few Black taxpayers indeed.

And very few CPs.

Yes, and perhaps very few CPs too. That is the only conclusion I can draw from that approach of theirs.

They go further with this argument of theirs by saying that the taxes paid by groups should be given to those groups. My question is then: What about the Jewish taxpayers? What about the Greek and Lebanese taxpayers, if they were to come along and ask why the taxes they were paying were not being employed on behalf of the Jews, Lebanese, Greeks or Portuguese who were less well-off? Where does their morality draw the line? [Interjections.]

Let us go further. How do hon members of the CP want to divide it up our sales tax? How do they want to divide it up on a racial basis? How do they want to separate the respective amounts on a racial basis? [Interjections.] I do not know how they want to determine which is White money, which is Black money and which is Asian money. That I do not know. What about customs and excise? What about estate duty? There are so many spheres in which money is so inextricably intertwined. How do those hon members want to divide it up?

This is specifically where their dilemma begins. Most taxes take no cognisance of skin colour. The hon the Minister of Finance has already stated so clearly in this House that “money is colourblind”. I do not agree with that completely, of course. I do not think money is completely colour-blind, except as far as silver, copper and gold are concerned. Those colours are the colours of money.

I want to return to the CP cry, however, of White taxes for Whites. Here in front of me I have the Patriot of 25 March 1988. Before hon members ask me whether I also read the Patriot, let me say that I do, of course. I like reading comics. Here it is stated, and the hon members must listen carefully:

Hon members must listen carefully to how subtly these people set about things. The 93% of the Government’s tax revenue obtained from Whites is going to increase. I do not know, but according to my definition tax revenue means all the revenue we get from taxes, whatever the nature of those taxes might be. The Patriot states further:

I come back to this credo of theirs about the tax paid by White taxpayers being used for the Whites alone. We must bear in mind that the overall Budget totals R53,865 billion. To make it much clearer to them, this is R53 865 million. That is what the overall Budget amounts to. According to this CP newspaper, and according to CP thinking, the Whites must get 93% of this Budget. Hon members must listen carefully now. This means that the Whites get more than R50 billion of this Budget. If that were to happen, what would be left could simply be an amount of R3 860 million for the Blacks, Coloureds and Asians in this country.

There is one thing I cannot understand. Hon members must tell me how they are going to implement their partition plan with R3 860 million per year—ie with all the removals they want to have done, with all the housing problems, and what those problems entail, and with the infrastructure in the homelands which they want to establish for those people and all the land they will have to buy up.

I now come to another very interesting aspect. The Patriot states:

So they are now no longer satisfied with R50 billion; they want more than R50 billion. It goes on to state—

Who are the other non-Whites? Are they too ashamed to say they are Coloureds and Asians? They are simply called the “ander Nieblankes” in passing. Hon members must now listen to the lies that are told in this newspaper. It is stated:

That is surely the biggest lie one could ever read! Where in this Budget can anyone show us that most of the expenditure is going to be on Black education, hospitalisation and other social services? Those are the lies being told to members of the public, however, and unfortunately there are Whites who accept this in good faith.

That is not all, however. They go further and say:

Hon members must now listen very carefully, because what this newspaper now says is very important—it is claimed that the following was said to the Patriot by a leading economist. I wonder whether this prominent economist was the former hon member for Sunnyside, Mr Jan van Zyl.

Oh, leave Van Zyl alone!

Hon members must now listen carefully. They say:

That is what this prominent economist says—

It is stated here in the Patriot that the State will have a deficit of R9 860. It then goes further and states that this would constitute 4,9% of the GDP. According to my calculations, this means that the RSA’s GDP is R201 224,48. That is what the Patriot is proclaiming. That is the information being conveyed to people. That was on 25 March 1988. How ridiculous can one be? They go even further, but I do not even think I should refer to that.

There was, let it be said, one person amongst them who said he was a novice in the field of finance. If those are the kinds of prominent economists who have to govern this country, who must prescribe to that party how their finances should be dealt with, I really do not know. Save us from such a government.

I must add this, however: If we are going to have a deficit of R9 860 in terms of this Budget, we now have the very best Minister of Finance we have ever had in the RSA’s existence. If that is the deficit we are going to have, I really do want to congratulate him sincerely.

Thus one can take apart one bit of economic wisdom of theirs after another. They simply carry on, and again it is simply Black and White and Black and White. I am now asking myself whether the time has not come for us, in this House, to examine the problems facing our country. We must look at problems such as the creation of job opportunities for everyone and not only for the Whites. We must examine problems such as that of providing at least some elementary form of accommodation for everyone—simply an elementary shelter. Has the time not come for us to look at the problems in our country, not of providing a system of one man, one vote, but rather a system of one man, one loaf of bread?

Do hon members know what the CP’s policy is? Their policy is one of giving the Whites everything in this country, as far as the Budget is concerned, and of having the other population groups subjected to untold misery. That is what they tell us, both in the Patriot and also across the floor of the House.

Against this background there is no room for this ridiculous political-economic approach on the part of the Official Opposition. We do not have room for that. There is only room for the realistic approach of the present Government.

I concede that that approach is not always a pleasant one, but woe betide this country of ours if a government were to draw up nothing but a “nice” budget year after year. Such a government would not have the interests of the country, but rather its own interests, at heart. Because this party has the interests of South Africa at heart, it is sometimes necessary to administer unpleasant medicine. If the CP is not prepared to accept this principle, it is misleading our people. The country must know that things cannot always go well for one and that there should also be times of hardship.

The Government is prepared to face up squarely to the economic problems. We are not prepared to promise the world to everyone for the sake of short-term political gains, because we know that if we were to do so, we would most certainly be running into a problem.

Because we are realistic, we on this side of the House cannot support the Official Opposition’s amendment; we on this side of the House shall be rejecting it with the contempt it deserves.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Stilfontein made a very fine speech. When he mentioned CP “hooligans” who disrupted their meetings, his memory would seem to have let him down. In the old days UP and HNP meetings were also disrupted by “hooligans”, and I think those “hooligans” are sitting on that side of the House now. [Interjections.] That kind of sanctimoniousness does not impress anyone.

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

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

†In the early hours of Saturday, 26 March 1988, between three and four in the morning … [Interjections.]

Order! It is the Chair’s duty to protect minority groups. The hon member is a minority and other hon members must afford him an opportunity to make his speech. This applies to the Whips too. The hon member may proceed.

Between three and four in the morning a large contingent of members of the SA Police, police reservists and members of the SA Defence Force—the so-called Dad’s Army comprising White males from Stellenbosch—surrounded the hostels and their sleeping inhabitants in the Black township of Kaya Mandi.

Here we go again!

Yes, here we go again, and I shall continue until it stops. If the Government turns South Africa into a police state they must not expect us not to refer to what the police are doing.

Without any warning heavily armed police and commandos with dogs barged into the hostels and started a bed-to-bed search demanding from the occupants their so-called bed-cards to prove that they had actually paid their monthly bed-rental of R9,06 per single bed, and that they were therefore entitled to be sleeping in that bed. More than 300 women and 142 men who either had no such bed-cards or could not produce their bed-cards at that moment were unceremoniously arrested and thrown into jail.

Although some women were dressed in flimsy nightwear they were not allowed to put on warmer clothing. A number of babies, including one who was merely five days old, were taken to jail with their mothers. All those arrested had to spend all Saturday in Stellenbosch jail.

I visited Kaya Mandi on Sunday and spoke to a number of the mothers who had been imprisoned with their babies. Between four o’clock in the morning when they were arrested and five o’clock in the afternoon when the first people were released, they had been given no food or water. Requests that they be allowed to buy food with the money they had with them were refused. When the mother of the five-day-old baby asked for water for her thirsty baby, she was told to drink the toilet water.

That is rubbish!

I challenge any hon member of the NP who says this is rubbish, to go to Kaya Mandi with me. I shall take him to the mother and then he can tell me whether it is rubbish. [Interjections.]

You merely want to discredit the police.

Order! The hon member for George has now made enough interjections in this speech.

Two babies fainted as a result of this treatment. One of the mothers said to me: “To them we were no more than dogs.”

The statement issued by the SAP afterwards that the raid had been an anti-crime drive must be rejected with contempt. The only crime committed that day was committed by the members of the security forces.

‘Perhaps hon members will now understand why people like Archbishop Tutu describe the Government’s policy of apartheid in his letter to the State President as “not only unjust and oppressive but positively unbiblical, unchristian, immoral and evil”. How anyone who can condone such raids can call himself a Christian is beyond my comprehension.

However, the real reason for the raid would seem to be that the male residents of the hostels in Kaya Mandi are refusing to pay an additional R9,06, over and above the R9,06 they are paying per month for a bed, when their wives share the same single bed with them. Because the so-called mayor of Kaya Mandi, a certain Mr Myatasa, who definitely does not have a mandate to hold this position and who has been accused of corruption on numerous occasions, would lose a great deal of revenue because of the refusal of those people to pay that money … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Mr Hattingh is making a lot of interjections, although I have requested him not to do so. If he does so again, I shall ask him to withdraw from the Chamber. The hon member may proceed.

… because he would lose a great deal of revenue if the people did not pay, the security forces were called in.

To make people pay R9 per month to use a single bed—without a mattress or bedding—is already a disgrace.

[Inaudible.]

To make a man pay R18 simply because his wife sleeps with him, is daylight robbery, and then to use the security forces to force such a disgraceful system on helpless people, is enough to make one weep.

Hon members who may be inclined to suggest that a part of the R9,06 is spent on services such as garbage removal, sanitation and water, should go and see for themselves. Garbage is lying about in rotting piles around the hostel buildings, and there are pools of green stagnant water everywhere. The toilets—if one can call them that— are holes in the ground, without seats, over which the men and women must squat. These are the toilets.

[Inaudible.]

They must pay for that. Sir, these are conditions …

Order! I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon member for Germiston must cease his interjections. The hon member for Claremont may continue.

Sir, this is hurting them; that is why the hon members are making such a noise.

No one would want to use such facilities. How can one defend this? It reminds one of the Dark Ages.

I should now like to address the hon member for Stellenbosch. Unfortunately he is not here now; I tried to get hold of him. He is an hon member for whom I have always had a great deal of time, but I have not yet heard him say a single word about this incident. It happened two weeks ago, but that hon member has not yet said a single word about this incident, and I challenge him today to tell us whether he supports this action. I would like to take him to Kaya Mandi and show him what conditions are like there.

†Sir, in conclusion I want to draw attention to two very serious consequences which flow from this incident. Firstly, if the Government uses members of the SA Defence Force, and especially members of the so-called “Dad’s Army”, for this kind of operation, then it loses whatever moral right it may have had to force anyone to do military service. Anyone who refuses to serve in a defence force that is used to terrorise defenceless men, women and babies …

You are talking absolute rubbish!

… should be commended and not punished. This is a fact! It is not rubbish.

Secondly, by acting against the people of Kaya Mandi in the way the security forces have, they are legitimising the use of violence by the victims of this kind of security force action. When I visited Kaya Mandi last Sunday, the hatred and the anger caused by this raid was still visible on the faces of the young and old, male and female. That is a fact, Sir, and this was before I had said anything. One can only guess how many young men have been pushed to the point where they decide that the present system is so unjust that it is actually justifiable to take up arms against it.

*Sir, what hon member in this House would allow his wife and baby to be dragged from his bed by heavily armed soldiers and kept in gaol for almost 15 hours without food and water?

It is a disgrace!

There is no such hon member!

Your facts are untrue!

I wonder how many hon members would not also become so-called “terrorists” in order to overthrow such a diabolical system. If hon members would not tolerate such behaviour, and they would not—who would?— why do they expect the residents of Kaya Mandi, or the residents of Umfeleni, in Kuils River, where the same thing happened the year before last, to put up with this kind of behaviour?

Mr Chairman, the speech made by the hon member for Groote Schuur was to my mind …

Claremont!

I beg your pardon! I mean the hon member for Claremont. To my mind his speech came as no surprise at all. We came to know that hon member in the Provincial Council of the Cape, in which he made shocking statements about people elected by the voters of South Africa to lead and guide them through many grave problems which this country experienced during the time they were in office.

The hon member for Claremont made himself eligible for election as a member of this House in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, to which he is supposed to be loyal and which he is supposed to serve. Consequently I want to ask him very specifically this afternoon whether he ascertained …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Durbanville is insinuating that I am not loyal to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

Order! The hon member did nothing of the kind. The hon member for Durbanville may proceed.

This afternoon I should like to know from the hon member for Claremont whether he took any trouble at all to investigate the other side of this matter.

Never!

Did the hon member go to the police, and did he bring this matter to their attention?

I have the statement made by the police, yes!

Did the hon member go to see the hon the Minister in question when he did not receive satisfactory replies from the police? Did he go and discuss the matter with that hon Minister?

A full statement was issued by the police!

No, Sir, that hon member abuses the privilege of this House to make an attack on the security forces of South Africa. Not only did he take the line through as far as the police; he carried it right through and dragged all the security forces of South Africa into this issue. [Interjections.] Surely this is the grossest form of provocation against the security forces of South Africa that one could find. [Interjections.] I want to state here this afternoon that the hon member for Claremont has far greater sympathy for the people who are advocates of liberation theology, of the people who are intent on destroying Western civilisation, Western standards and Christian values in this country than he has for the system which exists here. [Interjections.]

He hates the police!

The hon member must tell us where he stands. He must make speeches of this kind outside this House as well. He must go and tell the people of South Africa outside this House how he comes forward with unverified stories and vilifies South Africa here.

Prove that it is untrue! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Claremont has already had his turn to speak. He would do well to make fewer interjections. The hon member for Durbanville may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am just wondering why that hon member, who has supposedly made such an intensive investigation into the conditions in Kaya Mandi and the circumstances in the hostels there, did not also tell this House this afternoon that the police received complaints of ten women being raped in those hostels in one night. It is after all the duty of the police, when complaints of this nature are received, to carry on an investigation into what is happening. But that does not suit the hon member for Claremont! It does not suit him, for then he loses the sympathy of Tutu and Boesak, and he also loses the sympathy of people who operate outside the borders of this country and whose sympathy is important to him.

The kind of politics the hon member for Claremont is trying to engage in here is in fact the reason why there is not even a place for him in a left-wing party such as the PFP. That is the reason why people in that party were very quick to dissociate themselves from him when I initially made the mistake of referring to him as the hon member for Groote Schuur. The hon member for Claremont has become an outcast in the political hierarchy of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I want to come back to another matter. During the past few days we have heard many speeches in this House—many good speeches too—about the feasibility of political ideologies and political ideas.

In the second place we heard from time to time that the NP had turned its back on the interests of the Whites, and specifically those of the Afrikaners. I think it is time we paged back a little through the annals of the history of the NP and considered in retrospect the path this party has followed in South Africa.

If there is one thing hon members of the Official Opposition cannot tell me this afternoon is that they do not, to a large extent, pride themselves on what the party achieved in South Africa during its period of existence. I see the hon member for Lichtenburg looking up quickly. Does he want to deny it?

The fact of the matter is that hon members must then go back in history to the origins of the NP. The party originated in a speech made in 1912 by Genl Hertzog. They must tell me whether the speech which Genl Hertzog made at De Wildt— his slogan was “South Africa first”—referred exclusively to the rights and privileges of Whites only, and specifically those of the Afrikaners.

It is all very well to be able to rise to speak in this House. It is all very well to go about among the voters outside with misrepresentations in order to persuade them to forsake the path the NP has been following in South Africa for a period of 73 years. It is also a fact that in the 78th year since Union, the NP in its purified form will, within a few weeks, have been governing this country for 49 years.

During those 49 years things have come into existence in South Africa that made it possible for the Whites, if we are going to confine ourselves to them in the first place, to improve their living standards, to enhance their level of education and training and to negotiate greater security for themselves in South Africa.

The NP would have marked out an absolutely disastrous future for South Africa if it had closed its eyes to the other population elements gathered together in this country. That is why the vision of the NP, since the speech made by Genl Hertzog and since it was formed in 1915, has been focused far more generally on the interests of the whole of South Africa than hon members of the Official Opposition want to do.

Today the NP makes no apology for the fact that it has raised the standard of living of other national groups in South Africa through the economic revival and economic upliftment it has brought about in South Africa, through the provision of education and training, the provision of housing and the provision of amenities. The NP makes no apology for that. Nor does the NP intend to flee the consequences its policy of upliftment and development have brought about in South Africa.

Where would you flee to?

Honestly, that hon member is the limit! The other day the hon member for Kuruman referred to the hon member for Overvaal and said that he went “ping” when a stone was thrown. That hon member is so soft he does not even go “poof". [Interjections.]

The NP was never so short-sighted that it thought, or believed for one moment, that if one gave people education, training and better living conditions, greater expectations would not also be created among those people in such a process. Consequently the NP makes provision in its programme of principles for looking after the interests and the rights of every sector of the population, not only those of the Whites and the Afrikaners.

We have remained loyal to that programme of principles, and today, in 1988, we are still loyal to it.

It is also true that the political party that wants to tell South Africa this afternoon that it has the final answer to the problems of South Africa is engaging in political deception. That is why I say that the NP does not claim to have the final answers to every problem of South Africa, just as the CP, the PFP or the NDM of the hon member for Randburg cannot. The fact of the matter is that we are prepared to give consideration every day to the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself, and according to whatever guidance we may receive under those circumstances, search for a solution for South Africa’s problems.

There is a matter I want to get off my chest this afternoon. Surely the South Africa of 1988 is not the same South Africa as that of 1954 or that of 1948. Even the South Africa which Dr Verwoerd governed in his time was not the same South Africa as that of which Dr Malan took over the administration in 1948. How does the CP then expect the South Africa of 1988 to be the same as the South Africa which Dr Verwoerd governed up to 1966?

If it is true that the circumstances in a country change, and if a shift occurs in the methods that must be sought to find solutions, surely it is also true that the statements, which each one made in his time and according to the circumstances, of individual leaders of the NP since Genl Hertzog, and throughout the array of great statesmen, are not so decisive that they can be eternally binding on the methods and practices of the NP. We make no apology because we are trying to achieve our objectives in other ways. We shall continue to do that and to make that our task.

The Official Opposition is creating expectations in White South Africa with which they will be unable to comply. I want to make an appeal to them this afternoon to be less rancorous in their statements about the opportunities created for Black people in South Africa, and less panic-stricken about the position of the Whites in South Africa. As the NP has during the past 40 years developed and stabilised the position of White South Africa so the NP will keep it stabilised.

The CP need have no fear. The NP has a history of loyalty and faith towards the Whites of this country, and have always upheld them. However, we are not prepared to plunge South Africa into the abyss of revolution, uprising and conflict for the sake of the political gain which we could make in that way in the short term.

It is very easy for hon members of the Official Opposition to rise in this House and accuse the Government of overspending, of giving too little to the Whites and too much to the Blacks, or whichever way they want to put it. But why do they not tell the people of South Africa what it is going to cost? The hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation said that the CP would have to relocate 5 500 people today to implement their policy. If we accept those figures and convert them into households, it means that they will have to relocate approximately 1 100 households per day. The average estimated cost for accommodation, job opportunities, infrastructure, schools and so on amount to approximately R40 000 per family.

Why does the CP not tell the people of South Africa that the chimera the CP is holding up to them, will cost this country at least R14 600 million to implement for a single year? Surely the CP cannot do it! Surely the CP know that they are standing in the queue to polarise South Africa because they believe that they will emerge stronger from that position than they are at present if they are able to polarise South Africa. May God protect us against our ever having to take up arms against one another and find solutions in a shootout in our streets! I am saying this in the interest of my own children and the children of hon members and in the interests of the children of Black parents, of Coloured parents and of Asian parents in South Africa.

Hon members of the Official Opposition must free themselves as responsible South Africans from the revolutionary language of Eugène Terre’Blanche. They must free themselves from the chimerae which are luring our people onto paths which lead to nowhere. Let us motivate our people to tackle the problems of South Africa. Let us motivate our people to search and to build a country in which we can work in peace, freedom and prosperity. That is the object of the NP, and we will build up our constitutional structures and negotiate on those constitutional structures in such a way with the other population groups in this country that, I steadfastly believe, the structures which will emerge will be structures within which each group will be able to maintain itself, but in which we will jointly have an opportunity to look after the interests of South Africa in its entirety.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be speaking after my friend the hon member for Durbanville who, in an excellent speech, presented us with a vision of what we in South Africa could achieve in future with faith and confidence.

This debate has been going on for four days, and during these four days, I occasionally thought back rather nostalgically to 20 years ago, when I was the leader of an opposition party to the NP in the Natal Provincial Council. When one is listening to the statements by the Official Opposition and those of the other opposition parties, one realises once again how easy it is to stir up emotions when one is in opposition. The key to effective opposition eventually lies in merely saying everything that is popular, regardless of the consequences and to exploit every grievance, regardless of the price. This week hon members have heard and seen that happening ad nauseum.

We have seen the way in which that is apparently the key to the Official Opposition’s task in this House, namely to thump their chests and present their party as being the archetypal Afrikaners and guardians of the Whites in this country. They do not think of the consequences. They do not think of the suspicion and the resentment that it causes among other population groups in this country, because they are not charged with the responsibility of fostering good relations in this country.

Since the beginning of this year our Government has been tackling one of our country’s greatest problems, namely the problem of inflation. One does not need to be a great economic thinker to know that the key to future prosperity is to get rid of inflation. The Official Opposition does not praise this government for the responsible direction they are taking. The CP does not tell the elderly people and the pensioners that if this Government’s anti-inflationary campaign succeeds their pensions and savings would keep their value.

He does not tell people who save and who put away their hard-earned money that if this campaign against inflation succeeds, their savings are going to mean more in their old age. No, the Official Opposition sees its task as being the exploitation of salary and wage grievances in order to see whether they cannot make the task which this Government is conducting in the interest of South Africa more difficult. No government will lightly oppose very forceful and very justifiable salary and wage requests. No Government will readily adopt such a policy, action or strategy if it were not absolutely necessary in the interests of South Africa.

The task of a responsible Official Opposition must not always be one of merely considering the immediate political advantage, but also one of taking the long-term benefit of all South Africa’s people into consideration. I ask the hon members of the Official Opposition, if they had to decide the matter for themselves, what the greater benefit to themselves would be in the long-term: A successful campaign against inflation or the meagre political advantage they could gain now by exploiting salary and wage grievances. What would be better for them?

I want to state that nothing better illustrates the fact that this Official Opposition has no hope of taking over the reins of government in this country. If they believe that they are an alternative government, as they indicate in their boastful speeches, they would know that they would benefit from a successful campaign against inflation.

But no, they can engage in this short-term campaign for the very reason that they know that in five or then years’ time they will still be sitting there, if they are very lucky.

That is not the only example we have seen of the kind of politics in which the Official Opposition, with which South Africa is blessed, is engaging. Yesterday, in my opinion, we heard one of the best speeches which the hon member for Innesdal had ever made. He told us—no one could take issue with him about that—that one could not lock up an ideal, and because this is the case, what the various groups in South Africa believe in is important. He mentioned that the ideas of the ANC and the 17 organisations against which the Government had taken action were important. One cannot argue with that.

What, however, did the hon member for Losberg come and do here this afternoon? He told us that the hon member for Innesdal had tried to make this House believe that the ANC was an inextricable part of any political settlement in South Africa. If that is what they do when there are 170 witnesses, can hon member imagine what they did in Standerton, Schweizer-Reneke and Randfontein when there were no witnesses? [Interjections.] If they put words in the mouths of respectable NP members who are present and can defend themselves, what would they not have said on the occasion of the by-elections? I therefore want to state that although we do not begrudge the CP its three victories in Standerton, Schweizer-Reneke and Randfontein, they are victories which are based on a false sense of growth. They are based on this kind of distortion which we ourselves have to witness in this House. [Interjections.] In saying that the growth of the CP is a deceptive growth, I want to say straight away that hardly had they began to crow over the increased majority of 2 000 votes for the CP when their ally, the leader the AWB, claimed here in Cape Town that he and his organisation had in fact been responsible for this increase and for the performance of the CP. What did Mr Terre’Blanche say here in Cape Town, according to Die Burger of 31 March? He said:

He then sent them back to Randfontein and told them they must vote for the CP, because he had after all lent his support to the CP. If one therefore has to believe their major ally, the CP has been absolutely static over the last year. It is only the AWB that has grown.

And that is not all. If the CP want to make themselves believe that they have finally defeated the HNP I have a surprise for them because their ally claims the credit for that too. He said:

As far as the CP are concerned the victory in those three by-elections are in other words hollow victories. They were victories for which their main ally claimed the credit. Speaking about this main ally, I want to ask hon members to allow me to digress for a moment. Mr Terre’Blanche has now been so absurd as to claim the Vereeniging constituency for himself. He even appeared on TV because of that. I do not want to discuss that actual TV appearance and his ridiculous demand that the hon the Minister of National Education vacate his seat in order to fight a by-election against him. What I do want to discuss, however, are two very interesting points which arise from this.

Mr Terre’Blanche said in his TV interview that he experienced no difficulty with the CP as far as his candidature was concerned. I, and I am sure this applies to the NP as well, am in no way interested in what problems Mr Terre’Blanche has or does not have. What we are interested in, however, is whether the CP has difficulties in having Mr Terre’Blanche as a candidate.

We want to ask the Official Opposition—the people of South Africa have a right to ask them this—whether they have any problem with the Leader of the AWB wanting to become a candidate in Vereeniging or any other constituency.

They are silent. They cannot say “yes”. We must therefore conclude that they do not have a problem with Mr Terre’Blanche either. [Interjections.]

If that is the case, I want to ask the CP whether that now means that every AWB Tom, Dick and Harry can go and choose a constituency for himself and tell the CP that he is going to make himself available as a candidate. I also want to ask the Official Opposition what their nomination procedure which, in all their wisdom, they included in their constitution means if their “handperd” tells them: “Look, I am going to stand here. I have no problem with you, my friend, that is where I am going to stand; I am the candidate.”

What CP supporter in any constituency anywhere in South Africa can attach any value to the nomination procedure of their party? What right has a CP supporter to think that if he loyally supports his party he could represent his party in the highest assembly of this country? No, Sir, those people are the captives of an organisation which they can no longer bridle and which tells them where they are going to receive a nomination and where they are going to stand. In fact, the outrageous situation exists that they have done it five times already. In this case the leader merely stated it frankly. [Interjections.]

†Sir, that is not the only aspect that I think merits our attention with regard to this specific TV interview. Another aspect was that a newspaperman apparently asked Mr Terre’Blanche if, for the benefit of his overseas audience, he would care to say a few words in English. What did this gentleman reply? He said: “When next you come here, won’t you please bring somebody along who is educated enough to understand Afrikaans.” [Interjections.] I do not know if the hon members of the CP regard that as a clever retort, but as far as I as an Afrikaner am concerned, I was ashamed that one of my fellow-Afrikaners should reply in such a fashion to a perfectly civil and courteous question.

I do not care what Mr Terre’Blanche’s attitude or views are about English and English-speakers. What his personal views are, is of no concern to me. However, when Mr Terre’Blanche or any other ally of the CP wishes to aspire to public office, he has to answer to the people of South Africa as to whether he adopts, accepts and will honour the principle of bilingualism in this country. If the Official Opposition wants to use the AWB as an ally and they want to go into any future elections with the AWB or any other organisation, they must make it unequivocally clear what their attitude to the principle of bilingualism is and what their allies’ attitude should be. [Interjections.] The Official Opposition simply cannot shirk these questions.

*I want to go further and say that the CP’s by-election results are based on quasi-growth. If one takes a look at the analysis of the most recent by-election in Randfontein, one finds that, with the exception of the growth represented by the absorption of HNP voters, there has in fact been a very slight growth of the Official Opposition in terms of absolute figures. [Interjections.] Thee is no doubt that there was a decline in support for the NP. The NP will carry out a self-examination into the reasons for that. There is no doubt about that either. It does not, however, give the Official Opposition any reason at all to boast. If they want to take over their reins of power in this country, their absolute support must increase, not their support in relation to other parties.

The Official Opposition need not fear that the NP will flinch from a self-examination. The NP has been engaged in a self-examination since long before the by-elections. In fact, over the past decade and even longer, the party has shown that it is the party of renewal in this country, and renewal also means internal renewal in terms of the party, its organisation and its general acceptability. The Official Opposition need not be patronising and tell us we should examine ourselves. We shall see to that ourselves. However, they should take a look at their own acceptability in this country. [Interjections.]

What does Beeld say about that?

The third reason why I say that the growth of the Official Opposition is of a limited nature and illusory is the fact that their growth is localised. Those by-elections took place in areas in the Transvaal which had already been conquered. If they aspire to take office in this country, the CP must also show signs of growth outside their present area. They still have the albatross of the AWB-movement and their Boerestaat policy round their necks. I have to tell hon members straight away that the Official Opposition must not think they can merely use the AWB to rake in votes and that they are not going to be committed to the AWB-policy. If the AWB policy states that they want a Boerestaat consisting of the two old Boere Republics and a single area in Natal—the five magisterial district of the old New Republic—it means that the AWB is in that way writing off the whole of the Cape and the whole of the Natal, barring those five magisterial districts. In other words, 75 of the constituencies in this House.

The Official Opposition will now have to tell the people of Natal and the Cape whether they agree with the AWB. In particular the five members of the AWB representing that party in this House must tell us specifically whether they agree with the Boerestaat idea and what their message is to the 75 constituencies outside that area. [Interjections.] If they do not have an answer to that question, it will take quite some doing before they will be able to come to power in this country.

We won’t let them swim on our beaches. [Interjections.]

The single most important reason why I say that the CP’s growth is illusory is because their own supporters do not really believe in their policy of partition. If ever we saw evidence of that we saw it during the past four days. Fresh from the by-elections in the Transvaal and newly armed with the information they received from people in the street, the Official Opposition underwent a metamorphosis. They became more Afrikaner and White and less partitionists. Is that not so? How much have we heard of partition over the past week? [Interjections.] Nothing! The hon members of the Official Opposition know that their own supporters are laughing at the policy of partition. [Interjections.]

An opposition party cannot become the governing party on the basis of grievances. They can only do so on the basis of a real policy. Do those hon members want to tell me that their supporters believe in partition? Not a peep out of them! Why do they not use the wonderful opportunity they now have if they believe so firmly in partition?

Surely that party now represents 22 seats, concentrated into one area in South Africa. Last year the CP and the HNP together polled 610 000 votes. Let us say there are now one million CP souls in the country if we add the so-called growth and all their dependent children. According to the 1980 census there were 25 million people in this country. The demographic experts estimate that there are now 28,4 million people in this country, but let us stick to the proven 25 million. The CP is therefore supported by 4% of the population of this country. Do they agree with that?

They are masters in 22 constituencies which cover a total surface area of 196 977 square kilometres. That is almost 200 000 square kilometres out of South Africa’s total surface area of 1,123 million square kilometres. That area in which they are the masters is almost as large as the Free State and Natal put together. It is larger than Britain and twice as large as the TBVC countries put together. If the CP’s supporters believe in such a partition, why do they not ask the Government to hold a referendum among their own voters so that they can establish a homeland or a Boerestaat there.

Is it possible to be more ridiculous than that? [Interjections.]

Let us take a look at what advantages this will constitute for them. They will have a compact, fertile area that can show the world that it has been consolidated.

Without beaches!

Yes, it will be a consolidated area without beaches. [Interjections.] They will not really be bothered by opposition parties, because surely they will be the undisputed rulers in the entire area. At least they will be able to tell their people that they negotiated for themselves an area which covers 17,5% of South Africa’s surface area and is four times the size of the area to which they ought to be entitled according to their numbers. Do hon members think there is a leader in that party who would risk his life for that? No, they know that any such suggestion as far as their policy is concerned would cause pandemonium among their own people. [Interjections.]

We are first going to win other seats as well.

Let us discuss the argument by that hon member. He said that they first want to win other seats. Good heavens, here they would have a lovely consolidated area to show how successful their policy was.

What better way would they have had than expanding that area by making further gains? No, Sir, when one puts two and two together, that Official Opposition shows us that not only do their supporters not believe in their policy but they themselves do not believe it.

The CP’s partition is a nice magical political formula. But a policy? Never!

Where is your policy?

If the CP carries on in this way …

… we will take over the Government in no time at all.

… they will become a very convenient vehicle of protest for the voters of South Africa. They will be very conveniently used by the voters of South Africa in by-elections, but when the major issues of South Africa directly confront the voters, when the general election is being held and the voters have to decide who should control their future, they are not going to walk over to those people. They will come back to the NP.

Mr Chairman, during the past few days it has been very pleasant to be a Nationalist. [Interjections.] We may perhaps have lost three by-elections in constituencies which were not ours in any case—we can therefore say that in three by-elections we did not gain any seats—but the fact remains that the NP has won the debate of the past few days hands down.

Hear, hear!

We are going to take Hercules as an uncontested seat!

This afternoon the hon member for Umlazi was devastating. Devastating! What was interesting was his observation of the fact that Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche—the leader of that other movement—has now made himself eligible for election in the Vereeniging constituency, and the hon member for Vereeniging is threatening to resign so that he can make himself available there in a by-election against the hon the Minister of National Education, in his (that member’s) capacity of the leader of the movement to which he belongs. What was most interesting of all about this entire scenario was that the first person who pledged his support to Mr Terre’Blanche was the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Pledged his support?

Yes, of course!

Where did he do that?

Of course he did it.

Mr Chairman, it is not pleasant to be the night watchman in a debate such as this one. [Interjections.] This afternoon there was an altercation among the hon member for Sunnyside, the hon member for Carletonville and—if I remember correctly—the hon member Prof Olivier concerning the policy or non-policy of the NP. This brings one to the terminology we use in politics. We talk about a policy.

What policy?

Yes, what policy? What policy? Should we not rather talk about objectives …

Because you people do not have a policy!

… because in the business and industrial world one sets an objective, and then one devises a policy to attain that objective?

You are now devising your policy? Is that right?

Yes. [Interjections.] No, wait a minute!

It has taken you 40 years!

I am now saying that the objective of the NP in regard to participation by the Blacks in the constitutional affairs of South Africa is that of converting words into deeds; that democracy will be extended so that Blacks outside the independent and national states and within the borders of South Africa will have a say in general affairs …

In this House?

Wait a minute!… and that they will accept responsibility for their own affairs. That is the objective.

Order! Perhaps the hon member could continue his speech on another day. It is time for this House to adjourn.

Mr Chairman, one admires, but also sympathises with the hon the Minister of the Budget. It is clear that even he is not happy with the funds he obtains from the Treasury each year—and rightfully so, for, after all, he is a person who has moved within the community as a schoolteacher, as a minister of religion and also as a parliamentarian. I am sure, ' therefore, that he knows only too well the deficiencies and the drawbacks of the community. However, it should always be—and I am sure it is always—his endeavour to obtain the maximum amount of money for addressing the needs of our community, the functions that have to be fulfilled and the facilities that have to be provided.

As a plattelander whose area was hit by the devastating floods I am sure that the hon the Minister, like myself, was struck by the awesome power of water, but even more by the general lack of facilities within the communities in those areas.

*We were struck by how, in our hour of need, we had to rush people to churches and church halls first of all, and then to tents for shelter. This speaks volumes for the deficiencies in the communities. Perhaps fate disposed things in such a way that the flood would show up the shortcomings in the community. In this sphere there is work for all of us in this House.

Let us take a look at the extent of damage to housing after the flood disaster in the Northern Cape and the Southern Free State. I hope you will allow me to do so, Sir. At the moment 423 Coloured families are still living in defence force tents. This institution will probably ask us to accommodate the people in other tents or homes at some or other stage. If we have to buy tents, the funds will have to be voted by the department of the hon the Minister of the Budget and will amount to an enormous sum of money. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is wonderful to sing with my colleagues, but it is difficult for us to talk at the same time.

Order!

In my speech this afternoon I want to confine myself to the 268 families in Ritchie who fall under my constituency. We have been experiencing very serious problems here in respect of a rapidly growing squatter situation. I freely concede that this situation should not be blamed only on the hon the Minister of the Budget. It falls under his Vote, but also has reference to the Votes of other hon Ministers in the House.

Before the flood a great deal of progress had been made with the planning of a housing project for 126 squatter families. These people are all being accommodated in tents at the moment. In the meantime another 142 families have joined this group, and they are being accommodated in any conceivable structure among and around the tents. It is clear that the local authority cannot cope with this situation. There are only 150 White taxpayers in this specific town, for example, and their infrastructure is very deficient as well.

People who lived on farms had to turn to Ritchie for assistance because of the flood damage. There they lived in railway vehicles on a temporary basis. When the farmers went to fetch their workers, however, a number of them stayed behind. They are probably also among those who are seeking somewhere to live now. Unemployment is a serious problem. We cannot simply chase the people into the veld. We have to devise some kind of plan. Ultimately the matter will be referred back to the hon the Minister of the Budget and he will have to find the necessary funds somewhere. It is not just a matter of housing; the people’s whole socio-economic problem must be addressed. It is the hon the Minister’s responsibility to negotiate for the necessary funds.

Having said what I wanted to about the floods, I want to talk about appointments in the Administration. When is the hon the Minister going to announce the appointment of our first Coloured director with an administrative background? Is any such person available? Has any such person been appointed, and if so, why have we not heard anything about it?

It is a good thing to decentralise, because after all, it gives our Coloured officials an opportunity for promotion. I can remember that the appointment of Coloured officials to senior posts has been advocated in this House since the beginning. We must not neglect to promote the other Coloured officials at head office as quickly as possible, however, so that they can fill any vacancies that might arise. I have nothing against Whites, but they get far more opportunities for appointment in other departments.

Is the hon the Minister satisfied with the implementation of the assimilation policy? This is a matter that rankles among the officials.

In the last place I want to address a special request for an improvement in the salaries of our general assistants. These people, men and women, earn small salaries, some of them earning the meagre amount of R200 to R300 per month. I have sympathy with the attempts of the Government to curb inflation by not granting a general increase. These ordinary workers are the ones who are affected most by this, however. Remember, Sir, their notch increases are minimal when measured in terms of those of most other workers. Now they are being penalised even further.

Sir, do you really think that this state of affairs is fair and equitable?

Mr Chairman, in support of the Vote of the hon the Minister of the Budget, I want to refer firstly to what the hon member for Border said yesterday. Hon members know that as MPs we must not lose sight of the fact that we are political representatives. We were not merely chosen by the teachers. We were not chosen by parents or certain institutions in the community either. We were chosen by the whole community. As such we have a responsibility towards the general community in our constituencies and in South Africa in general.

Our voters expect us to attend to their more general problems as well as their domestic problems. We must address these problems. One of the hon members spoke about certain people in education who were transferred, and he spoke about appointments and so on. The fact is, Sir, that if I as an MP cannot or will not do the work that I was appointed to do, I must resign. [Interjections.] Sir, if you as chairman cannot or do not want to do your work properly, you must resign and someone else must be appointed. If there is a director in a department who cannot or does not want to do his work, he must be transferred. If a teacher cannot or does not want to do his work, he must be transferred. If a clerk in a department cannot or will not work, he must leave. Even if a Minister cannot or does not want to do his work, he must leave.

I want to ask the hon member for Border what he is suggesting. For example, if someone has a handful of diplomas but is not doing his work, what should we do with him? I began by saying that we had an overriding goal in South Africa, and schools are one of the most important pillars of our goal in South Africa. [Interjections.] We should not wrest things out of context. I am saying openly, Sir, that I do not excuse a teacher in my constituency who does something wrong. I shall not hesitate to take action against him, and we should not be ashamed of doing so. The hon the Ministers should not allow people to tell them not to do something or that they should allow a teacher to act incorrectly in our schools. If a teacher is not doing his work, he must go.

We should not be afraid of the political responsibility we have here. We should not allow one man to tell us that certain things should happen. We should consider all the aspects; we should take all the circumstances into account.

I want to ask the hon member for Border to look at something as well. The Rapport Ekstra of 10 January 1988 contained a report entitled “Dis ’n vlaag van verplasings”. When one looks at the conditions in our schools—we discussed a motion in this regard the other day—one says to oneself that if a teacher does not want to obey instructions, he should be transferred. Our hon Ministers in the Ministers’ Council should not be afraid to do so, and the hon members should not be afraid to do so either. I am not afraid. [Interjections.] I hold meetings with the school principals in my constituency, and we talk honestly.

If they do not like me they may say so, and if I do not like them, I tell them so. In this manner one irons out many problems. Someone must be in control, for whether one works in the private sector or anywhere else for that matter, one always works under a foreman. If the foreman finds out that the work is not being done—and he does not take qualifications into account—he investigates the matter and the person who is not doing his work is dismissed. That goes for all sectors. Often other members or I do not agree with the decisions made by the Ministers’ Council, but those hon Ministers occupy higher positions than we ordinary MPs do and they see matters in a different perspective. In the same way the school principal sees matters from a different point of view to that of the teacher. For this reason we must accept that we shall never satisfy everyone with transfers. However, we must realise that those who make the decisions do so in the interests of the community. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Sir, I want to leave the matter at that. However, we must not come here with stories that people should be allowed to neglect their work, but should nevertheless be paid. I have often wondered, if a person does not do his work …

[Inaudible.]

Charles, you keep quiet.

Order!

Sir, I want to ask the department to ensure that teachers who do not do their work do not receive their salaries. If people do not do their work they do not deserve to be paid their salaries. The hon member is laughing, but hon members of the Official Opposition need not receive salaries either.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member is welcome to say that again. However, it is the prerogative of the Ministers’ Council, and they, and not hon members of the Official Opposition, must negotiate with the department on this matter. Hon members of the Official Opposition should first ensure that they are sitting in seats on the opposite side of the House, because then they will have plenty of opportunity to talk.

We shall fire you first.

I am a political representative and that hon member cannot fire me.

Order! The hon member for Alra Park is not compelled to reply to interjections. The hon member may continue.

Sir, I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to conditions at the Suikerbosrand Primary School, especially with regard to security guards. I have addressed written submissions to the hon the Minister in this regard. A night watchman was appointed at this school in Nigel at an annual salary of R3 318.

A mere pittance!

It is a mere pittance. The person resigned from his job because the salary was too low. The post was advertised again, but no one was interested. A night watchman works very long hours—at weekends he has to be on duty from Friday to Sunday, and in the evenings from 8 o’clock until 6 o’clock the following morning. No man would work for such a meagre salary; he would rather stay at home or look for another job. A night watchman was appointed at the Suikerbosrand school in May last year, but he resigned in November 1987. Burglaries took place at that particular school on the weekends of 14,25 and 29 November 1986, as well as on 9 and 11 December 1986.

Windows, doors and cupboards were damaged and stores to the value of thousands of rands were stolen and damaged. [Interjections.] The night watchman, who earned such a meagre salary, was then appointed. There were no further burglaries, but after the night watchman left, there was another burglary recently on 4 April 1988. Once again the damage was substantial. This time the school principal submitted representations to the department requesting that the post of night watchman be converted to that of security guard.

Order! I am afraid the hon member’s time has expired.

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

Thank you very much. That night watchman is a married man with four children. He had had three years’ military training, and had been trained as a security guard. [Interjections.] However, the department still expects him to work for that low salary. I want to request that specific attention be given to this matter, because the school is situated in a place which actually lends itself to burglaries. It is situated in a deserted area and extends over about four blocks. I want to ask the hon the Minister please to look into this matter. Finally, I want to say that I support the Budget.

Mr Chairman, I am going to concentrate on matters in my constituency.

I want to ask the hon the Minister immediately if we can have two mobile classrooms at Klipdale. The children are being taught in an office. The teacher’s desk and chair cannot even fit into it. She has to use the school’s kitchen as well, and experiences the same problem there. Therefore I am asking for two mobile classrooms.

I have spoken about Pearly Beach in the past. I am saying thank you for the mobile classroom that we received there, but we need another one. The same goes for Gonnakraal, where we need another mobile classroom.

I now want to speak about the school transport scheme at Gonnakraal. I want to request that this scheme receive immediate attention. The children walk 42 km to school and back. They therefore walk 84 km per day. Both the teachers bought bakkies. They have been transporting the children with these bakkies since last year, but now they have broken down. I hope and trust that the transport scheme will now be introduced. [Interjections.]

I also want to complain about the transport scheme from Matjieskloof to Napier. The children have to get up at five o’clock in the morning. The transport contractor uses one bus for three contracts that he entered into with schools. The same is happening at Genadendal. I want to ask the hon the Minister please to investigate the matter.

Furthermore, I should like to make a request of the hon the Minister. A member of my family— it is a pity that it is my family—provides a bus service in Robertson. His buses have been running for three months now, and there is no money. Four buses run on two routes. He travels 100 km per day with each bus. As hon members know, one cannot buy diesel on credit. It is impossible to travel 400 km per day for three months without money. [Interjections.] Sir, this man is rapidly becoming bankrupt. I want to ask the hon the Minister please to help him obtain his money. He transports children from Bonnievale to Montagu and from Ashton to Montagu.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister whether our transport contractors could be treated in the same way Whites are treated. The White contractors are paid according to the model of their buses. For this reason all the White contractors have new buses. However, we Coloured people have to tender. The department then accepts the lowest tender. Hon members will note that White transport contractors no longer organise tours; it is not necessary, because their transport contracts with schools bring in enough money. However, we Coloured contractors have to offer organised tours to bring in extra money. That is why so many of our buses are in a poor condition and break down along the road.

Could the hon the Minister please change the rule with regard to transport. I should like to see my cousin in Robertson get his money. [Interjections.]

I also want to talk about the salaries of female teachers. I have here a letter from such a teacher who has had to apply for a post every six months for the past 30 years. She occupies the post temporarily, but every time she applies, she has to wait three months before she receives her salary. It is March already, but she did not receive her salary in January, February or March. [Interjections.] For this reason I want to make this appeal today. One phones a Mr Kalieb at the department, whereupon he says that he will phone back, but he does not do so. Then one has to phone Mrs Brümmer, and she says that it is Mr Kalieb’s fault, and he in turn accuses Mrs Brümmer. [Interjections.] Could the hon the Minister tell me today where this teacher can get her salary. It is already March, but she has still not received her salary.

That is a disgrace!

I received a letter granting me permission to fetch her cheque when it comes, but it has not come. [Interjections.]

Get your cousin’s money as well.

I do not know if they are boycotting it, or what is going on there. [Interjections.] I hope and trust that the hon the Minister will react to this. I have the reference number of the teacher. She is Mrs Meyer and her reference number is 8055556. [Interjections.] I hope the hon the Minister will tell me where I can get the money.

The hon the Minister also opened a regional office in Bellville. There are branch offices in Worcester and Paarl now. Approximately 340 schools fall under Worcester. There are 11 hostels, three rural areas and 90 people in the rural areas that receive salaries. In addition, there are 76 bus schemes in Worcester. They pay out an average of R35 000 per month. There are 400 labourers at the schools and a number of security guards. A White deputy director was appointed in Bellville, as well as three assistant directors. The assistant directors are now regarded as bosses by the regional offices at which there are Coloureds. I want to request that Worcester be given an office of its own. [Interjections.] I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to change the personnel of the office in Worcester. The hon the Minister must increase the number of personnel everywhere. He must appoint more people in the registration and transport sections. [Interjections.] Worcester must be given a regional office, and then Worcester will be able to appoint an assistant director. I hope and trust that the hon the Minister will appoint the people as quickly as possible, so that Worcester will be able to function on its own and so that its affairs can be dealt with more quickly. If one complains to the Worcester branch office, they say that it is the fault of the regional office in Bellville. In Bellville they lay the blame on Worcester. I hope that all my requests will be attended to and that the hon the Minister will reply to my requests today.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to be able to take part in this Budget debate. I am sorry that we have not been able to get enough money to cover all our needs.

I am, pleased, however, that our old age pensioners were not forgotten and that they will get a small increase, thanks to the hon the Minister. One can only hope and pray that by next year we will have been able to ensure parity for all.

After all, everyone has to live and we all need food, clothing and shelter. Nobody is less human because of the colour of his skin; and the old fallacy held by previous Governments, who based everything on race and colour, must now go. We must all live decently.

Mr Chairman, let me now come to the one point I would like to stress. I wish to congratulate our new MP, the hon member for Bokkeveld, Mr Nasson. I want to thank him for making himself available for election. I also want to thank the LP for putting up such efficient machinery in that constituency and for capturing the seat with such a resounding majority. Furthermore, I thank the ladies who played their part. Well done, all!

I hope this result will be an eye-opener to those hon members of the opposition who crossed over to the DWP …[Interjections.] I want to tell them to start looking for other jobs right away, because they are not coming back to this House after the next general election.

We also agree with that. The DWP!

They are not my age, and so I feel very sorry for my friend Mr Kippen, the hon member for Durban Suburbs, who came with me to this Chamber. There were five of us and we made a clean sweep in Natal. To see him sitting on that side grieves my heart, because I now have him for the second time as opposition. I fought him in 1969 when he knew nothing about politics. [Interjections.] He rushed in where fools fear to tread and he got such a resounding thrashing that he lost his deposit.

Order! The hon member for Natal Interior is not allowed to mention another hon member by his name. He should refer to him as the hon member for such and such a constituency.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I was quite surprised that he went from party to party and only a couple of years ago he had to come crawling back to the LP. He asked to be readmitted to the LP and the LP was generous enough to reinstate him. I was quite astounded when I heard that he was even going to contest a seat. He won on the ticket of the LP. [Interjections.] People like that have no right to stand against their own people. They should first resign, get a new mandate, and then come back and talk. The bulk of them who came in through the LP do not have the right to talk to us, because they still represent the LP. [Interjections.] As far as that hon member is concerned, I feel very sorry for that party. They have also asked a very ambitious attorney to be their chief spokesman. This hon member is very undisciplined. I am not going to mention his name, but one of the hon members sitting on that side once told me that if one were charged with murder and briefed him to defend one, the judge would hang one. [Interjections.] So, we should be very careful of people like that. I would not have briefed him at all.

Enough, said, however. I think hon members on that side have a right to listen to what I say, because I have been through the mill and I know what I am talking about. People like that, who change their spots, never go back to where they have been. We must be careful. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I must once again voice my protest with regard to the land question of the Griquas. I represent a very large constituency—area-wise— in Natal. I found myself having to represent these people for the first time after the election, and they supported me to the hilt. It is a funny thing, but whenever the Government cannot push their legislation through the three Houses, they run to the President’s Council. I have before me a report of the President’s Council Committee for Constitutional Affairs in which reference is made to the needs and demands of the Griqua people. I am not talking about a Griqua homeland or anything like that, but about land that has been taken away from these people. As I said, this is a report that has been prepared by the President’s Council—which is precisely the body the Government run to whenever they run into trouble with regard to the passing of legislation. This report of the President’s Council speaks for itself, and so I cannot see why they do not want to implement the recommendations contained in this report. After all, the report has been in the hands of the Government since 1984.

As I said, Sir, I represent a very large constituency, area-wise, in Natal, so I will briefly touch on the farming community. They have been badly affected, first by the drought and lately by the floods. Although the White farmers have also been badly hit, I feel I must highlight the plight of our own farmers in the Mount Curry district, in Underberg, in Ingogo, in South Coast, in Harding, and in Mangete. It is pathetic to see how some of the these farms have been ruined, and I appeal to the Government to help these farmers by giving them drought relief and loans. I would also like our farmers to be given loans to purchase farms, and I would like our young men to be encouraged to take up agriculture so that they can remain on the land and contribute in that way to the economy of the country.

Mr Chairman, three and a half years have passed since the election and we have been asking the Government since we came here to do away with the Group Areas Act. It would appear, however, that this Act is one of the NP’s sacred cows—like the Race Classification Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act. All these Acts should be repealed forthwith, because they are the main props of apartheid, that pernicious system that stands condemned by the whole world and which has brought South Africa to the state it is in at present—even our old friends have had to apply sanctions to get this country to change its policies.

I do not agree with sanctions, because I realise that two wrongs cannot make a right. I repeat, however, that South Africa should scrap these pernicious Acts and regain its rightful place as a respected member of the world community, a member enjoying recognition and credibility.

South Africa has been endowed with all the precious metals needed by the outside world and these assets can be used for all South Africans to raise their standard of living and generally to benefit everyone. If that is done, we will not have strikes or any other discontent.

Mr Chairman, housing remains one of the most pressing needs we have in our small towns in Natal, and I am hoping that enough funds will be allocated for us to address this need.

I know that our education system is in capable hands and I can only hope that enough funds have been allocated for education.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

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

Mr Chairman, housing remains one of the most pressing needs in our towns in Natal. I hope that sufficient funds have been allocated to address this need.

I know that our education is in capable hands and I can only hope that enough funds will be allocated for this purpose so that new primary and secondary schools can be built where they are needed. I also wish to express the hope that the Department of Education and Culture will investigate the possibility of a takeover of the Griqua church schools, which are in a deplorable state, owing to the fact that the church does not have sufficient funds to build other schools with the result that our children have to learn under very primitive conditions.

I also wish to thank the hon the State President for the reform measures which he has instituted and I want to ask him to carry on with his good intentions and not to look back over his shoulder to see what his opposition in the CP think and say. Reform can only benefit our beloved country. We in the LP will back him all the way. He should be bold enough to carry on with the reforms that will be to the benefit of our country.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to be here again after a long absence. I was not on holiday; I was ill. I do not like going on holiday; I prefer working. I should like to apologise on behalf of the LP to my learned friend for Border who is the only one who can read and write, because yesterday he made a comment in the House which did not have my approval. He knows that I do not like attacking people. But to think that he alone is a learned person whereas other people are not is not good enough. It is very unfair to tell a person that he cannot even spell “beurs”. He is the only person who can spell “beurs”. If they launch personal attacks on people and get hurt in the process, they make all kinds of excuses or appeal. That is the attitude of members of that party, and that is why they are sitting on the opposite side. You tried to convince me in a standing committee to relinquish clause 4. Now you are sitting on the other side, but I am a member of the LP and shall remain one until the day I die. They will have to carry me away from here. [Interjections.] My principle is that we are here to discuss matters.

Order! The hon member for Ravensmead may not refer to members of the opposition as “you”, but must say “hon members”.

Very well, Sir, I shall refer to hon members. It sounds better and then it looks as if I am more well-bred than they are. I am pleased that I can talk about my constituency in the House this afternoon. I support hon members who spoke here about certain teachers. I raised a matter with the hon the Minister and he must forgive me if I mention it again today. I am someone who likes following up matters. If a person does not reply to my letters, I remind him that he should do so. The Opposition had a great deal to say yesterday about teachers who are not appointed. The hon member for Alra Park spelt out the matter very clearly today. I should like to read to the House the letter I wrote to the Minister.

Before I do so, however, I am going to read the letter the children wrote me. These are children who want to make progress and we definitely cannot leave them in the lurch. Something must be done about this. They wrote:

[Interjections.] I would be grateful if hon members would give me a chance.

Give Oom Hansie a chance.

I continue:

I shall not mention his name now—

Ons voel dat indien die skool die aansoekvorms betyds aan ons beskikbaar gestel het ons beslis vir die beurse sou kwalifiseer. Ons het werklik op hierdie beurse staatgemaak aangesien ons nie by magte is om die finansiële las van ons verdere studie te dra nie. Ons sal dit hoog op prys stel indien u ons met hierdie aangeleentheid kan help.

Mr Chairman, these letters are long, but I am going to read them anyway:

I am not going to read the hon the Minister’s letter, because that would take up too much time.

My hon colleague next to me told the House yesterday about children who do not have homes and said that is why they become gangsters. I agree with the hon member, but he does not know how to solve the problem of the gangsters. I know what to do in this connection, however. I called them together before Christmas and spoke to them, and according to my information three quarters of those men are in the Defence Force now. If the hon member wants a solution to his problem with the gangsters, he must ask me. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to find money—there is a lot of money that is spent unnecessarily on apartheid, etc—to help the children. These are two pupils who can initiate other pupils into the course of negotiation that we in this House are compelled to follow.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

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

Sir, the hon the Minister must exert himself to help the children. I am not referring only to these particular two pupils, because there are many such children in our country. Years ago, before the advent of TV, we were not aware of what was going on elsewhere in the country. Since I have been in Parliament, I have been more aware of what is going on in our country. When one looks at our sports facilities and then at all the facilities the Whites have—one must mention this to illustrate one’s point—it is clear that our Coloured children do not have the same facilities. This can be ascribed to our small salaries and to all the years we had to work for nothing, to the injustice with regard to us Coloureds who built up the country. My grandfather hewed stone and laid bricks. I request with tears in my eyes that this matter be resolved as soon as possible and that the necessary money be made available.

I now want to refer to the question of a day hospital in Ravensmead. I often receive complaints that my people have to go to Elsies River to be treated there.

In 1979 I was forced to clear plots diagonally opposite the Tygerberg Hospital in Ravensmead. I had to move people from an area where they had lived for years, to Belhar. I had to look for other accommodation because houses in Ravensmead were very scarce. The reason for this was that a new day hospital was to be built there. I heard recently that a day hospital is no longer going to be built there. At that time it was said that a day hospital was essential, because Tygerberg Hospital was overcrowded. The land is still there, unutilised, overgrown by grass, and I have to fight with the hospital authorities to keep the place cleared because it is a fire hazard.

The other people are far away from where they lived before. Now I have heard that no hospital can be built, because there is no money. Ostensibly it is the task of the House of Representatives to provide a hospital now. I do not know what the hon the Minister is going to do in this connection, but that is what this letter says. They say the hon the Minister must ensure that I get the money to pay for it. I wrote back and said housing was very scarce. There are 3 000 names on my waiting list. There are people who come to me about housing problems every day. Every morning there are people in my office to tell me about their problems in this regard. The problem is that there is no land. Since I know about that specific piece of land, I asked them to make it available for housing if no hospital was going to be built there.

I told the hon the Minister of Transport that they had given the land away to Coalcor. I asked him in a letter to give the land to me. The hon the Minister must please assist us so that we can get that land. Otherwise they must clear Parow Valley—my neighbour, Mr Van Daag, lives there— so that we can get it. The Ministers’ Council must help me so that we can get the Whites out of there. This is not a matter of group areas; we merely want the land that belongs to us. When the Group Areas Act came into force in 1948, 14 000 people were thrown out of there. We did not get any other land. Elsies River and Bellville managed, because they got a piece of land from the Railways.

A piece of land like that cannot lie there unutilised. Sir, I think there are too many unnecessary laws in our country that prohibit all kinds of things—and we have a housing shortage! I hope the Ministers’ Council will consider the question of these day hospitals. Either this hospital must be built or they must give the land back to me. We have to make provision for housing for 3 000 people. Sir, the tuberculosis rate in Ravensmead is so high that I do not know what to do any more. The area is overpopulated and housing is scarce.

I also want to talk about the position in hospitals, which is an own affair. Unfortunately the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is not here. We Coloureds are really treated badly as far as salaries are concerned. I cannot see how a woman can earn more money than a man when she does the same work as he does in a hospital. That is something I cannot tolerate.

Now that is discrimination!

It is definitely discrimination. Hon members can go and make inquiries about it; I am telling the truth. Women at hospitals get more than men who do the same work— and the men are breadwinners.

There is another matter that I want to talk about, and I am not being nasty now. People always think we are being nasty when we talk about these things and that all we want to do is denigrate the Whites. That is not my intention at all. I have no right to do that, but I do have a right to say that discrimination is applied against my people. Sir, some of our people who work at the hospitals have matric certificates, but the Whites who have only Std 8 certificates have been appointed above them. People talk about own affairs and so on, but the Whites are always appointed to positions above us. They have lower qualifications, but get much more money. I think the Ministers’ Council should ensure that this kind of thing comes to an end. These things have been going on for almost 300 years, and cannot continue in this way. We must put our foot down now. The appointment of unqualified Whites over qualified Coloureds must cease. We should be able to appoint our own people when it is a matter of own affairs.

I do not agree with the idea of own affairs, however, because we live in South Africa where what is at issue is general affairs. We belong here in South Africa. There is no question of an own South Africa for a specific group. People who have that kind of idea should rather forget about South Africa completely. I predict that if we do not eliminate the discriminatory laws in South Africa completely—there are people who even have a homeland for Coloureds in mind—this country will meet with disaster. [Interjections.]

There is something else that I want to talk about.

There is a school in Ravensmead which is 21 years old. Our schools have really been in Ravensmead for a long time. It is the rainy season, and when the children go and celebrate there, the poor mites have to stand outside. There are no halls for our children. Why are we always so far behind? Our children get tuberculosis because they always have to stay outside. The hon the Minister must ensure that funds are made available so that halls can be built. Our schools are years behind. We have been neglected for years, even though we were instrumental in building up the country. Those children stayed without food often because we earned too little money, whereas the Whites earned a lot of money for the same work. Money should be provided for halls.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon the Minister that it is a disgrace that the oldest high school in Ravensmead, the Florida Senior Secondary School, has not been repaired yet. That school has a big backlog. I wrote a letter some time ago and said that everything was under water, but nothing has been done as yet. I appeal to the hon the Minister to have those schools renovated. The grounds look terrible. The water is running right into the bottom tarred road, yet nothing has been done. When I go there they say I must not put my feet there, because the land belongs to the department. [Interjections.] These things must be stopped. After all, I have a right to go and see what is going on there, because my children have to walk through the water. They have to play in that water, and tomorrow they might get tuberculosis. I hope this will receive the hon the Minister’s attention.

I also want to thank the hon the Minister and his department, however, for having renovated the other schools. I do not merely want to denigrate them; I also want to thank them for what they have done. There is not much to be done in my constituency, however, since I put everything right before I came here. The hon the Minister must not get me wrong. He must please give me an honest answer.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I just want to say that at the start of this afternoon’s sitting, the hon the Leader of the House requested that the House adjourn until Monday after this afternoon’s sitting. The Official Opposition objected, however. We have already been in progress for an hour, and for quarter of an hour there was not a single hon member in the Official Opposition benches. Fortunately, one hon member of the Official Opposition is present at the moment. [Interjections.]

You talk too much; that is why we leave. [Interjections.]

It would be nice if the chief spokesman—if I can call him that—of the Official Opposition could discipline his members a bit.

*Mr P A S MOPP;' If you stopped talking so much, they would all be here.

*Mr A P ADRIAANSE; First of all I should like to thank the hon the Minister sincerely for the funds that were allocated during the past year for services in my constituency. I truly appreciate that.

I want to talk mainly about my constituency and in the first place I want to talk about Villiersdorp. There are a number of people in Villiersdorp who all live in one little area, because there are no further expansion possibilities for them. A new residential area is going to be created for them now, up against the mountain. Developers were requested to go and look at the place. They are willing to develop the area and to cut it up into 170 residential plots. There is one big problem, however, and that is that the area cannot be supplied with water, because the large storage dam which has supplied the town with water for years is on a lower level than the envisaged residential area. It would cost a great deal to get water to that new residential area. I request that funds be appropriated so that Villiersdorp can be supplied with water. Villiersdorp is right next to the massive Teewaterskloof dam, but is experiencing a shortage of water. We receive many applications from people, even from the wardens at the prison at Helderstroom, who want to come and settle in Villiersdorp. This would lead to prosperity in the town, but it cannot happen unless there is water for the people.

My next point has reference to a very beautiful new school by the name of Bissetsdrif, which was built in the Vyeboom area. This school is in the midst of a number of farms in the area, and there are no private homes for anyone in the region of that school. All the teachers have to live either in Villiersdorp or in Grabouw and travel to and fro every day. The headmaster of the school lives in Pniel and has to drive to Bissetsdrif to go and teach there every day. No homes are available for the people there. Bissetsdrif borders on a massive farm which is not really being used. The name of the farm is Klipfontein. The Department of Water Affairs bought the farm that borders on Bissetsdrif and Teewaterskloof some time ago. Can we not buy that farm from the Department of Water Affairs? Then we could establish a residential area there, especially for our teachers and the school caretaker who all have to travel so far. Even the caretaker, who has to take care of the school, lives in Villiersdorp which is more than 10 kilometres from there. How can he fulfil his obligations as a school caretaker? I should like the hon the Minister to try to do something in respect of this matter.

This brings me to a very sensitive issue in connection with the division of a farm by the name of Tesselaarsdal in the Caledon region. On 26 November 1982, the then Minister of Coloured Affairs appointed a division committee in terms of Act 68 of 1979 in order to divide up the land of Tesselaarsdal, also known as Hartebeesrivier, among the heirs of Jakobus Johannes Tesselaar who had left the farm to two sons and seven slaves. At present there are 29 White and 130 non-White claimants. The farm comprises 2 223,657 hectares. The division committee has concluded its task now, but the 29 White contenders must have got three times more land than the 130 non-White claimants. There is still land left. The former Minister of Coloured Affairs determined that the rest of the property be left in the hands of the Minister. There is no longer a Minister of Coloured Affairs, however, and I want to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget not to buy the rest of that property for us, but to claim it. The 29 White claimants received the greater part of the land, and the hon the Minister must please claim the rest of the property for the House of Representatives so that we can utilize it for our own people in future. [Interjections.]

I also want to associate myself with the hon member for Vredendal and confirm that there are a lot of delays in our departments. The town clerk and the mayor of Villiersdorp have made numerous representations to the department about expansion. This also applies to Kleinmond, Gans Bay and other places. They say they do not get replies from the department and do not know what is going on there. The people are serious about developing these towns, but the delays in our departments are holding them up and they cannot understand what is going on there.

I should be very pleased if our hon Minister could get the staff in his department to deal with matters more quickly.

I now come to Bot River. At present there are negotiations in respect of a farm called Haasvlakte in the Houhoek area where Armscor is going to build a big installation by the name of Houteq. The project will commence in January 1989. Many workers will be taken into service, and those people will need housing. The nearest place at which they can be accommodated will be Bot River. At the moment Bot River does not have any more land for expansion. There is a farmer, however, who has offered us a large piece of land, and I should appreciate it if the hon the Minister would make use of this opportunity to negotiate a price. We can purchase that piece of land and set aside residential plots so that Bot River can be upgraded into a large town. Houteq’s workers will definitely seek housing there.

Mr Chairman, I should like to highlight the housing situation in the far northern Transvaal and in particular in the town of Louis Trichardt. I am particularly concerned about the housing situation in Louis Trichardt which has become a real problem area. The Coloured people live in a shambles. They have no place of their own in the land of plenty and their dilemma is perpetuated by the fact that no area has been identified for them. Consequently no houses can be built.

Are you asking for group areas?

I need houses for my people.

Are you asking for group areas?

I need houses for my people. [Interjections.]

One becomes frustrated when one does house visits, let alone addresses a meeting. A Christian man with a conscience cannot look at these people without shame, disgrace and bitterness. I have made in-depth inquiries at both the regional and the head office about that unfortunate situation. The problem lies with the local authority which is not prepared to make a piece of land available.

That is CP land; it is harsh land.

The Coloured community live in an area which was built for Blacks, mainly Shangaans and Vendas, in the old days. After they had been moved out the Coloureds occupied some of these houses which are old—the walls have cracks and the plaster is falling off. Water is drawn from the street comers and after a rainy day no car can be driven in the area. There is no school, let alone a clinic in the area. Some of the empty houses are a hazard for the people who live in the area, because adjacent to the township is a compound for men working in the area. Our people have to contend with that situation.

The tragedy of the whole situation is that whenever the regional office negotiates with the local authority there is a breakdown in the negotiations. In the process my people have to suffer.

Why do they have to suffer from such cruelty in this time and age? Does this type of situation not create a breeding place for crime, terrorism and unrepentant criminals? The Coloured community helped to develop this town from its humble beginnings and now they are being denied a place to live in. Some of them have worked in the town and encouraged its economic growth.

Why are they being treated so cruelly? Does this small but stable community not deserve a place under the sun? This is the land of their birth, and yet there is no place in the sun for them. I have it on the authority of known sources that there is always a breakdown of negotiations with the town council when the question of land that should be identified is brought up. Attempts by the regional office have failed. What are we going to do in regard to the situation? Is it going to be encouraged perpetually? What is the hon the Minister going to do about the situation? The shame, frustration and bitterness of these people and the unhealthy conditions in which they are living, cannot be tolerated any longer.

Louis Trichardt has some of the most beautiful surrounding areas. Besides, the town has some historical background which is of great significance. The Coloured people helped to build the town, yet today they are being treated like little children. When their case has to be heard, nobody wants to listen. They should only be seen and not heard.

However, the Coloured people are not responsible for this damned immoral and unchristian Group Areas Act. Nor were they consulted when it was passed through Parliament. This Act has destroyed the lives and the livelihood of many of my people. They speak the same language as the White man, they have the same heritage, they stand for the same principles in life, and yet they cannot be given a piece of land where they can bring up their children without their being humiliated.

The Group Areas Act is one of the strongest pillars of the Government. It has created division and has encouraged bitterness and hatred. Once this Act is scrapped, there will be real opportunities for us all. The Group Areas Act has destroyed the status of all races. It has crippled them psychologically, mentally and economically. If the Coloureds are given an area in Louis Trichardt, it will not change the complexion of the White man who would be living next to him. We know that the Group Areas Act is based on fear. The Town Council is denying the Coloured residents a share of what belongs to them. Should these families not be allowed to lead a decent life to bring up their children in a Christian way in proper surroundings which are not conducive to crime? What really leaves one dumbfounded, is that even though some of the people have been living in this area for a very long time—they saw the town grow; most of them grew old there and cannot help themselves anymore—the town council does not want to give them a piece of land.

Mr Chairman, I have some statistics here which I shall quote at random.

I want to mention some of these people by name and also to tell hon members what their ages are and how long they have been staying in that area. Mr Joseph Kena, who is 71 years old, has been living there for 68 years. Rita Van Royen, who is 82, has been living there for 40 years.

Order! Will the hon member for Rietvlei please return to his seat? The hon member for Northern Transvaal may proceed.

Ben Jones, who is 77, has been living in the area for 60 years. Fykie Bell, who is also 77, has also been living in the area for 60 years. Joseph Kalan, who is 85, has been living there for 64 years. Susan Rosie Kana, who is 46, has been living in the area for 46 years. Most of these people, therefore, have been living there all their lives, but today, because of the Group Areas Act, they have no place of their own. They are living in a township which has been destroyed. Is it not a shame and a disgrace, Sir, to deny people who have been living in that area for so long a piece of land on which to live and bring up their children properly?

Sir, the Group Areas Act has caused this disgraceful state of affairs to be perpetuated. There are statues here in the parliamentary building of the stalwarts of apartheid, and they remind one of …

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

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

Order! The hon member for Northern Transvaal may proceed.

I thank the hon member, Sir.

I was saying, Sir, that these statues remind one of a poem by Percy Shelley. The poem is “Ozymandias.” In this poem Shelley depicts a statue which is lying outside and has been lying there for years. As people pass by, they see the statue lying there and want to know why it is lying there. I have no doubt that some of the statues that abound in this place will one day be thrown out into the sand and into the sea, because these people were the architects of apartheid; they have been the architects of a system that has brought bitterness to our communities. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if our people continue to be denied a place in the sun, something will have to be done.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to take part in this debate. I should like to rectify two matters.

Rapport Ekstra of 10 April 1988 contains a letter headed “Hillcrest inwoner van Alice skrywe” … [Interjections.] … the place is Alice in the Ciskei, Sir. In that Rapport Ekstra I am attacked about alleged dereliction in connection with the provision of facilities for the residents of Hillcrest in the Ciskei. But what is the true state of affairs? In the first place, Alice is tn the Ciskei. Under normal circumstances we cannot allocate money from the own affairs budget to improve the living conditions of so-called Coloured voters in our independent states. We have deep sympathy with the fate of these people, however, and we should like to improve things.

The hon members of the LP in this House have always come out against the homeland policy and the way in which South Africa is cut up into little pieces. Were it not for this, we in this House would have been able to grant assistance to the residents of Hillcrest by means of our own affairs budget. I want to know whether the residents of Hillcrest have brought their circumstances to the attention of the Ciskeian authorities.

I made myself available in this House in order to render a service. I am prepared to meet with those people and to have discussions with them. That is where things will end, however. I cannot promise them anything. They said that numerous promises had been made to them.

I want to make a rectification and I hope the Press will reflect it in this way. When the election campaign was started in 1984, I did not put my feet in Alice. Hon members know what the conditions in the area were at the time—burning tyres, petrol bombs, etc. Alice is a Black town in the Ciskei, and Mr Sebe is the man in charge there. I could not put my feet there, and have not done so since then either. [Interjections.] I do not even know where the Coloureds live. I want to ask the person who wrote the letter, if he really voted, whether he is a card-carrying member of the LP. If he was, surely he would have established a branch in the Ciskei and invited me to the branch meetings.

I want to make a sincere, honest and Christian appeal to the Press today. Everyone in this House, irrespective of whether one is a member of the LP or of the Official Opposition, has the difficult task of keeping between 15 000 and 22 000 voters happy. I want to make a courteous but serious appeal to the Press today. Apparently the latest fashion when someone wants to get at an MP is to run to the newspapers with a letter in which one writes exactly what one pleases. The poor MP, and the whole world, has to read how ineffectual that MP is, whether this is the truth or not. I want to ask the Press, when they receive such letters, to contact the MP in question or to visit him and ask him if he has any comment on the allegations that are being made against him. If this happens, communication will be much better in future. We in this House have to negotiate a case for 22 000 people every day, and it is impossible to satisfy 22 000 people. If, however, one is a member of the ANC, the UDF, the CP or whatever, it is very easy these days to climb on the bandwagon and write a letter denigrating an MP if one does not like him.

I want to refer to something else, but this does not mean that I have anything against my hon colleagues. I do not expect them to do what I do. For the past four years I have got into my car every Christmas Eve, when all the other MP’s are on holiday—that is their right and I do not begrudge them that right—to go and wish every chairman and his committee members in my constituency everything of the best.

Then, however, one gets letters like this which really agitate one—even though one thinks one is living only for one’s voters. I therefore ask the Press to take a look at those things too. We as MPs should have an opportunity to put our case as well, because the Press only puts the case of the voters at large, and does not know whether that is the truth or lies.

Sir, other hon members have spoken ad nauseum about the problems in their constituencies. Of course that is their right. I am not going to say anything else about the problems in my constituency, but I do want to address a request to the hon the Minister. Since all the hon members have raised complaints about the shortage of facilities in their constituencies, in comparison with those in the cities, I want to ask whether it is not desirable to appoint a one-man or two-man commission, consisting of directors in the department of the hon the Minister, to go from town to town to determine the needs in every town. They can then report to the hon the Minister. The department can sift through the complaints and draw up a list of priorities concerning what can be done in a certain year, in Carnarvon or Border, for example, or any other constituency, with reference to the list of complaints submitted by the directors. This would be to the advantage of the cause in the House. It would no longer be necessary to struggle for two days to say what was wrong. The same things are mentioned every year.

And then the Minister is broke!

By this time the hon the Minister knows the complaints that hon members have been enumerating for the past two days off by heart. He cannot do anything about them at the moment, however, because after all, it is the director and his people who determine what is going to happen and who is going to get what is available.

That cannot be true!

I say it can, Sir. [Interjections.] I should like my hon colleagues to listen to what I am saying. They must please not be prejudiced. [Interjections. ] I say it is possible that the directors have to decide first on what can be done where, and then report to the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister will probably give a decisive answer about the matter then. [Interjections.]

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member.

This is an important matter, because in my opinion we came here in the first place to raise our people’s standard of living. [Interjections.] We must attend to the needs of our people first, and leave politics aside for a while. We must work at the upliftment of our people first. Once that has been done, we can throw out our chests and say that we do not take a back seat to anyone.

We want to take over the country!

Are we going to take over the country?

Yes, I am going to. [Interjections.]

Well, Sir, I suppose it is the hon member for Border’s democratic right to take over a country if he can do so. [Interjections.] Perhaps he can do so in 15 or 20 years’ time. In my opinion that is not what is at issue. We are here to try to put an end to apartheid and to get rid of this tricameral system so that we can have one parliament. That is the democratic system I am talking about. [Interjections.]

I feel that the hon the Minister should give urgent attention to the documents that have been tabled during the past two days, because they affect our people’s standard of living. It is all a matter of better, finer and larger houses and better sports facilities, so that one can feel happier when one is on the sports field. It is a matter of better clinics and créches, and I can go on in this way. Those who have those facilities immediately feel that places like these are decent places. I mentioned in this House last year that the Spandau School is a thorn in the flesh. I cannot permit my children to attend that school, because even on their way to school they feel it is a drop in their standard of living.

A prison is more attractive.

Yes, I agree; at the moment a prison is more attractive. I feel, therefore, that we should cease this unnecessary discord in this House. Whether we represent the Official Opposition or not, we came to this House to fight for the cause of the so-called Coloureds at large. At the moment we are wasting a lot of time with our underlying disputes and shouting at one another and carrying on. I want to appeal to hon members to stop doing that. As from today we must focus our attention on the upliftment of our people. Let us give our people what they do not have, but others do have.

The hon the Minister can also almost be called a Graaff-Reinetter. [Interjections.] He spends his holiday with us quite regularly. I want to put two more questions to the hon the Minister. Will he please give consideration to a caravan park and a recreation resort in Graaff-Reinet? The land is there. The hon the Minister knows where the cemetery is; that is why I say he is a Graaff-Reinetter. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister knows that we have to accommodate our people who have caravans at the White cemetery at night, because there are no facilities for them. [Interjections.] During the Christmas season I asked the town council three times to open their caravan park to us. I also said that anyone who owned a caravan was a respectable person. They need not be afraid, therefore, that such a person would be a vandal, because the people who own caravans in our so-called Coloured community are honourable people. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I want to tell the hon the Minister that I wrote him a letter a long time ago about the Upper Sundays River State Water Scheme. I mentioned that by the year 2020, Graaff-Reinet would have a population of 220 000 people. [Interjections.] There are no pills. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, hon members are wasting my time. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to give serious attention to this water scheme. Three quarters of the dam have already been invaded by silt and there is more silt than water, even when the dam is full. Kenroux Besproeiings Beperk has to get a certain part of that water, and their turn to use water lasts 14 days, as long as the water is at a certain level, after which it belongs to Graaff-Reinet. No proper employment opportunities can be created in Graaff-Reinet. No small business development can take place, because our water is not of a high quality.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to congratulate Mr A P Brinkhuis from my department who has been promoted to Director of Education Administration. We were asked when we would make the first announcement, and this is the first sentence of my reply.

I should like to thank everyone who took part in the debate. There was criticism, but one expects that. I want to assure hon members that as long as criticism is given in a courteous way, it is appreciated just as much as the praise and thanks one gets here sometimes. That was the case in this debate, and I assure hon members that if we continue to do our work in this way, we shall be heading for success.

I also want to express my sincere thanks to hon members who made contributions to the flood disaster fund. I should like to mention the Parliamentary Wives’ Club, the hon member for Strandfontein and his wife, the hon member for Ravensmead, the pupils, staff and principals of the schools in Ravensmead, the Petunia Primary School in Scottsville, and the hon member for Retreat and his wife. Special thanks go to the hon member for Bishop Lavis and his wife who specially produced a number of track suits to send to the flood-stricken areas. There are numerous other people and institutions who made contributions, too many to enumerate here today, but our sincere thanks go to each and every one of them.

The hon member for Border began with the appointment of Mr Domingo to the post of Registrar at the Athlone Technical College. I have to inform hon members that my department approached the Commission for Administration on 27 March 1986 to make a recommendation for his appointment on the basis of his teaching experience. The Commission was requested on 28 April 1986 to advertise the other vacant registrars’ posts. The advertisement appeared in the Press only in June 1986. The post of registrar at Athlone was incorrectly advertised with the other vacancies, however, since the Commission for Administration had made a recommendation for Mr Domingo’s appointment as Registrar at the Athlone Technical College on 2 May 1986.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether notice was given in Rapport or any other newspaper at any stage that that advertisement was incorrect?

No, Mr Chairman, there was no such notice in Rapport.

With regard to the inference that the filling of posts may have been a question of jobs for pals, I have to inform hon members that certain appointments are made by means of delegated authorities. If I had to clean all the dirty buckets, I wonder when I would have time to attend to the policy aspects of my ministry.

I can give the hon member the assurance, however, that all appointments are dealt with strictly in terms of merit and that there is no room for jobs for pals. In addition I must inform him that there are no secrets in my department and that it is not necessary, therefore, to silence anyone.

With reference to bursaries I have to inform him that my involvement in this extends only as far as the physical payment of the bursaries is concerned. The students have no say in that, and his allegation that students were governing my department was completely unfounded.

With regard to his enquiry about Mr Trevor Lee, I wish to inform him that this is an education matter and I trust that the hon the Minister will reply to his question at the appropriate time.

I want to thank the hon member for Vredendal sincerely for his support. The only question broached by him which affects my department is the possibility of investigating the establishment of a regional office in Vredendal. I assure him that I shall investigate the matter and inform him at a later stage as to whether or not it is possible. His requests in respect of education as well as local government, housing and agricultural matters should rather be discussed under the respective Votes.

I want to assure the hon member for Southern Free State that the Ministers’ Council has taken cognisance of the matters he broached and that constant attempts are made to spend the allocated funds in such a way as to benefit all our people throughout the country, including those in the Southern Free State.

The hon member for Mamre broached an important point when he said that the people of Mamre contributed to their own development. Their contribution combined with the assistance granted by the Ministers’ Council ensures positive progress, as has been made. Other hon members would do well to take a leaf from their book.

I want to give the hon members for Heidedal, Wuppertal and Bonteheuwel the assurance that cognisance has been taken of their representations for the rectification of shortcomings in their constituencies. Since these are mainly issues that fall under the Ministry of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, I am sure that the hon the Minister in question will inform them about the progress that has been made when his Vote is discussed.

†I wish to thank the hon member for Diamant for his admiration as well as for his sympathy. It is fact that we have too much to do with too little money. The Ministers’ Council is aware of that, however, and does its very best to alleviate the suffering of all our people.

*The hon member spoke about the squatter situation in Ritchie. He is not listening any more, but I want to give him the assurance that the hon the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Agriculture has reported to the Ministers’ Council that he is investigating the matter. I have already mentioned the first Coloured official.

The hon member asked whether I was satisfied with the implementation of the assimilation programme. The hon member must remember that anything that is new begins slowly and is understood with difficulty. I can assure him, however, that any problems that are brought to our attention receive immediate attention. I must admit that so far I am satisfied with the progress we have made in this respect.

The hon member for Alra Park referred to action taken against teachers, clerks and officials. I am pleased that the hon member elaborated on the matter and that consequently it is not necessary for me to say anything else in this connection. I am convinced that when we were scholars or students, our training took place according to strict rules. That is why we have achieved something in life. I agree. One must always agree with the Bible which says: “Spare the rod and spoil the child.”

The hon member also spoke about security guards and then suddenly referred to night watchmen. I am not quite sure which the hon member was referring to, since there is a difference.

I think it was the night watchmen (nagwagte).

He meant the bucket carriers.

The hon member referred to the long hours people work. They begin when the sun sets and work until it rises again. That is how the night watchmen work. That is how their posts are advertised. I want to give the hon member the assurance that security services at schools are a temporary measure. They were instituted when a state of emergency was declared in the country. As the state of emergency disappears, security guards will disappear as well. There are people who have permanent posts in the security services. This does not mean that ultimately everyone will be appointed on a permanent basis, however.

The hon member for Genadendal requested mobile classrooms. It is not the job of the Minister of the Budget to supply mobile classrooms, however. That is a matter that is dealt with by the Department of Education. The department has to negotiate with the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture for the provision of mobile classrooms.

The hon member went on to refer to the transport scheme from Gonnaskraal. I want to point out to him that the correct procedure has to be followed. There is no point in an hon member’s requesting in Parliament that a transport scheme be instituted when no application has been made to the Department of Education. That is the correct procedure that has to be followed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: An application was made in 1984. The indication was that the scheme would be instituted last year, but this has not been done yet.

I was referring to the correct procedure, and it is still not my responsibility. I also want to give a bit of advice in connection with the Napier bus service in which one bus is used for three contracts. The transport contractor may be reported if he does not render satisfactory service. The hon member is familiar with that procedure, and he knows that this matter has to be raised with the relevant education department.

The same procedure applies in the case of transport contractors who have not received their remuneration. The hon member is knocking on the wrong door, therefore. The correct place to go to is the Department of Education and Culture. The hon member requested—hon members must listen carefully—that the rules and regulations in connection with transport be changed. I have already mentioned, and I shall repeat this, that a committee has been appointed to revise the rules. As soon as they have completed their task, we shall inform all interested parties.

I hope that the people who have complained about the situation in connection with salaries will pay attention now. Our salaries are programmed on a computer, and inputs can be made into that computer only on certain days. When headmasters send in their information too late, problems arise. We have to get the information from the Department of Education and Culture. New information cannot be input into the computer between the 5th and the 15th of the month. It can be input only after that.

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

If it is possible for me to do so, Sir, I shall reply.

Sir, I merely want to suggest to the hon the Minister that staff can be seconded to his department from the Department of Education and Culture to deal with teachers’ salaries, or that the salaries of the teachers’ corps can be referred back to the Department of Education and Culture so that they themselves can be responsible for them. [Interjections.]

I am not sure that I understood the hon member, but I want to tell him that it is the Department of Education and Culture that gives the information to the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services. Does that not answer the hon member’s question?

I shall take the matter further with the hon the Minister in writing.

I should be grateful if the hon member would do so.

Sir, the hon the Minister says the salaries of the teachers’ corps are dealt with by means of a computer.

Yes.

What I want to know is whether every regional office has a terminal.

Mr Chairman, we can boast that we have the most modern computer system in the country, and regional offices have been supplied with terminals. All the work has not been concluded yet, however.

The hon member for Genadendal requested that the regional office in Worcester be upgraded. I am sorry about the problems that are being experienced there, but we must always keep in mind that the more personnel we appoint, the greater our financial loss will be. We have already been asked to curtail our expenditure by 30% during this financial year. There is nothing new in that—we listened to the hon the State President’s opening address—but I do want to comfort the hon member with the news that our work study group visits the offices regularly. Worcester will be visited as well. If a recommendation is made to the effect that that office should be upgraded, it will be done.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister, with reference to the personnel he referred to, whether all vacancies are advertised, or whether people are simply called in and appointed.

Sir, it is my department’s policy to promote people from inside. If there is no one in our department who qualifies for promotion, the posts are advertised.

†I want to thank the hon member for Natal Interior for his wonderful support. We have taken note of his complaints about farmers who were hard hit. I must remind the hon member that there is a flood relief committee and also that my good friend on my right, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, deals with farming matters.

As far as the new schools for which the hon member pleaded are concerned, the Department of Education and Culture will oblige the hon member if he contacts them via the proper channels.

*The hon member for Ravensmead read two letters. It is a pity that he did not want to read the third one as well, or tell us what it contained. I am referring to the letter the hon member received from my office. There were definitely two letters. The one letter acknowledged receipt of the letter and in the second there were instructions—because we felt that those children could possibly be prejudiced—that their bursary applications be considered with those of other children.

With reference to day hospitals I want to say that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, deals with the matter, whereas my good friend on my right deals with matters in respect of making land available. The hon member also referred to a certain woman who received a bigger salary than a man, and I assume it is because the woman has better qualifications.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make a rectification. I would not refer to unnecessary things here. Those people have exactly the same qualifications. The hon the Minister can verify that with the hospital.

Sir, if that is the case, I must point out to the hon member once again that it is a provincial matter since it concerns the hospital.

The hon member also referred to a school that will be celebrating its 21st year of existence shortly. I am merely advising him when I say he must be very cordial when he speaks to the Department of Education and Culture, because I am sure that then they will instruct the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture to renovate the building as the hon member requested. This also applies in respect of the high school.

The hon member for Hawston referred to the development of a Coloured township at Villiersdorp and the water shortage that was being experienced there. Unfortunately the hon member is knocking on the wrong door. He should approach the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture about this matter. The hon the Minister, who is sitting here laughing next to me, is the guilty one in this case.

The hon member pointed out that there are no houses for the teachers at Bissetsdrif. Not only am I familiar with the fact that the headmaster travels many kilometres every day; I know him personally. It was his choice to do so. When people apply for subsidies, they have to live in the houses they build, regardless of where they build them. If the headmaster chose to build his house far away from the school, unfortunately he will have to travel to get to school.

I want to advise the hon member to take up the matter concerning Tesselaarsdal with the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. This also applies to the upgrading of Bot River. The hon member said we should buy a farm. I want to tell him we are bankrupt from buying farms, but perhaps the relevant Ministry has a very deep pocket and can buy more farms! †The hon member for Northern Transvaal also complained about the poor situation with regard to housing. He correctly pointed out that the Coloureds had had to help improve the economy; yet today they had to suffer. I want to assure him that the Ministers’ Council is doing everything humanly possible to improve the lot of our people. However, we do not have the necessary funds at all times. I think one big job that every hon member in this House has is to convert those Whites who still do not have a Christian feeling towards their fellow-brethren of colour.

That lot of CPs!

We agree with the hon member that a great deal of misery has been caused as a result of the Group Areas Act which is in all respects ungodly. That is why this House fights it tooth and nail.

*The hon member for Fish River requested that officials travel to determine the needs in the respective constituencies. Sir, I am sure that my officials would be only too eager to do so if the MPs were prepared to give them their salaries. After all, hon members are MPs to see what is going on in the respective constituencies. They really cannot expect us to send officials around to determine the needs.

Mr Chairman, may I say that my intention was not that the officials should do so. I meant that the department should appoint a commission of inquiry which should be paid from the department’s funds. [Interjections.]

Thank you. Sir, the hon member also requested that we do upliftment work among our people. I want to assure him that this is one of our first priorities, and that in the preamble to the LP’s constitution we have undertaken to do so. That is precisely why we are here and why people always emphasise this aspect. We are constantly making appeals for our people, so that we can do that upliftment work.

Hear, hear!

The hon member complained that the Spandau School was unsightly. He rightly said that I was a Graaff-Reinetter in part. My late father came from Graaff-Reinet. Consequently I often go there and I know that the Spandau School used to be one of our best schools. The fact that it is a thorn in the flesh today is due to the conduct of the pupils and certain teachers on that staff. They have caused the damage, and we trust that they will make a contribution to repairing the school.

The hon member for Fish River requested that a caravan park be built at Graaff-Reinet. I am not going to refer the hon member to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, because that is a problem that has not been settled yet. The Ministers’ Council is not prepared to take over responsibilities unless they have been budgeted for. As soon as those problems have been settled, my hon colleague will proceed with development. I am not saying this will take place specifically in Graaff-Reinet, but nevertheless this aspect will receive attention.

With reference to the Orange River water scheme I want to tell hon members that they must raise the matter again when the Vote of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is discussed. I can tell them, however, that I know he is working very, very hard in respect of this matter. Who knows, perhaps an announcement will follow shortly. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by drawing the attention of hon members to the dam the hon member for Fish River spoke about which has been silted up. That is the responsibility of the municipality of Graaff-Reinet. When I was still living in Murraysburg, a company came to Graaff-Reinet and offered to remove that silt free of charge, as long as they could get it. They wanted to sell the silt, however, but now they are stuck with it. [Interjections.] This administration cannot do anything about that, therefore.

In conclusion I want to thank the officials of my department sincerely for their good work and their assistance, even here in Parliament, and I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon members who took part in the debate for the spirit of co-operation in which it took place.

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:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, this is one of those Bills which came before the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning and for some reason or other the hon the Minister then moved the Bill to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs. The best thing about the Bill is that it was formally approved by the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning and it was later also approved by the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs. For some reason or other the representatives of the latter committee at first did not feel that the Bill should be approved, but when the hon the Minister finally explained the provisions of the Bill, we agreed to it.

One of the important provisions of the Bill is related to the abolition of the management committees in the Cape Province which will be replaced by the regional services councils. The House of Representatives, which has control over the management committees, was very suspicious of the fact that when these management committees are abolished, the financing of the regional services councils will be affected and consequently the effectiveness of certain services would be retarded. The question of the assets that are to be transferred to the management committees was also discussed.

Finally, it was agreed that an amendment was needed to clause 2 of the Bill. The amendment reads as follows, and I quote:

This is because the Minister entrusted with own affairs was originally omitted in the Bill.

The other important issue is that for the past two years we have wanted to get an undertaking from the hon the Minister concerning the abolition of the Development and Services Board.

The Development and Services Board, insofar as the Indian community is concerned, is a representative body which functions as a local authority in various rural areas. It is also a very important apartheid institution and carries out the Government’s policy of apartheid. The sooner this Development and Services Board, which is a provincial statutory body, is abolished and all areas under the jurisdiction of the Development and Services Board are incorporated into respective municipalities, the better. The right of the Indians to occupy or to take part in the decisionmaking processes of these municipalities, would be facilitated. I therefore think that the hon the Minister must consider the possibility of abolishing the Development and Services Board.

Approximately two years ago we asked for its abolition, and the hon the Minister came up with the idea of asking for a moratorium in order to be given an opportunity until 30 June 1987. The time has since elapsed, but there is still no amending Bill. The question is whether the abolition of the management committees in the Cape Province would result in certain representation for the Coloured communities on the regional services council. Until such time as the Development and Services Board is abolished in Natal, the chances of regional services councils in Natal will be remote.

I also wish to take the opportunity of thanking Mr Len Dekker and his team for bringing this Bill before Parliament. I think they did a very useful piece of work. I also commend them on their explanations on various important issues. We on this side of the House approve the Bill.

Mr Chairman, right at the outset I would like guidance from the Chair as to whether it is proper, once a Bill has been published, for amendments to be introduced in respect of published Bills which go outside the scope of the Bill per se.

An identical point of order was raised in another House of Parliament. At the time, the presiding Chairman indicated that he would issue a ruling on this. I am not aware that such a ruling has been issued. I would like the indulgence of the Chair to inquire whether such a ruling has been issued in the other component of this Parliament.

Order! I would like to advise the hon member that we are busy with the second reading of the Bill. However, once the House goes into the committee stage, the hon member may introduce amendments in the prescribed manner. He will be allowed to raise a point of order during the committee stage, when he may also introduce his amendments.

My inquiry is directed to that specific part, namely that when and if the second reading has been completed, this Bill need not necessarily ipso facto go into committee, until and unless a notice requiring that has been given and the House decides accordingly. The very statement which the Chairman has made could be stultified if the second reading is proceeded with before the Chair has given a ruling on the point that I have raised.

Order! In order to be of assistance to the hon member, I will arrange for the secretary to prepare something for him which he can use later during the debate.

I just want to put the record straight. I have taken note of the hon member’s request and I will deliberate on it and will give a ruling accordingly. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to you.

Without in any way surrendering the point of order which I have raised and upon which I am grateful that the hon Chairman will in due course give a ruling, I now proceed to deal with the substance of the matter. Everyone in this House has contended that he is opposed to the concept of apartheid. Indeed, the hon member Mr Thaver who is not present with us at the moment has in the course of his speech in support of this Bill indicated that, in his opinion this will move away from apartheid. Unfortunately it does not do that, for the reason that the Bill itself quite clearly sets out the further entrenchment of the policy of apartheid.

In line 54 of clause 4 of the Bill reference is made to “a population group”. The objection to apartheid is that it is based upon the premise of population groups. The phrase “population group” is merely double-speak for “racial group”. The fact that a nice sounding phrase is substituted for the rather ugly term “racial group” does not alter the fact that it is the “racial group” that is being referred to.

I would like to explain this. In Natal there is a population group. The population of Natal is something like 6 million. The population group of Natal is something like 6 million. The population group of Johannesburg is something like 3,5 million. That is, if words have their sensible and logical meaning.

That, however, is not the meaning that is ascribed to the expression “population group” in the proposed legislation before us. When this Bill talks of “a population group”, it means “Coloureds, Indians, Whites or Blacks.” Strictly speaking, it makes nonsense of language to substitute the expression “population group” for “race group”. This is precisely the nonsense that is enshrined in this Bill, namely to try and make the evil-smelling apartheid which Die Burger described as being responsible for making South Africa the polecat of the world, into something like sweet-smelling toilet paper. The manufacturers of that commodity has recently started to put scent onto that commodity in order to try to make it smell sweet. A change of words, however, cannot make something that is evil-smelling, smell sweet.

That is apartheid and that is why we object to it. That is why we oppose anything which smacks of continual compulsory separation of the people of South Africa classified in terms of race or some kind of origin.

We believe that the only solution is for this country to move away from this stigma of race. I want to repeat the sentiments expressed by Bishop Alpheus Zulu when he said that every person should be a person and respect others as persons.

The same offensive intent appears in clause 4 in subparagraph B, line 42 on page 7 of the Bill where reference is again made to what is implicit in the Bill ie the apartheid construction of the administration of the three Houses of Parliament. For these reasons we find the Bill itself repugnant.

We have no objection to the rearrangement of the regional bodies because even with regard to the regional services councils—the Bill in connection with which will be dealt with shortly—the concept of regionalising services is unexceptionable. However, the fact that apartheid is brought into it makes the whole thing wrong.

As I have said in this House before, a pail of good fresh milk is a wonderful thing. It is provided by God for the sustenance of calves and persons but one little rat dropping will spoil the entire wonderful pail of milk. It is also the rat droppings in this Bill that spoil the Bill as a whole.

We on this side of the House—and I am authorised to say that I speak on behalf of the Official Opposition as well as my own party—find the Bill exceptionable and we cannot support it.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my colleague the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

Before I go on to make some comments on this Bill, I want to say that I am pleased that the hon the Deputy Minister is here. I am glad that he is now involved in constitutional development. On occasion I have had the opportunity of debating Bills of this nature with him in standing committee meetings.

I do not know whether it is necessary for us on this side of the House to go into a whole lot of details because I am sure that being so young and sprightly, he will have taken cognisance of all the frustrations expressed by us in those meetings and he will understand and appreciate why we have certain objections to this type of legislation. I should like to start off by saying that I am rather surprised that the majority party in this House sees fit to support this Bill.

I should like to submit that the majority party has gone on record for going to the public and stating on many occasions that it desires non-racial local authorities as an answer to reform at the local government level. I therefore ask whether, they are giving credence to that particular statement by supporting this particular Bill? On the contrary, I believe that they say one thing for the consumption of the masses, but when it comes to the workshop situation where legislation is drawn up they are not putting their money where their mouths are. I believe that the measures that are enshrined in this piece of legislation militate against the aspirations of people of colour, the majority of whom desire non-racial local authorities.

This particular Bill entrenches the concept that local government is an own affair. If that is what the majority party wants, then the majority party must endorse this. If it does not desire the entrenchment of local government as an own affair on ethnic lines, then I believe it should do the honourable thing and oppose these measures that ultimately lead to the eventual division of local government on an ethnic basis.

I should like to respectfully submit that the hon the Minister of Local Government under own affairs has gone on record in public as stating that he is opposed to the idea of ethnicity being a factor in the establishment of local government bodies. I therefore ask him how he could reconcile those statements with this piece of legislation, since ethnicity is indeed a factor here. I should like the hon the Minister to advise this House whether he was consulted prior to the drafting of this Bill; whether he was in any Cabinet committee where this matter was discussed; and what his views or reservations were in this particular regard.

I should also like to ask him, as regards the abolition of the Development and Services Board, what the situation is with regard to areas like Etete, which he is familiar with and where people of colour are living cheek by jowl. What is he going to do with regard to that particular area? To which own affairs department are these functions going to be transferred?

When the idea was first mooted of the RSC’s, together with the idea of the abolition of development bodies, we on this side of the House suspected that it was a non-starter and that it was going to encounter problems. It is now evident that previously the Government thought that by June 1987 these bodies would no longer have a function. This particular Bill before us is an admission that that was a miscalculation in the first instance—hence the need at this point to extend the period to 1990.

What has happened in the process? This has had a direct effect on functions at local government level, because the personnel have been working under a sword of Damocles which has been hanging over their heads. They have been uncertain of their future. If one looks at this particular Bill that is before us, it refers to transferrals and the power to transfer personnel from one authority to another and back again. This involves a whole lot of transfers and re-transfers. This in fact creates a further sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the personnel.

I should like to ask hon members whether it is fair to personnel involved in the administration and functioning of local government to have that type of uncertainty hanging over them. I believe that if one wants productivity and stability at local government level—it is vital to have it—then one needs a stable situation insofar as the personnel are concerned.

I should like to conclude my remarks by saying that what this Bill and other allied Bills are doing to people of colour, is going to create further polarisation and create the situation that non-viable dormitory areas are going to be forced to go their own separate ways, thus imposing intolerable levels of economic pressure on the inhabitants of these areas. Those who support these measures must take full responsibility for that. I believe that if we want to see stability, harmony and progress from a socio-economic and reform point of view and indeed, from all points of view, then I believe that we should let the inevitable take place with good grace. That is that people, regardless of their race, should come together at the primary level of Government. That is the way to achieve progress in this country.

Order! I should like to advise the hon member for Reservoir Hills, in response to the point of order he raised, that there are notices of amendments on the Order Paper with regard to this Bill. These amendments will have to be considered, and the House will have to go into Committee. At that Committee Stage—I am not sure whether that is going to come up today, but whenever the Committee Stage is reached—the hon member may once again raise his point of order.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, is it competent for me to ask why the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wants to adjourn the debate?

Order! Is the hon member asking the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to motivate his reason?

Precisely, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I need a little time to examine the points raised by the hon member for Stanger.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: For the very reason that the first Order of the Day has been withdrawn …

Order! I would like to advise the hon member for Camperdown that it has not been withdrawn. There was a proposal that the debate on the first Order of the Day be adjourned and the House has agreed to that. We will now proceed with the second Order of the Day, which the secretary has already read.

Mr Chairman, may I crave the House’s indulgence and move …

You cannot move.

Order! What did the hon member wish to move?

Mr Chairman, the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill leans very heavily on the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill. They are alike.

Order! The hon member Mr Thaver may proceed.

Mr Chairman, there is a misunderstanding which is to be expected because the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill has a lot in common with the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill. However, it is a separate entity altogether. This separate Bill’s provisions are separate, its functions are separate and I think that the hon member for Camperdown misunderstands this.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I would like to comment on what the hon member for Reservoir Hills had to say. That hon member is a highly respected person and he has argued the case like a very good lawyer for a defenceless client. It is also usual for PFP members as members of an opposition to come to standing committee meetings with all sorts of objections to the Bill under discussion. They bring in all sorts of amendments when it comes to the Bill itself. They do not approve and then vote against the Bill. Therefore it is not unusual for the hon member for Reservoir Hills to vote against this Bill. Had he not been a member of the PFP he would have voted for this Bill.

The Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill is another very important Bill. Insofar as the second tier of Government is concerned, it is to facilitate the establishment of regional services councils in the various provinces, particularly in the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and the Cape Province. One of its important functions is that it makes provision for local area committees to be represented on the regional services councils.

It also makes provision for rural councils. Those people who have no representation whatsoever in certain local authority areas will be represented by rural councils and these rural councils will have a certain amount of say insofar as representation on the regional services councils is concerned.

The Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill also deals with certain voting rights. It deals with the question of an executive committee. It also deals with the question of the Minister of Finance having the power to make regulations insofar as the functions of the regional services councils are concerned.

The regional services council is a very important body. I am not saying that I support apartheid, but it is a body that will introduce services in those communities that do not have services at present, particularly the non-White communities. Whereas local authorities such as those in Durban and elsewhere will tend to neglect various non-White areas, the regional services councils will take this factor into account and introduce those important services that have been placed in its charge.

This side of the House lends its approval to the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill. Once again I wish to compliment the legal advisers of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development, particularly Mr Len Dekker and the others, who were very helpful in explaining and bringing up certain issues which the committee wanted to know about.

Once again, Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House lend our approval to this very important measure.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to take issue with some of the comments made by the hon member Mr Thaver, but …

You are going to support it.

I said “some of the comments”. [Interjections.] I shall let the hon member for Reservoir Hills deal with that particular aspect, save to say that when we record our opposition whilst participating in a standing committee, we do have party affiliations. I acknowledge that, but at the same time we are as objective as we can possibly be and we try to look at things critically from the point of view of the people whom we represent. I think this is very important and that should be our guiding factor.

I want to say that when we opposed the regional services councils in this House we were told at the time that we were standing in the way of multiracialism or non-racialism, because those RSCs represented an incremental step towards that objective. We were also told that they represented a horizontal level of multi-racialism, or a movement towards a multi-racial local government institution. However, one now has to examine this particular amendment.

We suspected at the very outset that the regional services councils would ultimately be used as structures along racial lines, and when one looks at clause 15 it is abundantly clear that this particular Bill enshrines that principle. I want to quote from clause 15 of the Bill, which states the following:

The whole principle of race is once again being enshrined.

I want to tell the hon members of the ruling party once again that perhaps by omission or due to a lack of understanding of the consequences of this particular Bill, they may readily lend their support to it.

I want to warn and caution them that when they take decisions, they must reflect on the aspirations of the people whom they purport to represent. What are the aspirations of the people? To create ethnic local authorities and ethnic institutions? Was the aim of our participation in this ethnic institution to move towards future measures which will enshrine ethnicity? Our aim was to participate in this ethnic institution—and I acknowledge that this is an ethnic institution—to use it as a strategy, a means and a basis to negotiate with the authority to get the message across to the Government, so that our aspirations could be met in a harmonious and peaceful way, without conflict and confrontation. We wanted to use the constitutional opportunity to do that. Our participation must never proceed to be an opportunity to come here and entrench further ethnic institutions. If that is what the ruling party wants, it is their prerogative. However, we on this side of this House are not going to participate along those lines and we have not done so. I think we must set the records straight.

This particular Bill also gives greater powers to the Administrator. Again the role of the ordinary burgesses in local authorities and rural councils will be taken away from them and handed over to the Administrator. The Administrator will have greater say and his powers will be extended. Who is the Administrator? It is a nominated person. Who are his executive members? They are nominated persons. One finds a classic example of what nominated persons can do when one examines what happened in the Prospecton issue in relation to Isipingo.

I think they should have put you there.

Mr Chairman, if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is looking for another avenue for an honourable exit from here, I hope he will get there without causing much problem in that particular area.

I want to continue to say that this particular Bill talks about relationships with self-governing territories. When considering the reaction of self-governing territories, the kwaZulu government is a major factor. This measure will again be perceived as prescription. We—especially those hon members who are from Natal, and the majority are from Natal—are fully aware of the problem with the regional services councils in relation to the kwaZulu government. We have previously warned from this side of the House that there have to be proper negotiations. One has to reach consensus, not by prescription or by taking a Bill from one standing committee to another standing committee to force it through these Chambers, because the latter committee is constituted of Cabinet Ministers. That is not the way consensus will be reached in negotiation politics.

I say these things so that hon members of this House can understand clearly the problems with which we are confronted when it comes to supporting legislation of this nature. We cannot support legislation of this nature, because it goes against our principles. It goes against our grain and against the strategy by which we have come here to participate. We have not come here to entrench ethnicity.

I have said in an earlier debate that the hon the Deputy Minister and most of us who serve on the committee have had discussions on this basis. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister, even at this late stage, to withdraw this Bill and to let consensus take place in a proper way so that we can have a Bill which is acceptable to the people of South Africa. Having said this, I hope that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, in keeping with the spirit that he expressed during the debate on the earlier Bill, would again ask for time, adjourn this debate and examine these factors.

Mr Chairman, first of all I welcome the hon the Deputy Minister in his new capacity in this Chamber. We talk about the regional services councils. I have had the pleasure of serving on the largest regional services council in the country, the Central Witwatersrand Regional Services Council.

It is all very well attacking the regional services council when one does not know how they function in practice. I would like to cite certain examples.

Tell us about the salaries.

I am not talking about salaries. I am talking about practical experiences. I would like hon members to go and have a look at Deep Meadow and see what the regional services council has done for that area. I want hon members to go to Meadowlands and see what the regional services council has done. I would also like to refer hon members to the north western Transvaal town of Brits. I want them to go there and see how the regional services council has contributed R750 000 for the erection of a community centre which that particular community never had for the last 50 years. I was born in that town and I know what happens there.

The West Rand Regional Services Council is also doing a wonderful job, as is clear in the Krugersdorp and the Azaadville area. Therefore, simply to say that the regional services councils are not going to work, is not substantiated if one cannot prove why they are not going to work. In the Transvaal the regional services councils are working, and they are working very, very effectively.

When it comes to voting powers, there has not been one single occasion where the Central Witwatersrand Regional Services Council had had to vote on an issue. Decisions are normally reached by consensus.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member whether he believes that it has been fair that a constituent of a regional services council retains all the income by way of rates and taxes generated by the CBD area, or should it go to the RSC?

Mr Chairman, it is fairly simple. It depends on the percentage generated by a particular constituent which goes to the central regional services council.

The hon member obviously does not understand my question.

Mr Chairman, the truth always hurts. The funds are allocated proportionately, depending on request. If any member of a regional services council has a problem, he has the right to appeal to the appeal board. That is embodied in this Bill. To simply say that the regional services councils are not working, is an untrue statement. One must look at the practical experience as to how it is working.

We have always been talking about broadening the base of democracy. This is what is happening in the RSC. People of colour are represented on a council. They are taking decisions collectively. That is what consensus is. As I have indicated earlier, I have not had the occasion of sitting on one of these RSC where members have had to vote, irrespective of what percentage of the vote was allocated to each constituent. I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill, because I believe it is effective.

Mr Chairman, I have always listened carefully to the hon member for Lenasia South, because I have a high regard for him. However, when he talks about broadening the base of democracy, I wonder if he understands precisely what that means. Nominating representatives simply because a regional services council is organised on a multiracial basis, does not broaden the base of democracy. We have seen how provincial executives nominated party hacks. That has not broadened the base of democracy. In fact, it has reduced even the limited democracy that existed in the provincial executives previously, when they were all White bodies. Democracy means a governing body which is representative on an elective basis of the people within the jurisdiction of the governing body. These people are not representative on an elective basis.

I am reasonably certain that when my hon friend reflects on the proper meaning on the word “democracy” he will realise that the regional services councils as presently constituted do not in any way broaden the base of democracy. I want to repeat—this is also for the edification of the hon member Mr Thaver—that the hon the Chief Whip of the Solidarity Party is not yet a member of the PFP but, of course, he rose on behalf of his party to oppose this Bill. He also rose on behalf of his party to oppose the previous Bill.

The coach behind the coal engine! [Interjections.]

Well, this one is not a coal engine at all—it is driven by Sasol petrol. [Interjections.]

Why do we in the opposition benches—this includes the Official Opposition—find this particular Bill unacceptable? It is for the simple reason that although there is a great deal of good in it it also wants to perpetuate that which is bad. The compulsory compartmentalisation according to racial groups—one can call it population groups if one wants to try to mislead people—has already done tremendous harm to our country. It has riven this nation.

I want to deal for a moment with the purpose of reconciliation. The terrible war between the British and the Boers in this country left a terrible legacy of hatred between the two population groups among the White people of South Africa. It was General Louis Botha, followed by General Hertzog, followed by General Smuts who did a great deal to try to bring about reconciliation between the previous foes. It is the present President of this country, Mr P W Botha, who has continued that work of reconciliation vis-á-vis the White people of this country. The enmity that previously existed among the White group has been very substantially reduced.

However, the policy of apartheid introduced enmity between the Black people of this country and the White people of this country to the point where that enmity has reached such enormous proportions that it is extremely worrying. I am not moving entirely away from this Bill when I mention that there are groups within this country who want that racial polarisation to continue until it reaches breaking point. Those groups are being assisted continuously by the policy of apartheid. Morris Broughton, an editor of The Daily News, spelt apartheid—people pronounce this word in different ways—as apart-hate. This apartheid pushes people apart and the less they know one another the less they understand one another, the less will be the tolerance and the greater will be the hostility and the friction. That is what those people who want violent revolution in South Africa are capitalising upon.

They want such vicious anti-White sentiment to arise in this country that it will serve their own perfidious interests. And who is their best helper? Their best help comes from this Government’s policy of perpetuating apartheid.

It is argued that we are experiencing a total onslaught against this country. To some extent that argument is well based. It has been argued that the communist forces are organising even social democrats in other parts of the world so as to isolate this country and bring it to its knees economically. This has met with a considerable degree of success. When the democrats of America want to damage the economy of South Africa they are playing right into the hands of the Tribune Group of the Labour Party, which is the extreme left group of the Labour Party in which Jenny Lee and Tom Driberg were important figures until about 20 years ago. They are playing into the hands of Joe Slovo because they find apartheid so repugnant and so objectionable that they do not realise that in making their own personal testimony against apartheid they are playing into the hands of the enemies of democracy.

However, who is fundamentally responsible for this? It is the Government of this country with its policy of apartheid. Why do people want economic sanctions against this country unless it is a prelude to violent revolution?

Economic sanctions do not make sense except as a softening-up process that will make the people so poor, so desperate that this hatred which apartheid has kindled will grow into a violent flame of revolution. That is the reason why we oppose this Bill.

We love this country and we love all the people of this country. We want to have a secure position for our children and grandchildren in this country and that is not possible as long as the policy of separate development on a racially organised basis continues. This Bill wants to perpetuate that.

I hope the House will bear with me for a minute. Clause 8, subsection (b) refers to “local body” and we know that the definition of local body in terms of local government includes management committees, local affairs committees and consultative committees organised on a racial basis. Lower down on page 11, in lines 9 and 10, the Bill reads:

This Bill seeks to introduce the phrase “by the chairman of the council” into the existing Act. Why? The chairman of the council in every regional council is going to be a member, or is already a member of the dominant, dominating White group. It is the rates income and income generated that determines the influence of a local authority upon a regional services council and the Whites, having allocated to themselves the best of the revenue-producing areas of every town, command the dominating position. Now of course the chairman of the council is to have the authority to apportion the votes.

That is objectionable, and not only because it will be a White person. It is objectionable per se.

The existing Act provides that in subsection 9(3)(a) that—

Ipso facto it is the council itself which will determine the apportioning in the absence of special mechanisms for the apportionment. Now the mechanism that is sought to be created is to give that dictatorial power to the chairman of that council. That, Sir, we find quite unacceptable.

Clause 15 of the Bill on page 17 reads as follows:

This then means that as at present constructed, each population group which has a Minister is entitled to this in terms of the population group. He could—

Now we come to a completely objectionable part of this Bill. Subsection (2) provides:

This is apartheid gone absolutely mad. In a rural area, rural councils are to be established on a racially exclusive basis.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member Mr Thaver wants us to believe that he, while supporting this Bill, objects to apartheid. [Interjections.] If he has given his blessings to apartheid, then words fail me.

The hon member for Stanger referred—with respect, correctly—to the fact that the Government of kwaZulu has declined to participate in the establishment of the regional services council, at considerable cost to itself and to the people under its control, because the principle of racialism enshrined in the original Act is unacceptable to that Government.

We have read in the newspapers recently of correspondence between the hon the State President and Archbishop Tutu. I am not going to comment on the substance of that correspondence, but I am going to say that nobody in this country can ever, unless he is an absolute liar, say that Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi gives support to the African National Congress. Nobody who is not telling a complete untruth could allege that Dr Buthelezi supports sanctions of any kind against the Republic of South Africa.

Nobody who has any sense at all dare deny that Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi is as loyal and patriotic a South African as any member of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, regardless of race or colour. It is because of his patriotism to the entire country that he objects to the policy of apartheid, which obliged him and his colleagues in the kwaZulu government to decline to participate in the entrenchment of apartheid.

However, that is not the only reason why we oppose this Bill. We oppose it because the entire concept of apartheid is repugnant—not only purely on philosophical grounds, neither only on a basis of principle, but also because of practicalities. We are satisfied that until and unless this Government enables this country to move away from the policy of racial compartmentalisation, this country cannot make proper progress. As long as apartheid continues, this country is being pushed towards a terrible cliff. We do not want this country to go to the edge of that cliff. We want to steer this country away from that edge towards better pastures which will bring peace for everyone. That is the reason why we oppose this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House had foresight when the Regional Services Councils Bill was introduced in 1985. We did not oppose it because we oppose the system of co-ordinated services for areas where they are needed. However, we do not believe that a service-rendering model can be turned into a political model. That was a foresight on our part and at that time it was argued and asked where we saw racial wording in the Bill. That was 1985—I have not forgotten it. We did see that this was going to lead to what we are now experiencing.

A bouquet with serpents.

At that time I said, and I still believe this has become more apparent today, that the Regional Services Councils Bill was a bouquet with serpents in it. This happened when we had only been in Parliament for a short while. Today these serpents are becoming very apparent.

A very eminent Black leader said that the Government should not believe that the Blacks are fighting and in fact are losing their lives in many instances just because they want to improve the system of removing waste from the townships. That is a very important statement. My party, and in fact the whole opposition on this side of the House, does not object to rendering service to areas where service is needed. That must be done, but to think that by doing that we will bring in political reform is a complete disaster. That is why this Bill never got off the ground. In the history of this Parliament there has not been such a thing that a Bill was passed in haste and was returned for amendment even before it was put into operation. And it keeps coming back every year because in simple language it means that we are now building mud hovels to cross a river. When we reach half-way the mud hovels will collapse. It is as simple as that.

It is apparent from the Memorandum on the last page of the Bill that certain divisional councils are to be abolished before the RSCs are put into operation. It states here without any reservation and I quote:

These will not be rectified. We keep rectifying them but they keep on coming up because the whole thing is based on an incorrect premiss.

We heard the hon member for Lenasia Central say that they had not had services in the Brits area for over 50 years. Does that mean that one has to institute the regional services councils in a political form in order to solve the problem of the lack of services that has been experienced in Brits for 50 years? One could extend these services.

There is a good example of this in this very Parliament. The Department of Development Aid is doing a great deal more than the RSCs will ever do. Hon members should examine their report and see what they are doing. The hon the Minister is here. They are doing a wonderful piece of work in those areas where services are needed, and those services could be provided in the same manner as the Department of Development Aid is providing them, without bringing racial connotations and racial structures into the picture and believing that we can solve our political problems through the RSCs.

Mr Chairman, I should like to respond to the hon member Mr Thaver and the hon member for Lenasia Central in particular. They sang the praises of this Bill. They sang the praises of the Regional Services Councils Act, which we on this side of the House opposed from the very beginning.

We will establish one in Camperdown.

To echo the words of the hon member for Southern Natal, we saw the hidden dangers in the Regional Services Councils Bill.

Today we have another Bill before us and I should like to refer to clause 15 of the Bill, which seeks to amend section 12A of the Regional Services Councils Act. We argued in 1985 that the Regional Services Councils Act would entrench apartheid instead of doing away with it and that it would move the various population groups much further apart rather than bringing them closer together. No attempt whatsoever has been made to bring the various population groups or racial groups closer together so that even if they could not shake hands they could at least touch fingers, so to speak, and come to an understanding.

I should like those two hon members of the ruling party to give us an answer. I think they actually acted in defiance of the leader of their party today, and with your permission, Sir, I should like to quote from Hansard of 25 January 1985. This was the first debate in which I had participated since coming to Parliament and that first debate I heard in the House of Delegates impressed me a great deal. What is more, I have patterned my parliamentary activities after this debate, from which I wish to quote. I am referring to a speech made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of this House, who had this to say:

These are very praiseworthy words which I took to heart, and I have patterned my parliamentary activities after those words. He went on to say the following:

I have adhered to that philosophy all along, year in and year out.

I have attempted to do my utmost to live out that philosophy, to work for every section of the South African population. At the tail end the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said the following, and I quote from col 18:

Clause 15, subsection 2 of this Bill reads, and I quote:

I now ask those two hon members: Taking the example of my own constituency, Camperdown, where there is no local authority, will we have three councils? What is that? Is that not the tightening of bolts and nuts with the biggest, strongest spanner one can get? Is that not support for a Bill which is aimed at, not tacit, but explicit support of apartheid? [Interjections.] My advice therefore to the leader of the party to which those hon members belong is that they should be taken to task, because they went against the wish of their leader. Their leader is on record, for posterity, as saying that we must work for a better South Africa and not for a particular community; that we must not tighten the bolts and nuts of apartheid, but loosen them. I now question the hon member for Lenasia Central and the hon member Mr Thaver about their support for this particular clause. How do they justify that?

What about Brits?

Do not talk about Brits. Must services be rendered on an ethnic basis? The hon member Mr Thaver said that as long as the Development and Services Board is not dismantled in Natal, regional services councils cannot be introduced. I think that hon member has always lived in cities and he is used to the city council laws. The Development and Services Board in Natal is doing exemplary work, without racial or other prejudice. Where there is no local authority, they step in and do the work very effectively, and I doubt whether the regional services councils could do it better. Therefore I challenge that hon member to give reasons why he wants the Development and Services Board of Natal to be dismantled. It is a body which is serving the people in the rural areas more effectively than any city council or town board or health committee in Natal. I can vouch for that. One can look at the example of the floods we had last year: In areas which they represent, the Development and Services Board stepped in and assisted people without taxing them, they updated roads, they built bridges and did wonderful work.

Mr Chairman, I would like the hon member to tell this House what the difference is between representation on the regional services council and representation on the Development and Services Board? Are they not the same?

That is really a laughable question, because the regional services council is entrenching apartheid. It has racial connotations and the Development and Services Board is a non-racial body. It is not based on race or separate population groups. That is a major fundamental difference we are arguing about. Regardless the colour of the members of that board, the Development and Services Board has no racial connotations. I hope the hon member is satisfied.

Mr Chairman, I would like the hon member to define the terms non-racial and statutory board. Is the Development and Services Board not a statutory board?

Sir, the hon member has his facts wrong. He is a little confused, because I clearly said that regardless of who serves on that board, that board has no racial connotations. It is therefore by definition a non-racial body, unlike the regional services councils.

Mr Chairman, the hon member made reference to the non-racial character of the development services board. Does he know whether this particular board has any Black members serving on it?

Mr Chairman, that is beside the point; it is an unwarranted question. [Interjections.] I shall come to the hon member for North Western Transvaal as well. The point is this: If one looks at the ordinance establishing the development services board in Natal, it does not in any way specify that members of a particular racial group can serve on that board. It simply says that the board shall be comprised of so many members, and it describes their function, unlike the Regional Services Council Bill which introduces racial connotations.

Look at subsection 2 of Clause 15. They want to establish this in the rural areas. One may have a rural area with a population of 3 000 people. For this there will be three councils constituted on a racial basis, based on population, or what I call racial discrimination. On these grounds I oppose this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I once again wish to place the standpoint of this side of the House on record. There is no doubt about the fact that communities developed along grouplines in this country. In order to have an orderly and evolutionary transition to that era where the principle of free association or the policy of non-racialism is applicable, one cannot run away from group realisation overnight.

I know of an individual who pretends in public to be the great champion of non-racialism. In fact, he once had to give advice on another structure, and he proposed one which was structured along the same lines as the regional services council.

In that particular case, however, he only gave consideration to the Indian, Coloured and White communities. I do not want to mention it.

The hon member for Lenasia Central gave us a very good example. The hon member for Southern Natal said that he does not oppose the provision of services on a regional basis. There is a difference, however, between what exists presently and what is contained in the legislation relating to regional services councils.

We have a problem in Germiston where the people are very bitter about inner-city tariffs and outer-city tariffs. We had an amendment in another piece of legislation last month to get rid of this anomaly relating to regional services councils. One feels it at grassroot levels when one is unable to provide basic facilities. If the local government structures are continued along the present lines they will not be able to provide these until, in the words of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, the cows come home.

We accept that the regional services councils have faults but this is a transitional period. We came to this Parliament on the basis of ethnicity and we realised that. What we are doing now— the Standing Committee on Standing Rules and Orders met again last night—is to move away slowly from that. There are log jams as regards our desire to sit in one institution where we can say that we are not representing an ethnic area in this House, but I believe that with the passage of time these things can be put right.

This amendment deals with the filling of vacuums. If, for example, in Camperdown some cabbage farmers complain that they are not receiving a proper water supply, it will not be necessary to deal with every individual. This particular Bill will enable them to create a structure.

There will not be an Indian cabbage and a White cabbage!

I want to say to the hon member for Stanger that we did not hear him respond to a question which I shouted across the floor, namely whether he will give a guarantee that all the hon members of his party would not serve in the regional services council. I believe that they are already in the rat race.

No option!

No option? There is no compulsion.

There are deficiencies in this legislation—we recognise that. If one has to be a purist the Government is moving away from apartheid. There is no doubt about the fact that those who went overseas to fight against sanctions also uphold the standpoint that the hon the State President has officially declared the Government’s standpoint as one of a strong move away from apartheid.

Let us take the much discussed Natal-KwaZulu-Indaba which the hon member for Reservoir Hills always praises. Is there not a solution …

Did you not sign it?

Yes, I signed it because I am a realist and a practical man. [Interjections.] However, I do not praise it. It has an ethnic approach—there is no doubt about that. It has ethnicity entrenched in it.

It is praised. The hon member is prepared to praise another structure that is built to a certain extent on a racial basis.

We concede that there are deficiencies in this legislation, but I have said previously that it is an important step forward when one realises one’s deficiencies at the ground floor level. Let us at this stage deal with the relationship between this and self-governing states. If, for example, KwaZulu does not want to come into a regional services council that is going to be established for the greater Durban area, how is one going to distribute from the First World communities— from the “haves”—for the development of the Third World communities such as KwaMashu and Umlazi, who will not be able to survive if they do not get the benefit of the income generated from the other areas?

I agree with the hon member for Stanger when he pointed out a deficiency where I stated, when we dealt with the Regional Services Council Bill that was passed in Parliament, that one of the important deficiencies is that the regional services councils should ultimately have taxation powers.

Let us take our difficulty with providing housing services in certain areas as an example. We cannot start a housing scheme in Shaka’s Kraal in spite of the fact that we have the money because nobody can give us the necessary sewerage services. Regardless of where we turn, we cannot succeed. The solution is for the regional services council to be established. It would be a proper authority to put right all the problems in a particular area.

I was at Brits and it is a classic example of an area where they could not afford services and where they had problems. The regional services council came to their rescue. Let us therefore not play this record that there is ethnicity over.

We accept that there is ethnicity, but along with that ethnicity there is multiracialism. An important structure at a level of government is multiracial. The Development and Services Boards cannot be compared to the regional services council because one can say one is a member of the regional services council because one comes from an elected body.

The token representation on the Development and Services Boards cannot be likened to representation on the regional services councils. Also, there are certain problems where certain institutions will not purchase any services from the regional services councils and as a result they do not have any representation at all. However, they need representation and these amendments cater for this important deficiency.

I want to say that if we are all going to be purists then I do not think that we will succeed in changing the course of this country in an evolutionary way. Therefore I again want to defend our standpoint in respect of the regional services councils.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Stanger that the method of taxation is something that should be re-examined. There is a lot of bitterness in that area. There is no disagreement on that, but in its totality …

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council undertake to convey that to the hon member for Lenasia who seemed to misunderstand the situation?

It is the hon member for Stanger who appears to have misunderstood. I was talking about what the hon member for Stanger referred to in 1985, not to what he said today. He was speaking about one of the reasons why his side objected to the legislation.

There are some people who object to legislation knowing that they are the minority party, and they privately pray in their hearts that the majority party will approve it so that we can make use of the structure.

We are realists and pragmatists; we are practical people, and the important thing is that we believe in peaceful evolutionary process in terms of which a change from the old to the new order must entail a period of transition. In a period of transition one must have samples of the old and samples of the new. The samples of the old are comprised of the fact that there is ethnicity. The sample of the new order is that there is also multiracialism.

Mr Chairman, I want to support the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in his contribution this afternoon.

Much play has been made by members of the opposition party—and quite rightly so—of the fact that they see in the language used here, namely the word “rural”, a connotation of race. I would concede that that is the conception one would form from this kind of word. However, consider it from a practical point of view. If, outside local authority areas and outside the jurisdiction of any Development and Services Board or similar body, there are areas which need services, and the de facto situation in regard to the population there is that there is a particular race group living there, do we not take into consideration their aspirations and their contributions to the regional services council as a body? This is the provision contained in these amendments to the Act. I think that these amendments address the deficiencies and inadequacies of the original Bill.

Which you opposed.

Certainly I opposed it at that time, but surely anyone gets wiser as time goes by. One tries to be realistic, practical and pragmatic in dealing with the issues.

This is certainly an improvement and, as has been elucidated by the hon member for Lenasia Central, where these services are being effectively provided, they are being seen as beneficial to that community.

I repeat that we must not look at the superfluous connotations that we ascribe to these clauses in this Bill.

Mr Chairman. I regard it as a privilege to participate in this debate this afternoon for the first time. I must say that in my previous capacity I was seldom responsible for legislation and, for that matter, I think I have only turned up once in this House in the past in my previous capacity, in which I was concerned with security matters.

Now there is a change as far as that is concerned. Some people say I have changed from a hawk to a dove! However, I do wish to say that it is truly a privilege to be with hon members in this House and to participate in this House in my present capacity. I look forward to continuing to do so in the future. I also wish to thank those hon members who have conveyed kind words to me in this regard, particularly the hon member for Stanger, who has referred to the fact that we have served together in the past on the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs. In fact, I have also served together with other members on the Standing Committee on Education, and so on. Although we might have been on different sides as far as the political arguments on those standing committees were concerned—we are here on that basis again today—we have also built up some friendships, and I think that that is the kind of thing that we can share as colleagues.

I should also like to say that it is also a very great pleasure to follow the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget in this House.

I wish to thank them for the valid arguments that they advanced during the debate on this particular piece of legislation before us. I thank especially the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for his valid arguments and the way in which he has supported this Bill. I also wish to thank the hon member Mr Thaver and the hon member for Lenasia Central for their support and the way in which they have expressed it. I must add to what the hon member for Lenasia Central said in this regard by taking up his point in connection with the practical examples that are being provided by the RSC’s. He has apparently had some experience in this regard and I would like to say that ultimately what is important is what is on the scoreboard. In our situation it is probably more a case of deeds that count than words. What we have seen over the last year in terms of the development of the work of the RSC’s is sound proof of the fact that it is not only a question of bringing together community leaders on this level, but also satisfying the demands of the various communities in the different regions of the country.

I would like to add to what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has said by saying that this Bill before us actually serves to rectify certain matters and to address certain deficiencies that exist at the moment as far as the operation of the RSC’s is concerned. For that reason this Bill had to be brought before Parliament and in future we can now look forward to an even better functioning of the RSC’s.

As far as the arguments advanced by opposition members are concerned I would first of all like to say that many of the arguments from the opposition side were addressed to clause 15 of the Bill. It struck me that nobody mentioned the fact that subsection (3) is also part of this Bill. Apparently some of the hon members were not part of the standing committee where this amendment was actually introduced. I would therefore like to read the proposed new section 12A(3) into the record because some hon members only quoted subsection (1) and (2) of that particular clause. I quote:

As I have said, I was not attached to this department at the time, but apparently this point was also raised at the standing committee. The standing committee addressed it and introduced this amendment. It was accepted in the standing committee that this point can also address that desire, if necessary, and for that reason my predecessor also referred to this in his Second Reading speech on page 3, when he said:

I think that that adequately addresses this point. Some hon members have referred to this and have commented that this is a perpetuation of apartheid; there is no indication that provision is also made for the requirement of joint rural councils. That point has been adequately addressed in order to be practical about the situation, as the situation demands in these particular circumstances.

A further argument that was advanced by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, if I am not mistaken, was that we have here an undemocratic body in the RSC itself. Of course, the RSC is an not elected body, but it is based on an elected body or bodies. I do not think there is anything wrong with that as such. The fact is that we in Parliament also serve on other bodies to which we have not been directly elected but we do so in our capacity as members of Parliament. I think the same principle is probably applicable and is, in fact, operating in this case.

However, the interesting point about the argument advanced by the hon member for Reservoir Hills was the fact that he placed great emphasis on the point that we should work towards democratic processes and towards democratic organisations and bodies. I agree with him; there is no doubt about that. At the same time, however, the hon member for Camperdown, who, if I understand the situation correctly, is a member of the hon member for Reservoir Hills’ party …

No more! [Interjections.]

No more? I am sorry, I cannot keep up with them. [Interjections.] The point is, however, that the hon member for Camperdown praised the development services boards for the fact that they were actually rendering good service and that they were representing the people of Natal on a multi-racial basis. That may be true, but the point is that they are not elected. They are not democratic insofar as that is concerned. They are appointed by the Administrator, if I understand the situation correctly. Therefore, what is the difference? How does one reconcile the argument of saying on the one hand that the RSCs are undemocratic but at the same time praising a body which is, in fact appointed by the Administrator?

In the final analysis, Mr Chairman, I think the question we need to address is whether the RSCs are satisfying the demands of our present-day circumstances on a local government basis in South Africa and what I am saying is that I think we have adequate proof that they are, in fact, doing so. We can see evidence of this in all parts of the country. We can see it in all the provinces in which they are presently rendering the services that are required.

To come back to certain other arguments, I should like to point out that the hon member Mr Thaver correctly referred to the fact that we had now also introduced participation for the rural communities. I think the fact that we did not make provision in the first instance for the rural communities to participate in the RSCs as well, was a deficiency and I want to thank the hon member Mr Thaver for confirming that point.

Insofar as the hon member for Stanger is concerned, I have referred to his point about clause 15 and the fact that he did not refer specifically to subsection 3 in that regard. I have already dealt with that.

I have already referred in part to the hon member for Reservoir Hills, but on a political note I must say that when I listen to the hon member for Reservoir Hills there is not much difference between listening to him and his leader, Mr Eglin, in another House. [Interjections.] I just want to point out that all Mr Eglin’s arguments and rhetoric have not brought him very far over the years and I hope the hon member for Reservoir Hills will discover that he is on the wrong side soon. [Interjections.]

Mr Eglin takes less time about it. [Interjections.]

From a political point of view it is also necessary to point out to the hon member for Reservoir Hills that it is interesting, on the one hand, to listen to him and all his arguments about apartheid and the perpetuation of apartheid in terms of this particular institution, ie the RSCs and so on, and on the other hand to listen to the arguments from the right wing parties, especially the CP in the other House. It is very interesting to compare those arguments. The one argument maintains that this represents a perpetuation of apartheid and the other that it represents the implementation of integration. It just goes to show that somewhere in between lies the truth, and I think we are on the right track insofar as that is concerned. [Interjections.]

Perhaps as from next week, or at some time in the future we will be able to debate jointly, and then this kind of argument will be put forward and we shall be able to see where the truth is.

With these words, I would again like to thank hon members who gave their support to this Bill. I think hon members who are in opposition to it, will also quietly agree that we have here an institution which can grow in terms of South Africa’s present-day circumstances. We wish the RSCs well on their way towards rendering those services to the people who really need them.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz Bandulalla, M; Chetty, K; Devan, P I; Dookie, B; Iyman, J V; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Moolla, Y; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Razak, A S; Reddy, J N) appeared on one side,

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Firstly, the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid may, in terms of section 30(1) of the Black Administration Act of 1927, set apart land situated in released or scheduled areas, so-called trust land, as a town. However, in order to rectify an omission in this Act, this Bill amends section 30(1) so as to enable the Minister to extend and redefine or otherwise modify existing towns.

Furthermore, with regard to local government bodies established in terms of section 30(2) of the same Act, the need has arisen for authority to amalgamate such local government bodies in the case of adjacent trust towns growing towards each other in the course of development, and in other cases again to split up an existing local government body into two or more such bodies for an area which has greatly developed and expanded.

Provided the existing local government body or bodies are duly consulted, clause 1(c) of the Bill now provides for such amalgamation or splitting up, as well as for the change of name or the dissolution of a local government body.

Secondly, provision is made for the repeal of section 11(2) of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936. This section applies to companies with a Black controlling interest and to associations or partnerships consisting of more than six Blacks by obliging them to obtain Ministerial permission first before they acquire or hold land in Trust areas. This restriction does not apply to individual Blacks in Trust areas. In practice it imposes an unreasonable restriction on Black businessmen to obtain land for conducting their business. The repeal of this restriction will enable Black businessmen to compete more freely in commercial activities.

Thirdly, the Bill also provides for the repeal of section 24(3), (4) and (5) of the same Act, ie the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, in accordance with the recommendations in the report of the Committee for Economic Affairs of the President’s Council, as well as the recommendations of the report of the Competition Board concerning a strategy for the development of small businesses and the deregulation thereof in the respective Black communities.

The effect of the last-mentioned repeal would be as follows: The obtaining of Ministerial permission for the issuing of a licence to pursue a profession, a business, a trade or an occupation in a scheduled area or a released area is thereby repealed. The Minister therefore no longer needs to give permission for the issuing of a licence— the licence authority will have to do that on its own strength. The result of this deregulating action is that the procedure of licence applications for businessmen will now be uniform in all areas. The protection of the interests of Black people in trust areas is sufficiently provided for in subsection (1) of section 24 of the Act to which I have just referred.

The South African Development Trust Corporation Limited—this is the SADTC or, as it is also often abbreviated, the STK—is a statutory institution. It was created in terms of Act 46 of 1968 to continue with certain residual functions of the Corporation for Economic Development until they had been completed or transferred to other development institutions in the self-governing territories in an acceptable manner. The SADTC is at present restricted by its legislation to operating only in self-governing territories or on Trust land. However, as hon members of this House will know, this corporation has acquired a proven expertise and success in several fields of economic development, notably in the setting up of Black commercial farmers. This has led to requests from certain independent states such as Venda and the Ciskei and also from the Administration: House of Representatives for assistance from this corporation in the planning, financing and implementation of specific projects such as, for instance, farmer settlement schemes.

The proposed amendment of the Promotion of Economic Development of National States Act, 1968, will enable the SADTC, while it is still in existence, to place its knowledge, expertise and experience at the disposal of any developing community—also communities outside the national states—provided that it happens at their express request and also subject to the consent of the trustee who, for practical purposes, is the Minister concerned.

The last clause of this Bill is of a technical nature and simply provides for the amendment of the long title of Act 46 of 1968 in order to circumscribe the amendments accomplished by this Bill.

Mr Chairman, those of us who are concerned about the future of this country and who are concerned about the early demise of apartheid and have spoken up against it are likewise concerned about what will follow when apartheid goes. I think it is a truism to say that the future is a reflection of the past and the present. If one examines this in the present situation one is very concerned about what the post-apartheid society will be like. Our concern over what the post-apartheid society will be like does not only reflect on the socio-political situation but also on the future economic situation of this country once apartheid goes.

In this regard the Economics Committee of the President’s Council did some very valuable work when it looked at the factors that placed restraints on people of colour—particularly Black people—in so far as their free entry into the present so-called capitalist free enterprise system is concerned. The committee quite correctly highlighted two very important matters. The first was, of course, that it was the Group Areas Act which militated and still militates against the free participation of non-White people in the free enterprise system. The second factor that was highlighted is also very important and that was that by far the majority of the Black people in this country do not identify with this so-called free enterprise system. The reason for this was because they saw that the benefits of this system flow only to the Whites of the country. This was their perception.

It has quite correctly dawned on the Government that everything should be done to ensure that the constraints preventing Black people in particular from moving freely into the so-called free enterprise system should be removed. This of course is laudable and is something we support because we should like to see that transition into a postapartheid era being a relatively easy one, particularly in so far as the economic situation is concerned.

With that as a background I should like to say once again that we naturally support the Bill that is before us and which has been presented to this House by the hon the Minister, because the primary objective of this particular Bill is to remove some of the constraints that stand in the way of Black traders becoming a part of this so-called free enterprise system.

We naturally support this and we should like to express to the hon the Minister who is here this afternoon our appreciation for the good work that he is doing in his department, particularly in this regard, and which is embodied in the Bill before us.

With these words I should like to place on record that we on this side of the House support the Bill before us and we should like to see the hasty passage of this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the purpose of this amending Bill is twofold. Its first goal is to achieve equality between businessmen and the different population groups and to lift the restrictive measures applying to Black traders. Its second goal is to amend the provisions of section 11 of the Development Trust and Land Act, No 18 of 1936.

Clause 1 of the amending Bill caused a problem because it was felt that over-population of the land would increase the risk of possible enforced removals. Clause 1 was therefore withdrawn by the Standing Committee after thorough discussion.

Apart from clause 1 the remainder of the amending Bill was agreed to with certain amendments.

Clause 3 of the amending Bill is aimed at implementing the wishes of the local population that their territory should not be left wide open to people who are not citizens of their territory.

Clause 4 amends section 1A of Act 46 of 1968, as inserted by section 1 of Act 105 of 1986, in that the Trust does not automatically function inside or outside the national states, but only subject to the consent of the Trustee—who is the Minister concerned—and on the conditions prescribed by the Trustee and at the request of the community.

It is essential for the hon the Minister to be authorised to enlarge, redefine or otherwise change a town, as set out in the amending Bill.

The Bill was therefore agreed to by the Standing Committee and I support the amended and accepted version.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to go over the ground that has been very clearly covered by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and the other hon members. In supporting the Bill I do want to briefly mention that this amendment constitutes progress in removing restrictions and promoting development of small businesses among the Black community.

It must also be noted that it extends the powers of the SA Development Trust Corporation, thereby enabling it to apply its extensive knowledge to the benefit of the Black community in particular, or for that matter any community.

I welcome the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I must compliment the hon the Minister on a very comprehensive Second Reading speech which leaves very little for us to add to, especially after the previous speakers had also covered the ground so thoroughly. Nevertheless, as a member of the standing committee I believe it is my duty to enter this debate.

As stated in the Second Reading speech, this Bill provides, in addition to other measures, for the hon the Minister, after consultation with local government bodies in the so-called Black areas, to form one joint authority which may include two or more local government bodies. I believe that such an amalgamation would provide for the better utilisation of resources. We are aware of the scarcity of finance; money is hard to come by. By means of this combination it will be in the interests of these local government bodies to pool their resources and make themselves more viable. If requested, and in the case of local government bodies outgrowing the need for combined services, the hon the Minister may, after consultation, dissolve the umbrella body and allow the separate bodies to continue.

The keyword here, as has always been said when this hon Minister comes to this House, is consultation. We do not have any reason to doubt the integrity of this hon Minister because we have found that he has been true to his word. When he has said there will be consultation, it has always been so.

The second aspect of this legislation is to simplify the procedures in respect of business licence applications by Blacks in areas that fall under the purview of this hon Minister and his department. Measures contained in this Bill would allow for the SA Development Trust Corporation Limited to afford more positive assistance and support to Black businessmen. If meaningfully applied, deregulation is always to be welcomed. These measures, as contained in this Bill, may not address all the grievances that have built up over the past decades—grievances due entirely to legislation promulgated to inhibit the progress of persons of colour.

We accept that this hon Minister is unable to address all the restricted legislation on the Statute Book—legislation that restricts progress of non-White persons in the different fields, be they economic, political or social. However, it is to be welcomed that within the parameters allowed him, this hon Minister of Education and Development Aid is making his contribution to the alleviation of objectionable and restrictive measures.

We welcome this measure, as we have welcomed all good measures that have previously emanated from the office of this hon Minister. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the object of the Development Aid Laws Amendment Bill, 1988, has been amplified by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. I do not wish to repeat what has already been said. However, I wish to welcome this Bill and although it does not affect own affairs in this House, it is nevertheless a progressive step towards Black development. Concern is being shown over the overcrowding in several rural areas. Some measure of control is necessary for the sake of the health and the quality of life of these people and I am sure that the authorities will provide suitable layouts, water and sanitation for the welfare of these people in the rural areas. Overcrowding will also remedied by locating these people suitably.

The other aspect of the Bill is deregulation. The procedures will be changed whereby Black traders and businessmen will be able to obtain licences for their businesses without obstacles or impediments. The amendment to the Promotion of Economic Development of National States Act 1968 is necessary and welcome. I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill amends section 9 of the Black Land Act of 1913, Act No 27 of 1913. The amendment of section 9 of the Act enables the accomplishment of the meaningful use of land in the rural areas as well as in urban areas. In terms of subsection 11(2) of the Development Trust and Land Act, Act 18 of 1936, a restriction is placed on certain persons and corporate bodies regarding the acquisition of existing land after the enactment of Act 18 of 1936.

The most laudable part of this Bill is that it also amends the situation whereby Black persons in the trust land were up to now doomed in that they were only allowed one business and were not allowed to open a second business within that area. This Bill now abolishes that restriction and brings Black entrepreneurship more into line with free enterprise and competitiveness in the market. I also applaud the powers that are being extended to the South African Development Trust Corporation, which up to now has been placed under certain restrictions in terms of the current Act. This amendment will also allow and enable the South African Development Trust Corporation Limited to impart their expertise and knowledge to develop much-needed Black communities and uplift their socio-economic status. Therefore I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank hon members for their unanimous support of this Bill. I would like to refer specifically to the hon member for Springfield, who started off and who has actually offered his apologies for not being able to stay out the rest of the debate. The hon member for Actonville recalled that the original first clause of the Bill was dropped because of fear that certain of its provisions might lead to forced removals. I had the compliment from the hon member for Camperdown who actually thanked me for that clause, the original clause which was proposed to amend section 9 of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936. Therefore, apparently he, as a member of the opposition, was not quite so concerned about the possible disadvantageous effect that that clause could have.

Be that as it may, however, I should also like to refer to the support of the hon members for Cavendish and Merebank, as well as that of the hon member Mr Seedat.

The hon member for Camperdown also referred to certain restrictions on the operation of businesses by Black people in the trust areas and he referred to the fact that they were previously unable to operate more than one business within a certain area. That matter is not actually dealt with in this piece of amending legislation but has already been dealt with by the repeal of the old proclamation R293, which was replaced by a highly modernised, simplified and deregulated set of new proclamations about a month and a half ago. All this forms part of what the hon member for Merebank correctly referred to as the one leg of deregulation which is being implemented in this piece of legislation.

I should briefly like to express my gratitude to this House for the very good relationship which both my departments and my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister, together with our heads of department, enjoy with the hon members of this House. That also applies to the relationship we enjoy with hon members of this House when sitting on the standing committees, where very useful contributions are being made towards the improvement of legislation.

I should appreciate it, however, if you would allow me a brief moment to link up with the response made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to some arguments raised during a previous debate. This affects the entire concept of apartheid, which has also been broached in this debate by the hon member for Springfield, who said that the question that had to be addressed, and which in a sense is also being addressed by this Bill, was what comes after apartheid. I just want to briefly emphasise once again that I think it was unfair, both during previous debates in this House and during the debate this afternoon, to insist, as has repeatedly been done, that the policy of the present Government is a policy of apartheid. I should like to record the fact that the hon the State President has stated quite clearly that he considers apartheid an outdated concept; that he has compared the outdated concept of apartheid with the outdated concept of colonialism; and, furthermore, that he has committed himself and his Government to clearly moving away from this outdated concept. Now one cannot allow something from which one is moving away and which one calls outdated to form the basis of one’s policy, and I think therefore this is an unfair charge that has been made.

It has also repeatedly been made clear that certain negative and unacceptable aspects of differentiation which were included under the concept of apartheid have either been abolished or are in the process of being eliminated in South Africa. In the first instance this applies especially in the sense of depriving communities of their basic right to participate in the political decision making which affects their interests in this country. In that sense no party forming part of the Government can be charged with perpetuating apartheid because everything in its policy and in the entire reform movement is geared towards moving away from deprivation of the opportunity to participate in political decision making.

Secondly, it also applies in the sense of moving away from a policy that emphasises differences to the detriment or disadvantage of certain communities, in other words, one that has a negative discriminatory effect or the effect of creating inequality. In so far as this has existed, it has been acknowledged. For instance, the Government has acknowledged the disparities and inequalities existing in the present de facto situation of the provision of educational services. However, this is a situation we have committed ourselves to move away from. It is not our policy to perpetuate this inequality.

Thirdly, the Government has also clearly committed itself to the identification and elimination of all measures which are injurious to the human dignity of people of specific communities.

Finally, it has also decided to move away from and to eliminate those measures which are unnecessary forms of differentiation, because they create nothing beneficial or advantageous. In all these senses I would like to underline that the Government is not continuing a policy of apartheid, but moving away from this outdated concept.

On the other hand, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council quite rightly emphasised the reality of the ethnic factor in a heterogeneous and complex society such as South Africa. The Government also believes that it is essential to acknowledge the reality of ethnic factors and group differentiation in South Africa: Firstly, in order to create that essential psychological basis of security for minorities, which is an essential prerequisite for any meaningful political reform progress, and secondly, also to acknowledge the reality of groups with an ethnic basis for the sake of ensuring physical stability in the country, which is a prerequisite, as we all realise, not only for political reform and constitutional development, but also for economic development.

Finally, the acknowledgement of the ethnic factor is also essential because in a heterogeneous society such as ours—and I think this has been the experience throughout the world—the rightful demand for the constitutional protection of individual rights can be effectively implemented only within a context in which group rights are also ensconced and protected. In this sense I would say that the acknowledgement of the heterogeneity of our society, with the ethnic factor, is not only important for the security of minorities—the stability prerequisite to development—but also as a context and a framework within which group rights can be accommodated so as to ensure the protection of individual rights concomitant with those group rights.

I thank hon members for giving me the opportunity of making these few remarks regarding the discussion that took place earlier in this debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, as hon members will know, this Bill envisages to excise Soshanguve and Lethlabile, two rapidly developing, inter-ethnic South African Development Trust towns, from released areas. These two Black townships will then be administered and developed in terms of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, and the Development of Black Communities Act, 1984.

Soshanguve is situated north of Pretoria and it was developed to cope with the great housing shortfall for Blacks working in Pretoria. This town derives its name from the variety of national groups living there: Sotho, Shangaan, Nguni and Venda. Hence So-sha-ngu-ve—Soshanguve.

Basic services, namely water, sanitation by water-borne sewerage system and electricity, are supplied to the premises. Education and recreation are high priorities in the planning and development of this town. At present Soshanguve already has 22 primary schools, five secondary schools and various training colleges which are well-supported. A sports stadium is being built which will provide soccer fields, tennis courts, an athletics track and a swimming pool of Olympic standards.

The other town, Lethlabile, as hon members will know, is situated north of Brits. The name of the town means “sunrise”. This town was developed after consultation with the residents of Oukasie, a Black township at Brits, mainly for Blacks working in the Brits area.

The basic services, namely water, electricity and sanitation through a sewerage system, are supplied to all premises, although the town is only in the initial phase of development.

This town already has three primary schools and one secondary school. Further development for Lethlabile provides for schools, community health centres, sport facilities, industries and business sites.

This Bill provides for the transfer of the land from the trust to which it belongs at present, to the Administrator who, as hon members know, is the authority for local administration of Black affairs outside the national states. He will then apply the existing law for an interim period in order to accomplish the progressive and orderly transfer of these towns to their new dispensations.

The Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, and the Black Communities Development Act, 1984, will become effective on a date to be determined by the hon the State President in the Gazette. Existing property rights, as well as other rights in these areas, will at the transfer be protected. All services will be continued as provided for in the Bill, notwithstanding the transfer of these towns.

Although it was originally intended that these two South African Development Trust towns would eventually link up with a self-governing territory or an independent state, their strong inter-ethnic composition has rendered incorporation into Bophuthatswana both impractical and inadvisable. It was therefore decided that they would remain part of the RSA. Consequently it is no longer appropriate that they should continue to be administered as trust territories which are normally earmarked for ultimate incorporation into a national or independent state.

This Bill therefore provides for the inclusion of these two towns into the constitutional framework of the other Black urban areas of the RSA—ie, outside the national states—in order to remove any uncertainty about their further development.

One of the problems was that there was a fear amongst these inhabitants that, as a result of the fact that they were trust areas, they could ultimately still be incorporated into Bophuthatswana, despite the undertaking that had been given by the Government that they would remain part of the RSA. In order to make the matter unambiguous, this change in status was considered necessary.

Mr Chairman, this Bill presented no problems whatsoever. It was unanimously agreed to by the standing committee. Discussions on the Bill were finalised within a short time. The hon the Minister has just explained that the communities of Soshanguve and Lethlabile feared that their towns would be incorporated into Bophuthatswana against their wishes. The purpose of this Bill is to allay this fear.

The concept of this Bill is to remove certain parts from control by the trust and to allow them to remain ordinary residential areas. In this regard I am referring inter alia to Atteridgeville. The standing committee agreed to the Bill as a whole and without any amendments. I support it as such, therefore. Before resuming my seat, I should like to express a wish.

†In his previous speech, the hon the Minister mentioned that the amendment to the previous Bill would enable developing communities outside the national states to make use of our knowledge, expertise and experience at their express request and subject to the consent of the trustees. I know that the neighbouring countries are going to make use of this expertise. I wish to express my wish that the House of Delegates should also take advantage of this particular offer which has been made available. I hope this House will make use of the expertise which the department of the hon the Minister is prepared to extend to us.

Mr Chairman, I want to support this Bill. The amendment is pragmatic and from an all-round point of view it envisages improvements for both those towns mentioned. I have no doubt whatsoever that the improvements envisaged over the next few years will usher in a new chapter in the history of the Black communities in those towns. I therefore have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, as stated by the hon member for Actonville, no amendments were effected to this Bill by the members of the standing committee. In addition, it was a very brief discussion that ensued. I remember the hon member for Actonville asking me to keep his seat, but before he could go out of the door the meeting was over.

I welcome the measures contained in this Bill. They are of a positive nature and I am certain that they will contribute to meaningful progress and development in both these towns, that is Soshanguve and Lethlabile, for the reason that the people there now have an identity. They no longer have the fear hanging over their heads that at some stage, by the stroke of a pen, they will be incorporated into a neighbouring homeland—in this case Bophuthatswana. As I said, I believe this will allow the people residing in these two towns to identify with their surroundings. They will be able to contribute to the towns in which they live. Because of its inter-ethnic nature this decision is laudable and I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill, which will become the Excision of Released Areas Act, 1988, regularises the status of certain inter-ethnic towns, namely Soshanguve and Lethlabile on South African Development Trust land in the districts of Pretoria and Brits respectively. The Administrator of the Transvaal will plan and administer the towns in the interest and the welfare of the communities concerned.

I particularly welcome the entrenchment of property rights for these people and the fact that the services will remain intact. I think it is a very progressive step with regard to these towns who up to now were uncertain about their future. I am sure this Bill will now regularise matters and the communities will benefit from the new system. I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon members very much for their support. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon member for Actonville for speaking in Afrikaans during both debates. In so doing he also acknowledged my language in this House, where hon members generally are not proficient in Afrikaans, and I thank him very much for that.

They are still learning!

Well, that is a good thing. I think they have good teachers here, particularly with a chairman like the one we have here. [Interjections.]

†I would like to thank hon members for their support. I was relieved that the Transvalers readily came to the defence when Natal imperialism asserted itself on the opposite side of the House. [Interjections.] I would also like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the standing committee and its chairman, Mr André Fourie. The fact that this Bill was moved without much discussion is, in my opinion, proof of the good spirit that the chairman has built up in consultation between hon members, in finding consensus and in working together.

I should also like to thank hon members of this House who are on the standing committee for the role they played in this respect. My Director-General drew my attention to the fact that he visited Soshanguve yesterday and that it was an inspiring sight to see all the activity of housebuilding generated there by the private sector. He says that he would even compare this with the spectacular development of housebuilding in the south-eastern suburbs of Pretoria such as Garsfontein, Constantia Park and thereabout which is known of one of the most swiftly expanding areas of the PWV.

I am very pleased to be able to mention this because the shift in Government policy away from the provision of housing by the Government to putting the housing responsibility on the shoulders of the house owner has, I think, had one of the most healthy reform effects in the social and economic field. Nothing is more important for an orderly society than a person who already owns his own house, even although the person may still be in a long term process of actually becoming the financial controller, as it were, of that asset.

I should like to record here the gratitude of Parliament to the private sector for the role they are playing in promoting housing in the Black towns and townships of South Africa.

I only wish to add here that where there is a reluctance on the part of certain building societies to provide capital, on the security of land situated in towns in trust areas, I sincerely hope that they will reconsider their position and give the same support to house owners who want to build on sites in these areas, and for that matter in national states, as they are doing for other townships in the rest of South Africa. A dramatic growth in housing for our Black communities is a very valuable investment in the future of a stable South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.