Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, to reply to a very comprehensive debate in the limited time available today is really not going to be an easy task. Consequently I shall start at once.

Firstly, Mr Chairman, I want to say a few congratulatory words. In the first place it is a happy occasion, for those of us who have for many years been conducting debates on financial matters in this House, when a special distinction is conferred upon one of our number. This has in fact happened to the hon member for Yeoville in that the Order of Meritorious Service has been conferred upon him. Mention has been made of this. On behalf of my hon colleagues on this side of the House I should very much like to say that we associate ourselves whole-heartedly with this distinction conferred upon him. In this way we convey our concurrence with the appreciation, on the part of the authorities, for the contributions the hon member for Yeoville has been making for a very long time in certain spheres of life.

That he could certainly be very difficult on occasion was probably part of his mandate. We forgive him for that, however, because when the scales were consulted at the end of the day, the authorities were of the opinion that Mr Harry Schwarz, the hon member for Yeoville, had made a contribution worthy of this exceptionally high distinction. We associate ourselves with it, and also convey to him our sincerest congratulations.

Hear, hear!

All you can do now, Harry, is join the NP!

Koos will never receive such a distinction! [Interjections.]

A maiden speech was also made. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke made a maiden speech which testified to a very special skill which he possesses and which he conveyed in a very civilised manner in this House, even on the occasion of his first active participation. As fellow-parliamentarians we wish him everything of the best.

A number of members also subscribed to the oath while this debate was under discussion. It is a special occasion when, within a short period of time, a second brother from a family with a long history of political and public service subscribes to the oath. Consequently, as fellow-parliamentarians, we should also like to convey our congratulations to the hon member for Randfontein. May things go well with him here as a parliamentarian.

The re-entry into this House of the hon member Dr Geldenhuys also occurred during the period during which this debate was in progress. The hon member’s contributions in Hansard are adequate proof as to why his colleagues brought him back to this House. We wish him everything of the best on the road ahead. May his contributions always be of the quality we are accustomed to from him.

I should very much like to thank the hon members on both sides of the House who expressed kind words to the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance and myself, as well as to the officials and in particular, to the Director General. I want to thank them very much for what they said. It inspires us, and we are grateful for the way in which hon members sympathise with us during these very exceptional times and with this very difficult portfolio.

I also want to convey a special word of appreciation to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, the hon member for Vasco. As chairman he has special talents. It is the one standing committee in this parliamentary system which has proved indisputably that this system works. The hon member also leaves his own special personal imprint on this committee. I want to tell him that we appreciate it.

Perhaps I may also be permitted to convey a special word of thanks to the Director General for the guidance he gave to the task group on the Margo White Paper. He personally rounded off virtually the entire White Paper, and also wrote most of the White Paper himself. Dr Stals is a man of exceptional talents who, together with the singular talents already evident in that department, contributes to our formidable team of advisers and workers. I convey my very sincere thanks to all those who make up that task group.

In a lighter vein, arising from this debate, I want to thank the hon member for False Bay sincerely. He discovered a new tax—we are looking into its implementation—and that was the partition tax. If one analyses the arguments and listens to the figures hon members conjured up here—I briefly went into the figures myself and obtained advice on what the implications of the CP partition policy were—one realises that one would have to exploit an enormous new source of taxation to pay for it. I thank the hon member for his enterprising attitude in this connection. [Interjections.]

Today it is not going to be possible for me to refer to each hon member individually, but I particularly want to pay tribute to hon members for the truly excellent contributions made from this side of the House. Several speeches were made here which could be regarded with great pride by any South African. Those speeches have now been recorded in Hansard and consequently are to be found on the shelves of international libraries all over the globe.

Several very effective replies were given to Opposition arguments. I cannot mention by name all the hon members who made such speeches, because there is not enough time. Unfortunately I must add that while a few of these speeches were being made—some of them were really quite outstanding and it struck me again over the weekend, when I was looking at them and preparing my notes, that they were worth rereading—the hon members of the Official Opposition were not listening. In fact, at one stage it seemed to me as though there were some of the senior hon members who made it their job to ensure that some of the newcomers were distracted while these excellent speeches, based on the cold logic of the realities of South Africa were being made. They distracted the newcomers, as if fending off the message would ultimately ward off the realities of the situation. It is such a tragic phenomenon to sit here at close proximity and watch this happening. [Interjections.]

I thank the two Deputy Ministers who made excellent speeches and replied to many matters. [Interjections.]

This debate had very special characteristics. I think it will be possible, upon closer analysis, for this debate to be known as one in which, to a very great extent, a meaningful discussion was held on foreign trade and the enormous influence the balance of payments situation—particularly the current account—has on our potential economic growth. Hon members discussed the determination of priorities as a result of the country’s limited means and the implications this has had in various spheres.

In several respects this debate contributed to the broadening of perspectives on specific problems in South Africa, and one can safely say that many of the speeches in this debate on both sides of the House contributed in many respects to an increased knowledge of the economic and financial aspects of our country. For that any person having to react to such a debate can only express the greatest appreciation. Several new perspectives were presented here on per capita income and per capita expenditure. All these things also have a material effect on the quality of the political debates, and in the end that is what it is all about.

Over the weekend it was again clear, in an article which appeared in the Sunday Star and which I have here with me, how figures can be manipulated for strictly personal party-political objectives. I am referring to the article by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. It is significant, if one looks at the so-called financial analyses of the CP, to note that when it does not suit them they do not make use of the figures but of the percentages. If it suits them the other way round, however, they make use of percentages rather than figures.

Over the weekend the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tried to prove that the bulk of the Black people had ultimately gone to the national states after all. Surely it is not a matter of percentages. At the end of the day the issue is the number of people who remained. If the 10% who ultimately remained comprise a significant number of people, who want political rights and in the long run participation up to the highest level, and who inter alia need infrastructure, then surely the issue is not the actual figures. One cannot wipe the matter off the table by saying that one is referring to only 10% of the total population, according to one’s own view of the total population. [Interjections.] This is also an interesting phenomenon if one analyses this debate.

This debate also contributed to a discussion of a series of internal and external factors that have a material effect on our economy. These matters were discussed, not only as though they were a policy option, but as though they were the realities within which we must steer our economic craft. For that, those who support me and I express our sincere appreciation.

After a great deal of study over this weekend, in an effort to reply meaningfully in the limited time, I arrived at a conclusion which I now want to convey to hon members in a few words. I am really doing this in a responsible way. I am not doing so in order to score a political point. If one examines the CP’s economic approach to matters, one finds a long comparison with a series of “is equal to” signs. One then discovers that the effect of cyclical adjustments—it is a natural cycle in the economy because any economy has a cycle which runs like a sine curve, first above and then below the line—plus external factors and internal conditions, even including disasters, are equal and attributable to Government policy, to deliberate denial of advantages and privileges for Whites in favour of privileges and advantages for Blacks, and finally to wilful impoverishment of the Whites. This is, in reality, my analysis of the CP’s approach to the economy of South Africa during the past debate, as I experienced it.

In the political sphere everything that goes wrong in the country—whether a person is dismissed or whether he does not behave himself in a pool of water, in a swimming bath or on Durban beach, or whether it is the leader of a different population group in South Africa who says something—is attributed to the NP policy or is deemed to be the direct consequence of the deliberate implementation of NP policy. There is nothing that happens in our society any more that is not directly attributable to the so-called NP policy or the so-called failure to implement NP policy. Even the statements of leaders with whom talks are sometimes held are directly attributed to the NP. It is beyond one’s comprehension if one objectively analyses what is said and has to arrive at these conclusions.

To come back to figures—and this takes the cake—the CP obviously has no fear of using incorrect figures. They are not afraid at all of using completely untrue statements—in a moment I shall show hon members the front page of the Patriot again so that they can all see—because they accept that the people believe them and that the people are going to keep on believing them. Apparently they accept, too, that the people whom they would like to believe them, or whom they think will believe their statements, do not have the ability or the desire to verify those figures.

To me, as a person who is also involved in party information, it is enormously frustrating to think that people can keep on getting away with such gross untruths about figures and the interpretation of figures.

Do you still remember the CP pamphlet Aan die Kaak Gestel?

At some stage or another the voters of South Africa are going to come to the conclusion that the CP is insulting them or is deliberately misleading them. But these things will have to come to an end somewhere—at some time or another.

Finally I want to comment on the debate in general. For the sake of the record I want to repeat the very apt remarks of one or two hon members. Firstly I apologise to my hon colleagues in advance if I am unable to react specifically to them. I want to advocate that some of these extremely valuable comments, which could not be replied to in this way, be raised again at the appropriate Vote discussions.

I found two expressions very interesting. The hon member for Rosettenville, in her plea, laid down a very good guideline for consumer protection. She said: “Information inhibits exploitation”.

When my hon colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, comes forward with his legislation in connection with consumer matters, the hon member will see that this dictum she gave us is to be given substance.

Then the hon member Mr C P Hattingh of Natal, with reference to a critical view of Dr Worrall’s political style and how he opens his meetings, gave us a brilliant expression when he said that Dr Worrall should just remember that the voters are not going to be led to the gallows to the strains of Chariots of Fire! [Interjections.]

I should very much like to bring a few notes to the attention of hon members in connection with our general economic situation. In the Budget Speech on 16 March this year we pointed out the importance of maintaining a sound equilibrium between striving for the highest possible growth rate, on the one hand, and the awareness of certain restrictive factors on the other. In particular we referred to the balance of payments, the limited availability of capital funds and the inflation rate. Economic statistics, which have in the meantime become available, confirm the importance of retaining this sound equilibrium at the present stage of our economic upswing.

My blood runs cold when I present these things to the House, because it is not humanly possible to know in advance today, in the region in which one lives, what is going to happen in the economic sphere eight, nine or ten months hence so that one can take the right action now, because there is a delay in any economic action one takes. Consequently I am not announcing any campaigns, but I should like to point out the risks we are running at present.

Firstly it is well-known that the increase in the gross domestic product during the fourth quarter of last year reached an annual rate of almost 5%. At the same time total domestic spending increased at an annual rate of not less than 6,5%. Although the current account of the balance of payments still showed a large surplus during the fourth quarter, the import and export figures for the first two months of this year indicated that the surplus, as may be expected, had dwindled considerably. At the same time the exchange rate of the rand came under some pressure and the production price index increased during the last two months from 11,3% in December to 12,2% in February.

No one can deny that the high economic growth rate we achieved during the past few months is good for South Africa. This is, in fact, what we have made major sacrifices for during the past few years. It is also, to an important extent, a reflection of firstly, the success we have achieved in absorbing and counteracting all the unfavourable developments of the past few years and secondly, of the deliberate efforts, with monetary and fiscal policy, to encourage the economy into a revival. In the first place, therefore, we are very grateful for the success that has already been achieved.

It would be short-sighted, however, not to take the second part of the reservation we mentioned in the Budget Speech into account too, namely the restrictive factors in our economy. The exceptionally sharp increase in domestic spending must inevitably give rise to a sharp increase in our imports, which in turn must cause a decrease in the surplus on our balance of payments. At this stage it would suit South Africa better to grow at a somewhat slower pace now, so that we can carry on with the expansion phase for longer, and ultimately derive greater benefit for all from the growth phase. That is why we must look with a sharp eye at the nature and extent of the present expansion in the domestic spending.

The Government has already carried through an important adjustment in this connection by making provision in the Budget for an increase of only 12,6% in total nominal spending for this year. At the present rate of inflation this means, in reality, a decrease in real terms. Even if a limited amount is added for additional expenditure, Government spending ought not to increase appreciably during the coming year. This was done to leave as much room as possible for spending in the private sector.

At this stage, however, concern is being expressed in several circles at the extent of the increase in private sector spending. Consumer spending as well as the gross domestic fixed investment of the private sector and investment in inventories are at present increasing at reasonably high rates. Attention is drawn, in particular, to the large extent to which local bank credit is being used to finance the increase in consumer spending of the private sector. According to particulars released recently by the Reserve Bank, the total amount of outstanding bank credit during the 1987 calendar year increased by R12,6 billion, of which 97% went to the private sector, and only approximately 3% to the Government sector. During the fourth quarter of last year the bank credit to the private sector increased at an annual rate of more than 36%. This sharp increase in the private sector’s consumer spending followed after two years—1985 and 1986—in which consumer spending decreased. Up to now this has also made an important contribution to the present revival in general business conditions.

However, it is doubtful whether our economy will, without serious tension, be able to accommodate such a sharp increase for long, particularly if it is taken into consideration that the increased spending is, at this stage, being financed to an important extent by means of money-creating bank credit. It would have been different, for example, if it had been possible to finance the additional expenditure with an increase in export earnings, or if it could have gone hand in hand with an increase in the gold price. At the moment, however, not one of these two things is happening.

The Government is, in fact, taking cognizance of these trends in the economy and shares the concern that we cannot allow unaffordable trends to be taken too far before remedial measures are adopted. In our situation in the world we cannot afford to do too little too late. Consumers must therefore be careful not to commit themselves now to financial agreements to such an extent that they may subsequently have a hard time meeting their obligations.

In conclusion the best advice to everyone—individuals, families and authorities—remains to live within their means.

I come now to a few very urgent matters arising from the debate or directly connected with the Budget. Owing to a shortage of time I cannot even present the summaries to hon members, and I shall merely refer to them. We shall do so by way of media statements that have already been prepared.

In the first place I want to refer to the senior citizen deposit scheme. We introduced this savings mechanism for senior citizens last year, and against all expectations the amount we had wanted was exceeded by far. We had to put a stop to the scheme because it subsequently began to cause distortions on the financial markets. We took a very careful look at the situation; we held urgent talks with all the financial institutions, including the Post Office, which could be involved in this. With effect from 16 May a new senior citizen deposit for 12 months will be offered for persons who are 65 years and over. It will be dealt with fully by the private sector and the Post Office. The interest rate is 15%, and it will apply for a year. The interest rate may be changed during the year, but when it is changed, only new investments after that time will be affected. This scheme will not again be suspended soon; it will remain in force for at least three years. This means that there will be a fixed interest rate which will be higher than that for similar deposits in the private sector, and this will be subsidised by the authorities. This ought to give persons above the age of 65 years an opportunity to invest up to R30 000 under very specific conditions.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville and other hon members on both sides of the House, inter alia, made reference to the proposed minimum normal tax on companies. It is true to say that we cast the net rather widely in announcing this tax in the Budget Speech. Subsequently we received representations and there were in-depth discussions with all persons affected. I have in my hand a draft statement which will be released to the media and which addresses several technical issues, inter alia, the definition of a company, to which the hon member for Yeoville referred I think it is the (b) provision of the definition which we are dropping, and there are several technical adjustments which will be accounted for in the draft legislation which will be tabled in Parliament later this year.

There are several other issues with regard to companies in liquidation and relating to overseas ownership etc which will also be addressed. I do not intend to deal in great detail with the technical aspects of this issue. However, I do want to assure the hon member for Yeoville and the other hon members who contributed to this particular debate on this tax that we appreciate their contributions. We also appreciate the contribution of the private sector in this regard as well as the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Finance of whose comments we took note and which we will build into this tax because we do not want a tax system that will cause unnecessary hardships.

Several hon members also referred to the so-called uncertainty in the film industry. I have in my possession a comment which appeared in Cape Times, inter alia, which refers to certainty which has come about as far as that is concerned, following our discussions with the film industry and following a Press release which they requested on the occasion of those discussions.

Therefore, as far as that part of the issue is concerned, I do not think there is any reason for uncertainty with regard to film owners and the marketing allowance. Time permitting, I will refer later to the whole question of en commandite partnerships.

*The following matter is a difficult one, and I should, with great responsibility, like to bring it to the attention of hon members. It concerns the matter which was under discussion here and also in the Standing Committee on Finance and which requires our attention, namely the question of taxation on insurers. It came to my attention that an insurance company recently saw fit, in a circular to its policy-holders, to stir up feelings against the level and the effect on the South African economy of the tax proposal made in the Budget Speech in respect of insurers. At the same time it was indicated to policy-holders, by way of illustration—this is very important—how the unguaranteed portion of their investment, that is to say the bonus portion of their policies, would in the estimation of the company in question allegedly be “detrimentally” affected. Although one does not in any way begrudge any individual or enterprise the right to comment on a tax proposal, it must be pointed out that the unilateral presentation of any matter is in no way conducive to making a sound assessment of something which directly and indirectly affects not only policy-holders, but in fact all individuals and also all taxpayers. In this presentation by the company in question, the other side of the matter is omitted, namely that the tax proposal was made with reference to the clear finding of the Margo Commission that the insurance industry was not bearing a fair share of the tax burden and that this fact had given rise to distortions in both the supply as well as the application of investment funds. I have several pieces of evidence in my possession that were collected during the past few days. Enormous distortions are taking place. There is a concerted move into deposit-taking activities here, and we on our part have our work cut out to maintain an equilibrium between the various kinds of financial institutions.

What is also lacking in this circular to policy-holders is the perspective that, owing to the fact that the previous tax dispensation was not neutral at all and that this very important sector of the economy actually made a very modest contribution to the Exchequer, other sources of taxation, including direct tax on individuals and other companies, as well as the consumer in general by means of GST, had to bear a relatively heavier burden to help pay for the services the authorities of necessity had to provide. There was no neutrality here, and the Margo Commission made that finding and recommended to us the lines along which we should think in order to try to effect neutrality. By neutrality is meant that there should not be a particularly great advantage in a specific kind of investment over that of investments in other financial institutions. In the long term such a situation is not tenable because if such a large sector is not making its contribution, the tax burden is shifted on to the ordinary consumer by way of direct or indirect taxation. Such a situation is not tenable because these services that have to be rendered by the State are rendered in the interests of all South Africans and contribute to the creation and maintenance of a sound and safe milieu, without which no undertaking—particularly those insurers who ought to be concentrating on long-term considerations—would be able to do business profitably and with confidence in the long term.

I want to repeat what I told the insurance industry long ago, namely that it will not benefit the industry to incur long-term obligations and invest its funds in such a way that it does not make a proper contribution to ensuring that in the long term we have the kind of country and the kind of economy in which they will be able to discharge those obligations. The same principle also applied in respect of their fair tax contribution.

The industry as a whole, with a cash flow of billions of rands per annum, pays tax to the value of R200 million. The perspective that is lacking is that even the new proposals, in regard to which further negotiations are going to take place by means of the Advisory Committee on Taxation, still do not place the taxation of insurers on an equal footing with those of other companies. We have increased their tax by 75%, but they are still not paying the same tax as other companies.

For the sake of fairness, such letters to policy-holders ought perhaps to convey the perspective that the returns which are achieved, both positive and negative, are influenced by the company’s own investment decisions, and that the state of the business cycle, the profitability of undertakings taken over or initiated by them, the level of the stock exchange in general—for example it declined dramatically in 1987 and resulted in major losses for investors—as well as the level of interest rates, exchange rates and so on are what determine the final yield that can be achieved, also by way of bonuses. These are determined not only by the tax, but also by business decisions. It also depends on how they read the exchange rate and the business climate. Such transactions can result in profits, but also in great losses, and that also determines the position of those bonuses.

Although it is understood that unfortunately their own interest often comes first, I should like to make an appeal to all those involved, for the sake of the general national objectives, to co-operate in developing a sound economy which we are all striving for and without which we would not in future be able to make proper progress in any sphere. A fair and just tax system is a cornerstone of a sound economy.

It is our standpoint that if we simply put the Margo proposals into operation, with merely a specific proviso on capital losses in respect of Government stock, this industry would have to pay a far larger additional amount than the R200 million we are asking from them at this time. Many accusations were levelled at, and political capital made of the Government’s standpoint on the ANC and the involvement or otherwise of that organisation. I want to have a short paragraph placed on record, and I am quoting from a speech made by the hon the State President at a public meeting in Springs on 24 October 1985. I quote the hon the State president:

As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, this is the standpoint of the NP and the Government on the ANC. This is the final word on the ANC, spoken by no less person than the chief leader of the this party, the head of this Government and the head of this State.

No one would say that that is the final word.

But what does Albert say? That is the big question.

I say precisely the same.

Are you now agreeing again?

I think we must accept one thing in this House, and that is that those of us who are Christians, are Christians, and when we speak about what we are finally going to do here, we are speaking in the context of being, in general, people who are subject to God’s dispensation. Just as we have to accept one another’s bona fides, as hon members in this House, so we will have to do the same Above, in terms of our creed as Christians. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for Losberg, who made a casual remark, that it is implicit in every similar statement made by hon members on this side of the House—I except those who profess another belief—that he can read this into what he was not prepared to accept according to the cynical remark he has just made.

You are over-reacting now, Barend.

Koos, you would know precisely what you are talking about when you say that I am over-reacting. [Interjections.]

I want to associate myself with a few other matters. Great concern was expressed here about consumer matters. Several hon members on both sides of this House were perturbed to hear, over the radio and television, about indiscriminate price increases. The hon the State President adopted a standpoint for the sake of the longterm welfare and well-being of the South African economy. The hon the State President gave us a guideline and set us an example in respect of his personal political feelings as chief leader of the NP. He did so, not because he was looking at the next by-elections, but because he is a statesman and for that reason was looking to the next generation, and because there was a unique opportunity here to break through the cruel and destructive cycle of price and wage increases. In this respect he went out of his way to obtain co-operation. It was my great privilege to attend most of these negotiations and discussions held by the hon the State President. I want to say that his behaviour was that of a statesman, a statesman who pleaded with people and motivated them to co-operate. Nevertheless the proper appreciation or grasp of what needs to be done during these crisis years our economy is going through is obviously still lacking over a broad front.

That is why there is justifiable dismay in this House regarding these matters. I do not want to go into detail, but I want to associate myself very intimately with hon members who said that our consumers must be more price-conscious; that they must be more aggressive, in a constructive sense, as far as price increases are concerned; that they must decide to use inspired words such as: “We are not going to tolerate it any longer!”, and that they look around to see where they can get the best bargains, because this is the course the consumer has to adopt in a country which advocates free competition. We must warn the consumers to be on their guard against so-called loss-leaders; they must be careful of those few products which are offered for sale below cost in order to get the consumer into the shop so that he makes all his purchases there.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North had a good deal to say about this. The answer lies in the fact that the Government is now—it is in the process of doing so—using two existing bodies for this purpose, namely the Consumer Council and the Competition Board, but my hon colleague, the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, will have more to say about this in due course.

I want to reply very quickly to a few hon members who put specific questions to me. As far as the hon member for Caledon is concerned, I am in full agreement with his views on the question of excise duty on beer, but I just want to point out to him that if he is talking about a moderate excise policy, surely this also means that it must be in line with the Margo Commission’s finding that it must keep pace with the inflation rate, insofar as that is feasible. Coupled with that, however, is the fact that one cannot use the tax system to rectify specific structural problems in an industry such as the liquor industry.

The hon member for Wynberg raised a few matters. I shall refer them immediately to the Taxation Advisory Committee, including the issue of the wider brackets in income tax. This is a committee which is at present being established and will soon commence its activities.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance made an excellent speech, and in the process referred to certain of the ideals of the late Dr Verwoerd in regard to the movement of Black people, ideals which were never realised. He said that it had been economic realities that prevented that policy from succeeding on the scale envisaged by Dr Verwoerd. The hon the Deputy Minister will know what he is talking about because at the time he was an official very closely involved in these matters. The late Dr Verwoerd was prepared to spend astronomical amounts, if that was what had to be done to reverse the flow, and the same applies to this Government. I want to tell hon members that I have figures here which indicate the same pattern, and which I hope to be able to refer to in a moment. At the time, shortly after I was appointed to this position, I held talks with the present hon Minister of Administration and Privatisation and we almost doubled the allocation for decentralisation for that first year in which I dealt with a budget, namely 1985.

Since the 1985 Budget we have been maintaining an average of more than R500 million per annum in direct appropriation for decentralisation. We are being accused, by the CP, of withdrawing from this just when the policy was beginning to succeed. That is simply not true. It bears no relationship to the truth. By way of that direct appropriation, and by way of various indirect appropriations by means of the budgets of certain national states, as well as by means of independent states and with the help of investments via the Development Bank of Southern Africa, and in a whole series of other spheres, under the direction of the hon the State President, the entire question of decentralisation of economic development was accorded the highest priority. Besides, the figures we have at our disposal bear this out.

That is why I think it is true that when one takes cognizance of what is possible and feasible in regard to reversing the flow of Black urbanisation one arrives at one simple conclusion. To begin with, there is not enough money in South Africa to pay for the decentralisation plans and for reversing the flow of Black urbanisation, as the CP proclaims. There is not enough money to do so. The capital expenditure on that score would have to be approximately R10 billion per annum to succeed in relocating 5 000 people per day. And then we are not even talking about the costs of the infrastructure. When I considered these matters, it was clear to me what we were dealing with here. It is as though a person were trying to empty a bucket with a fork. He is never, in all eternity, going to succeed!

We did not make a calculation in regard to the infrastructure. The creation of job opportunities alone would cost the private and the Government sector almost R10 billion per year—and it would take between 12 and 15 years. Surely that is absurd, Sir! It is simply impossible to get something like that done.

The hon member for Carletonville made a very derogatory and spiteful remark about something the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance said. The hon the Deputy Minister merely stated an historic fact. The hon member for Carletonville need not have any doubts about the respect we on this side of the House have for the things which Dr Verwoerd stood for and which it was humanly possible for him to carry out. The hon member need have no doubt about that.

When we take note of what happened in the past so that we can make a better job of doing the things we are trying to do today with the insight, wisdom and abilities we now possess, and when we then identify aspects in respect of which one of our predecessors was not fully successful, and say so frankly, it does not mean that we are expressing contempt for that predecessor of ours. It merely means that we are going through a basic learning process; that we are also taking cognizance of what Paul Kruger tried to teach us, ie that we must take from the past what is good, and not what is bad. I think that remark which the hon member for Carletonville made was uncalled for. I think he would do well to refrain from making such statements in future.

†The hon member for Cape Town Gardens, the hon member for Durban North and the hon member for Pinetown made several references to Black education. All I can say is that we on this side of the House are proud of what has happened in Black education since it became a Government function. In the past nine years the budget increased elevenfold. Since 1953, when 8% of the population was involved in education, that percentage has increased to the current 26%. The hon member for Pinetown is a former teacher. He must certainly realise that there are certain physical constraints within the limits of which one must operate. One can manufacture bricks and build schools overnight. One can even borrow the money to build schools. One cannot, however, borrow or build qualified people overnight. We have a massive ongoing investment in Black education.

In fact, Sir, the figures the hon member for Pinetown quoted are wrong. The hon member said the growth in the budget was only 10,3%.

It is your figure!

It is our figure, yes. The fact is, however, that the budget for the Garankuwa hospital no longer falls within that budget. When one removes that particular factor the Black education budget increased by 18,89%, which is well in excess of the inflation rate, and which also reflects the dire need in that community. It also reflects the commitment of this side of the House to doing its utmost in order to get the people of this country educated to the highest possible level, because our salvation lies in the fact that people should understand what it is all about in terms of ideology, in terms of practical work and in terms of every sphere of life.

That is also, by the way, a vital point in our battle against the population explosion in this country. So that investment is a long-term investment and I would appreciate it if the hon member would adjust his figures because I am sure that it was an oversight on his part and not a wilful misconstruction of the facts.

*Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kempton Park, who apologised for not being present here, said that women in the higher income groups would in most cases pay more as a result of standard income tax. With all due respect, and in all kindness, I want to set the record straight, because it is not true. In her evaluation the hon member forgot that those women who fall outside the standard limit, namely those earning more than R20 000, still receive the 22,5% or R2 250 rebate, whichever amount is the greater. Consequently they still have something to gain.

†I should like to tell the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South that if we allow returns to be completed in the light of our proposed new system of standard income tax for employees, it will defeat the whole object. Therefore, there is a final deduction. If the hon member would like to continue a technical discussion on this matter, I will certainly make the necessary expertise available in order to discuss it with him. It will, however, defeat the object, and that is why it was designed in such a Way that there will be a benefit accruing to the married woman when she falls under SITE.

*I want to tell the hon member Mr Van Gend, who is also unable to be here this afternoon, that we are doing so much, on a subsidised basis, for housing that we would really not like to grant a tax benefit to those who want to invest in cheaper housing. We are doing this in other ways which are quantifiable.

†I should like to tell the hon member for Pinetown that I have several paragraphs of information regarding his questions concerning the commitment of the Budget to education. However, in summary I can tell him that our commitment remains but that it is always qualified by our ability from a physical point of view. There is no way that we can force the economy to grow beyond what is possible and, when the economy dips below the ability to provide a growth in the Budget figure of 4,1% real, there is nothing we can do about it and we shall just have to adjust our sights accordingly.

I want to go on record very carefully indeed in regard to the question of en commandite partnerships raised by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. I am not a legal man but I was shocked to discover the extent to which an en commandite partnership is abused for tax purposes. I want to quote certain comments to him in this regard and I want these comments to be in detail for the sake of the record. They are as follows:

I should like my hon colleagues on this side of the House to take careful note of these remarks. They are going to be asked a large number of questions in this regard because there will be a lot of pain felt in respect of certain risky investments once this loophole has been closed. The comment continues:

I would consequently like to ask the hon member why he feels that the position should be different in tax law or, put another way, why a person who commercially is not required to make good a loss for income tax purposes should be able to claim in that regard. That is precisely the problem, Sir. Commercially, he has no liability but, in terms of tax, all of a sudden that loss is written off. Now follows the important paragraph:

That is bona fide—

[Interjections.] If it is necessary to take retrospective measures in order to close tax loopholes, we will submit appropriate legislation to Parliament. There is no way that we can allow a person to have a tax protection larger than his risk, and that is exactly what is happening.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central criticised the size of the bureaucracy, as he called it.

*The hon member for Losberg spoke about a “monstrous bureaucracy”. I cannot help wondering, if they were able to realise their dreams of establishing more national states, in the implementation of how many “monstrous bureaucracies” he himself would not have to be involved, because it is an expensive mode of government; we know that, do we not.

†I want to come back to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. The figures he mentioned were correct according to the report, but I want to give him the breakdown. I want him to respond by telling us whether, in fact, he looked at the breakdown. Of the increase, 12 591 were nursing personnel. Is he against that?

No.

The number of labourers increased by 21 184. Is he against that? He must qualify his comments.

Give me an opportunity. I will reply fully to you.

I accept that. The service departments saw an increase of 10 886, inter alia, police. How many debates have we not had in this House during which hon members of all parties have asked for more police? The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is surely not against these increases and they account for 44 000 people.

Here comes the funny part. The number of so-called bureaucrats, the real pen-pushers, fell by no fewer than 1 879, so I think what the hon member said was not fair comment. I have extensive comments and replies here from the commission. I do not have time to give them to the hon member, but in all fairness he owes the officials of this country an apology.

Please let me have those replies.

I come now to the hon member for Losberg. [Interjections.] He discussed our foreign debt, and in the same chorus as the Cape Times and Business Day, reproached the hon the Deputy Minister for public debt having ostensibly soared during his term of office. He is an academic, and academics are supposed to associate in a responsible way with facts, but he did not use the latest Reserve Bank bulletin. [Interjections.] He used last year’s bulletin because it suited his purpose better. That bulletin ended at 1985, but the latest bulletin ends at 1986, and that is where the difference lies. The hon member compared 1980 and 1985, when short-term foreign debt of R6,1 billion—I am now quoting the hon member’s figures—increased to R43,3 billion. In 1986, however, the debt decreased to R35,8 billion. Why did the hon member not mention that as well?

The trend demonstrates it. [Interjections.]

I do not understand it. [Interjections.] The growth in total foreign debt between 1980 and 1985 was from R12,6 billion to R60,1 billion—again those are the figures the hon members mentioned in his speech—but in 1986 the debt decreased from R60 billion to R49,5 billion, and the hon member did not say that. He is now saying that he is interested only in trends, and I say I do not understand him, and then they make a strange observation. However, if the hon member wants to talk about trends, surely the trend is now a downward one; or what trend is the hon member discussing? [Interjections.]

I do not have the time to deal with this fully, but I have particulars here. I shall deal with the matter further in the discussion of that Vote. For the most part it is exchange rate changes which cause these fluctuations.

I said that!

If the hon member says that now, his case collapses. I have reams of graphs to support the truth, graphs which I will make available to the hon member. I have already made them available to Business Day. I do not know whether they Cape Times published them. The simple truth is that since the present hon State President took office, our debt in real terms has decreased in certain respects and in other respects has remained constant. I do not have the time to furnish the figures now, but I can given them to any hon member. It is simply not true that the debt has gotten out of hand, and even left-wing opposition newspapers had to concede this. I find it astounding that the hon member adopted that kind of approach.

I do not even want to mention the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis! I said on Friday that I had problems with this hon member’s arithmetic. Again his arithmetic was completely wrong. I have a table here and I will give him the correct figures. He alleged that taxes had increased. The simple truth is that a small percentage increase has occurred. This is simply as a result of the fact that if one moves from one tax bracket to another, one pays a marginally larger amount. This is how our tax system works, and everyone knows it. The point the hon member overlooked was that most people today, as a result of the adjustment of our rates, are paying less tax according to the new scales than they would have paid if they had paid according to last year’s scales. This is the point we try to bring home. It is absurd to allege that we increased taxation if a person pays more tax because he has moved upwards in the progressive tax scale. It is a natural characteristic of the scale.

In the Patriot the hon members stated that the Minister of Finance had announced tax increases. That is what is stated here in print. They allege that as a result the Whites are being impoverished. Here it is stated in crude rudimentary terms that we announced tax increases, and reference is made to income tax. It is not true. On Friday I furnished the hon member for Barberton with certain figures.

There is a second interpretation attached to his words as they stand in Hansard. I phoned him yesterday and asked him whether he meant more tax than last year, or more tax from the one combination of husband and wife than from the other combination. He then told me that he actually meant more tax between the two combinations.

I said that.

The other interpretation is that more tax is being paid. I told the hon member that I would put matters straight for the sake of the record.

If that hon member and his advisers still argue that tax has gone up—I asked him by way of an interjection whether he had forgotten that there were more new taxpayers—he must take cognizance of the fact that it is interesting that not all that many more Whites were new taxpayers. Many of the new entrants to the tax scale are members of other population groups. We have raised the tax threshold considerably. There would have been far more new entrants if we had not raised the threshold. If we had not raised the threshold, our elderly people would have got the short end of the stick and we would have had a problem. The fact of the matter is that we estimate the increase in the number of taxpayers on register this year at no less than 175 700, and 76 329 in regard to the new standard income tax—a total of more than a quarter million new income tax payers coming on to the records.

The hon member for Randburg made an inane remark with reference to the Budget speech. He said it was a sham and a bluff that tax was being lowered. Surely it is true that if people pay less tax this year, on the basis of the scales on which they find themselves this year, than they would have paid if last year’s scales had applied, they are paying less tax. Secondly, if the total amount of revenue from income tax increases by a specific percentage, surely it is not only as a result of people who are moving up to higher scales, but also because of new entrants. I would be pleased if hon members would bear that in mind in future.

†l think I have already responded to many of the things the hon member for Yeoville said. I want to say to him that as far as his points on growth, inflation, inadequate fixed investment and the separation of politics and industrial action by unions are concerned, I have no quarrel with him. In terms of his evaluation, I think all of us feel that we can offer no criticism, and all I can say is that I am happy that we are at last ad idem as far as many of his points are concerned. However, when it comes to politics, I think we must agree to differ. Certainly, as far as his point on inward industrialisation is concerned, I should like to say to him that I cannot but agree; however, there are certain constraints that we have in promoting it on a very rapid scale. As far as that is concerned, I think we can fruitfully continue the debate when it comes to our Vote.

I also wish to say that I agree with him that 3% is not enough. He put it rather crudely when he said that we are a prisoner of our balance of payments. Essentially he is right. We cannot allow this economy to grow fast if it grows in the traditional way, generating a lot of import pressure. In that way we cannot do it, but if it were possible, through a process of inward industrialisation where the expenditure was concentrated on goods we manufacture ourselves, then certainly that can be achieved.

That is one of the reasons why we went so far as to give R400 million as a kind of dowry to the Housing Trust. Housing serves a dual purpose. In the first place housing provides shelter; in the second place it represents a share in the free enterprise economy; and in the third place it is a basic commodity which generates an awful lot of other economic activity as well. As far as other methods are concerned, I should like to hear the hon member when we come to our Vote.

Lastly, he is right when he says we are sitting on a time-bomb as far as unemployment and our population growth figures are concerned. These two factors are intertwined. Again, the question there is: Which came first—the hen or the egg? I think we in this country will ultimately have to find co-operation with those population groups which grow faster. An investment in electricity, housing and in infrastructure is an investment not only in the well-being of the people, in the political, ideological and economic well-being of the country, but it is also an investment in stability.

I should like to tell the hon member that I shall respond to the other questions he raised with regard to public accounts at a later stage. I have the replies here, and there is nothing sinister about them, but it is a highly technical matter and I think we should reserve that for the debate on the Vote where we can be technical again.

I should like to say to the hon member for Sea Point that there has been a general downward adjustment all over the world as far as the growth rates of economies are concerned. They do not have apartheid or the checklist of political errors which the hon member sympathetically said to me was bedevilling my job and was not ascribable to our policy measures. What I want to say to him is this: Not all our economic woes are ascribable directly to internal political matters, as he seemed to suggest in the speech that he made. Otherwise, I should like to thank him for a positive remark or two which he made in his comments.

A number of hon colleagues talked about privatisation. I should like to say that I think the appropriate time to take that further is when my hon colleague who has this responsibility deals with his Vote.

*I come now to the end of the reply. I want to dwell for a moment on the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

The new hon member for Schweizer-Reneke made a very valid point about the necessity of a foreign information service. Not only did he argue the necessity of such a service, but also that it should fall outside the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not want to quarrel with him about that; it was his maiden speech. I will accept, however, that he stated his party’s policy as an expert in that sphere when he made out a good case for a very thorough foreign service.

There are several of my hon colleagues here—I can see two of them—who were part of the first mixed political team which ever left our country to hold discussions with politicians abroad. That was in 1976, and the late father of the hon member who spoke was the architect of that new initiative, which produced very good results for South Africa. Not only did it put us on first-name terms with people who are today members of West Germany’s executive authority, but it also gave us an opportunity to score very valuable points for South Africa at several international seminars—at the time and subsequently. It is interesting to note that we were the first political team. I think that was even before we had a mixed sports team.

Since that time, and since we came here—those of us who went through the good old days of the information era—can all testify that there was one question one kept on being asked, namely what the prospects for our country were. What were we going to do in connection with the Black franchise? I remember all those seminars we held, namely “The prospects for change” in Hamburg. That seminar always dealt with the inevitability of meaningful political rights for the Black people; meaningful not from our point of view, but meaningful from the point of view of the people involved.

In the meantime many things have happened. We have this system, with all its shortcomings, which nevertheless offers exciting possibilities. In spite of many attempts to cause it to fail, and many other growing pains which the system has had, we nevertheless made progress. During all the years I was involved in these information campaigns—and I am certain my hon colleagues also adopt my standpoint—the issue of Coloureds and Indians was never raised. The issue was only that of Black rights.

I now want to turn to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. If he were governing the country and had to introduce such an information service, what would he advise them to tell the outside world about what the prospects for this country are? I came to the conclusion that it would be better for him not to have any information service of any kind at all. [Interjections.] It is a complete waste of money! My personal standpoint—and I have conveyed this on occasion to my hon colleagues—is that every additional cent one spends today over and above the absolutely essential amount to keep opinion-formers informed, is not a very sound investment. The moment one launches an advertising campaign of whatever nature, or the moment one presents seminars, or whatever method one adopts, and one of the people involved over there picks up the telephone and speaks to a moderate Black leader here on this side and asks him what he thinks of this effort—whether he supports it, whether he was consulted or whether he sees any prospects in it—and the person on this side says that he was not consulted and that he did not even have an indirect say in the matter, it is money down the drain. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is sitting there muttering. I would be pleased if he would tell me straight out whether he disagrees with me.

I shall get my chance. [Interjections.]

Surely we sometimes have a convention … [Interjections.] No, we are not engaged in a cross-examination. Surely we sometimes have a convention that when a person disagrees radically with someone, one tells him that he is talking nonsense. Surely that is not unparliamentary.

I want to take the point further and just say …

A typical teacher!

No, I am not a teacher. [Interjections.] I should like to go further and ask what the prospects are under a CP government. [Interjections.] What would he say in respect of the political rights of Black people? According to the deputy leader of that party he gave the voters an undertaking that within 12 to 15 years such and such a percentage of the Black people would be back in the national states. People in the outside world are then going to ask him whether he thinks this is feasible. Thousands of breadwinners per day are going to be turned into enemies. One is irrevocably going to alienate 5 500 Black people every day, and one will not be able to reach a political settlement with them, because one is not going to succeed in relocating them voluntarily. [Interjections.] Where is the money to create 1 000 job opportunities per calendar day? That kind of money does not exist in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon Leader of the Official Opposition is sitting there laughing, but what he forgets, because it makes no difference to him and because it does not figure in his frame of reference, is that he also needs entrepreneurs to create those job opportunities. Where is he going to find the entrepreneurs? He does not need only money. He can still think that he can squeeze money out of the taxpayers, but he is not going to find entrepreneurs, [interjections.]

Today I held a conversation with one of our top-ranking officers who is involved in our decentralisation programme. What is his greatest single problem? His greatest single problem is not to find money, but to find entrepreneurs to create opportunities on the other side of the border, because that is what is needed.

Have you ever wondered why?

Then the people in the outside world are going to say: “Mr CP Minister of Information, tell me, if you do not succeed, what is going to become of the political rights of those people?” Then it is going to be said: “No, they are going to remain linked.” Surely some of the senior members of that party served together on that committee which investigated the matter and found that that linking policy was not working.

The hon the State President granted me the privilege of being a member of a small Cabinet committee which looked after constitutional affairs, and we held discussions with Black leaders for dozens of hours in the utmost confidence and secrecy. There is not a single Black leader who is going to lend himself to a discussion of a linkage policy. The dilemma in the end is going to be that after a few days one is going to discover that one is creating a revolution in trying to relocate 5 000 people per day. [Interjections.] It is like quicksilver—if one moves 5 000 people to a certain place, they are going to walk back. One will have to get half of the population to stop them at the border. The moment one realises that that is not going to work, one still has the dilemma of what must be done with the political rights of people who are born here and who, according to the hon member for Soutpansberg, must vote here if they were born here. [Interjections.] Where are they going to vote? [Interjections.] Are they can going to vote with a linked vote? I laugh along with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition!

That is what you were still advocating six years ago.

We did advocate it, but it is not the only thing we saw was not going to work! What leader was more powerful than Dr Verwoerd? What leader was, in his day, more powerful than Mr Vorster when it came to getting these things implemented? What leader is more powerful than our hon State President, with the mandate he received to implement that kind of policy if it was feasible? However, it may perhaps be politically feasible in the seclusion of one’s study, but the simple truth is that it is not economically feasible.

In the end one is going to be saddled with those people on this side, and if one is not going to give them the franchise on a basis which offers a solution to South Africa’s problems, one will not have any future prospects for this country. The simple truth is that just as inaccurate as the hon members of the CP have so far been with their tax figures, so afraid are they of the question of numbers. The Whites have never been in the majority in South Africa, and they have survived and flourished for more than 300 years because our solution does not lie in the politics of numbers, because the outcome of the politics of numbers is the politics of violence.

That is the truth of the matter and that is why the outcome of the numerical situation, which cannot be rectified by shunting people around, and which cannot be conjured away by White majority occupation and percentages, but ultimately has to be faced up to here, is that we must have a system which is not based on numbers. That system implies consensus politics. [Interjections.] I have the privilege of serving in the Cabinet of the hon the State President and of seeing how consensus politics works.

What does your consensus entail? One man, one vote?

I was present on several occasions in the Standing Committee on Finance and I saw how consensus politics works. However, it requires a quality of leadership which is not easily found. If I were a foreigner who had to invest money in this country, who had to trade with this country and who had to receive my money for commodities this country bought from me, I would know that there were no prospects if the policy of the hon members on the opposite side first had to be given a chance. It is a lie to say that we want to undo what has proved to be successful.

I am grateful to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for one thing and that is that in his speech he gave us an inventory of the untruths the CP is dinning into the heads of our voters. He implies that we on this side of the House do not see our people as members of a community and are endangering their future, their salaries and their job opportunities.

Hear, hear!

I hear the hon members saying “Hear, hear!”. Anyone who repeats that to any voter is telling a flagrant and terribly dangerous lie. These are the true facts. This inventory which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition gave us is precious information material, and I want to thank him formally for it. We are glad to know precisely what untruths they are dinning into the heads of our voters. Pavlov taught us one thing, and that is that the reaction is completely different when one succeeds in breaking down that conditioning. We on this side of the House will tirelessly make it our job to convey the truth about our own policy and about South Africa to our voters. [Interjections.]

I conclude by asking the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition today to consider, in all honesty, whether his view of the politics of numbers is not inevitably and irrevocably going to end in the politics of violence. If he wants to reduce the numbers, he will ultimately have to do so by violent means, because the economy of this country will not be able to bear the burden of the implementation of the policy of his party.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—103: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Du Plessis, B J; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, P A; Meyer, A T; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Olivier, P J S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smit, H A; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanche, J P I; Golden, S G A; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Thompson, A G.

NOES—37: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hardingham, R W; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Malan, W C; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van derMerwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the House has moved this motion in terms of Joint Rule 49, which, I assume, you will read in conjunction with Standing Order No 75 of the House of Assembly which entitle the hon the Leader of the House to move that a Vote be referred to an appropriation committee.

There is also a procedure set out in the Standing Orders in terms of which an appropriation committee can be appointed. That is set out in Standing Orders No 77, 78 and 79. Rule 77 reads as follows:

The most crucial Standing Orders are Nos 78 and 79, which also apply in this case. So No 78 reads as follows:

So, no appropriation committee other than a Committee of the whole House is appointed until such time as the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has met, has decided upon such a committee and has decided upon the names of its members. So No 79 states:

Now, Sir, I have the Minutes of Proceedings of the House before me. The Standing Rules and Orders Committee, in terms of Rule 78, has not met and neither do the names of the members constituting such an appropriation committee appear in these Minutes. In other words, an appropriation committee, in the sense in which the motion has now been moved by the hon the Leader of the House, has not been constituted at all.

So, Sir, we have a situation where we are unaware of the fact that a committee has been constituted because the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has not met on this subject, so I am informed by hon members on these benches. Therefore no appropriation committee has been appointed and no members have been nominated to serve on such a committee. There is also no record of such appointment or nomination in the Minutes or on the Order Paper. I believe, therefore, that it is quite incorrect for the hon the Leader of the House to move this motion, that the only alternative is to go into Committee of the whole House as we are assembled here and that we cannot split until the proper procedures have been given effect to.

Mr Chairman, I want to raise a further point of order, but before raising the point of order I firstly want to point out that the only way we may in any way deliberate on this is by means of a point of order, since Rule 49 clearly states that no debate may take place on such a motion.

With regard to the point of order raised by the hon member, I should like to point out that it is an established practice that when parties make nominations for such a committee and Mr Speaker approves such nominations they are recorded in the Minutes and that is then considered to be proper compliance with the provisions of Standing Order No 78.

It is the same procedure that is followed for constituting select committees, and therefore we are here dealing with a practice and its application in another way as far as Standing Order No 78 is concerned.

It is the standard practice, in the private sector and in many other places, that decisions of a council be taken also by means of indirect participation in those decisions. The proof of that lies therein that all parties in this House have in fact furnished the names of hon members who will serve on such a committee.

If the parties on the other side were not prepared to fall in with my motion before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had formally met, they should have refused to furnish the names, thereby participating in this process.

I therefore want to argue that all the provisions of the rules have been materially complied with, and that the motion may now be put to the vote.

Mr Chairman, may I address you further on this point of order?

Order! Before calling upon the hon member for Sandton to proceed, I wish to make quite certain that I understand the situation quite clearly. I must say that this comes as something as a surprise to me as I was not aware that this point of order would be raised.

As I understand the provisions of Standing Order No 78 to which the hon member for Sandton referred, it is subject to Standing Order No 77 which means that the House may decide otherwise on due notice having been given. In terms of Standing Order No 78 the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders shall determine the number of the members who shall serve on an appropriation committee. That seems to me to be half of the requirement. [Interjections.]

That is not quite correct, Mr Chairman.

Order! I shall be pleased if the hon member for Sandton will permit me to put my point of view.

In regard to the point I have just made, the hon the Leader of the House argues that the practice has always been that the Whips put forward the names and determine the number of members to serve on such a committee.

There is a second requirement and that is that such members should be appointed. In this regard I am not sure whether Mr Speaker has already appointed such members. Therefore, as I say, I think that there are two matters involved as I understand the situation. The first is that the numbers and names of such members must be indicated and secondly that they must be appointed. As I see it, those are the two germane matters.

The hon member for Sandton may now address the House further.

Mr Chairman, the words “Subject to Standing Order No. 77, …” in Standing Order No. 78 merely relate to the number of members who may constitute an appropriation committee. It is a committee that shall not consist of more than 30 members, with certain exclusions. That is all that is meant by the reference to Standing Order No. 77.

Secondly, the hon the Leader of the House said that the practice is that where there is negotiation and certain names are put forward, a situation other than that provided by the Standing Rules and Orders applies. However, the provisions of the Standing Orders are very clear. In this case the statement of the hon the Leader of the House is not correct because there was no consultation with hon members on these benches that the Committee of the whole House was going to split until the hon the Leader of the House himself stood up on Friday and made the relevant announcement. As I understand the situation, he did not consult the Whips but merely stood up and said that we were going to have these two appropriation committees. That was it. There was not a single solitary bit of consultation.

We were therefore forced to submit names and did so under protest, but we believed at all times that the rules of the House had to be complied with properly. In this particular case, the rules of the House clearly have not been complied with. The matter is not in the Minutes of Proceedings, the names have not been printed, and the Committee on Standing rules and Orders has not even met on this issue. This is clearly contrary to the rules and, in fact, an appropriation committee has not been constituted at all in terms of the rules of this House. So the hon the Leader of the House is trying to split the House into committees which are not legally constituted at all. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on this point of order, I wish to deal with the argument of the hon the Leader of the House that one does certain things in terms of a particular practice. With respect, Sir, I suggest that both you and the hon the Leader of the House know that a practice cannot overrule the express wording of a law or a rule. That point would therefore not apply even if the hon the Leader of the House were correct.

The submission of the names merely means that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has something with which to deal. There is nothing in the rules which indicates that Mr Speaker has that authority; only the committee has it. My main submission, however, is that no practice can overrule an express law or rule. That is not a legally tenable argument.

Mr Chairman, on this point of order: Firstly I want to point out that Standing Order No 79 is not prescriptive as to when the names have to be published in the Minutes. Once again it will, according to practice, be before the hon members in the Minutes of today’s proceedings which appear tomorrow. There is no prescription that they have to appear in the Minutes before such an appropriation committee can convene.

On a further point of order: My argument in respect of Standing Order No 78 is that on various occasions over a long period of time such committees have been constituted for the discussion of Votes in exactly the way in which I am doing now. It was done repeatedly during previous sessions. [Interjections.] Furthermore, notice has been given of this on Friday. It is true that no proper consultation took place as a result of a particular set of circumstances, in the same way that no consultation took place with us concerning the fact that the hon member wanted to raise a point of order. That simply happens in parliamentary debates.

Tit for tat!

No, there was no ulterior motive of circumventing the opposition parties. In fact it all happened very quickly. I did not even have a written note in front of me when I made that announcement. It was arranged in a very rapid consultation between the hon Chief Whip of Parliament and myself. [Interjections.] No; it was for the sake of giving hon members timeous notice so that they could organise their speakers. [Interjections.] They presented names and in that way indicated that they were going to participate in it, that they were going to co-operate and that they were satisfied with the committee being constituted in that way. [Interjections.]

I want to argue very strongly that it is not out of order and that it is taking place in accordance with Standing Order No 78, because the Standing Orders do not indicate anywhere—since this practice was introduced, such committees have been constituted on numerous occasions—that that be done in some other way. Therefore I want to request that we get hon members’ co-operation but I also want to argue that there is no reason why this motion should be declared out of order. However, if you so rule, Sir, Joint Rule 49 provides that no debate will take place on this, but that we shall proceed directly to a vote.

There is no vote …

That will happen if a division is called for.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: I have two observations in respect of what the hon the Leader of the House has just said. The division into appropriation committees has never occurred in terms of the new Constitution. In other words, it is not permissible to rely on a practice which existed while the previous Constitution was in force.

The second thing is that it states very clearly that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders shall appoint these persons. The names which were presented by the representatives of the various parties are intended for consideration by the standing committee. Surely that is what it means. Nothing of that nature happened, and consequently I agree with the hon member for Sandton that his point is in fact correct.

Order! If there is nothing further to say, it seems to me as if the Chairman must now say something. I should like to point out that there is no agreement that it is the practice that the Whips may only decide on the number of members. The Standing Rules and Orders prescribe that the committee shall consist of no more than 30 members and that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders must determine the number of members. I can understand that the Whips could dispose of the whole matter by way of an agreement if there were no objections. If there is an objection, however, it seems to me that I must apply the Rules as specified. As I understand it, the hon members have not yet been appointed—in any event there is nothing in front of me which indicates that the members have been proposed. The Rule is not always all that clear, and I think it is possible that one can accept that that was the case in practice. Under the circumstances it is also my duty as Chairman of the House to protect the interests of minority groups and if any minority groups object to this I find that the point of order taken by the hon member for Sandton is valid. That, however, only relates to the committee that has to sit elsewhere; this committee may proceed as usual.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Surely the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders cannot have more rights than this House. This motion as it stands, can be agreed to because I am moving that a specific Vote be referred to an appropriation committee. That is the only motion now before this House. The point of order that has been made and on which you have now given your ruling, would then mean that that committee cannot convene before it has been constituted as prescribed in Standing Order No 77. The approval of this motion does not, however, depend upon the ruling that you have just given. Mr Chairman, with all due respect, all I am now moving in terms of Rule 49 is that Vote 26—National Health and Population Development—as specified, be referred to an appropriation committee. There is therefore no basis for this House not being able to take a decision on that motion now.

Rule 49 states that a Bill shall be referred to a committee after the Second Reading of a money Bill has been agreed to in each House—the word “each” is emphasised. If one, however, considers Rule 54, one sees that it states that the committee may consider a money Bill after it has been read a second time. Perhaps the hon the Leader of the House could address me on this point.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, Rule 54 states that the Committee Stage, if it is being considered in Committee of the whole House, be dealt with forthwith after a money Bill has been read for the second time. However, we are dealing here with Rule 49 (1) (b) and not 49 (1) (a). Rule 49 (1) (a) provides that an Appropriation Bill (State Revenue Account) shall be referred in its entirety to the Committee of the Whole House or the appropriate appropriation committee or appropriation committees of each House, if any. The introduction says that the Bill must, in the case of a money Bill, be referred to the Committee of the Whole House after the Second Reading of such a money Bill has been agreed to in each House.

In my opinion one could argue in this specific House that the Second Reading has now been agreed to and that therefore we can now proceed to the consideration of the Bill in the committee stage.

Order! Just a moment. I just want to get some clarity for myself on this. I shall give the hon member for Yeoville an opportunity to speak.

As I understand the rule prima facie, Rule 49 (1) states—

That means, as I understand it, that it has to be agreed to in all three Houses—

If I may, let me explain it thus: After the Bills have been agreed to by all three Houses, proceedings “must” occur as set out in part (b) of the rule. In those circumstances it is not in any way possible for the hon the Leader of the House to give notice of it. If, however, it has not been agreed to by all three Houses, the question that now arises is whether he must not give proper notice of such a motion, in accordance with the rules? The hon member for Yeoville may proceed.

Mr Chairman, there are two points which arise. The first concerns the wording of Rule 49(1). In terms of that Rule there is a choice in that the Bill or a Vote goes either to the Committee of the whole House of each House, or to the relevant appropriation committee or other committee of each House. The difficulty the hon the leader of the House has, is that he is moving a motion that a Vote be referred to a committee which does not exist. He can move—and correctly so—that we go into Committee of the whole House, because we exist. There is no question about it. We do not need the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders to constitute us. However, his difficulty concerning his motion is that he is saying to you, Sir, that he is moving that a Vote should referred to an appropriation committee, but we all know that the appropriation committee has not been constituted, and therefore it is being referred to a non-existent committee. That is impossible. Therefore, in those circumstances, his options are limited. He can move that we go into Committee of the whole House, because we exist, but we, and you, cannot accept a motion that a Vote be referred to a committee which does not exist. That is not possible.

Order! Would the hon member for Yeoville say his argument is supported by the words in brackets in Rule 49 (1)(b) (ii)?

Yes, because there is no such a committee. If there is not one, nothing can be referred to it.

Order! Then, if I understand the hon member’s argument correctly, especially in view of the words in brackets in that particular rule, the Vote can only be referred to a committee if it exists?

There must be such a committee in existence.

Mr Chairman, I abide by your first ruling.

The motion I am moving is that the Vote be referred to an appropriation committee. If the House accepts that motion then, according to your ruling, that appropriation committee must be constituted in a specific way. With all due respect, I want to argue that this House is not excluded from the capacity of taking such a decision because a formal resolution has not yet been adopted by the committee, as the hon members wanted, contrary to former usage and what you ruled to be their claim in being so technical and wasting the country’s money … [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The hon the leader of the House said that there could be no debate on this, but he is taking the point of order and debating it. If he is debating it, he is going against the rules. That is why I have to intervene now.

Order! The hon Leader of the House may proceed.

This House is empowered to decide to take something to an appropriation committee in a month’s time. This House is empowered to take any decision concerning where it wants a specific discussion held. That is why I argue that the motion is in order, and that its implementation, according to your ruling, according to the provisions of Standing Orders No 77, 78 and what follows, will have to take place.

Order! Perhaps the hon the Leader of the House could help me. Once again I want to concede to the hon the Leader of the House that the House can take any decision it wants to, on condition that proper notice is given and that the notice appear on the Order Paper. [Interjections.] Very well, there are certain things which can also be submitted without notice. That I also concede. Let us read what Rule 49(1)(b) says. That is my problem:

“If any”. I now have the problem that I am not aware of the existence of anything of that nature.

Mr Chairman, at this stage I want to request the hon the Leader of the House to withdraw his motion so that we may proceed in committee of the whole House …

Are you also against him now?

… with the Transport Vote. I am doing this because on Friday afternoon the opposition parties were fully informed of the intention. They knew that the secretariat had been provided with the names. The PFP were the ones who foresaw it only this morning. This entire debate is an attempt to obstruct the business of this House … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It has been said, and correctly so, that there is no debate allowed on this. The hon Chief Whip is entitled to take a point of order, but he is now making a political speech. If he makes these allegations then hon members on this side of the House will have to have an opportunity to reply to them. I ask you to rule, Sir, that he is entirely out of order and that he should resume his seat.

Order! The hon the Chief Whip may address me on a point of order.

Mr Chairman, by way of a point of order I request that the hon the Leader of the House withdraw his motion because there is an obvious attempt at obstruction …

Order! The hon member for Yeoville’s point of order is a valid one. I cannot allow the hon the Chief Whip to make a speech.

Mr Chairman, I shall not elaborate on this any further, except to give hon members the assurance that the prescribed procedure will henceforth be followed and that all committees will fall under appropriation committees. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member is not heeding your ruling.

Order! No, I am listening to the hon the Chief Whip very carefully. [Interjections.] Order! The hon the Chief Whip is addressing me, in effect, on a point of personal explanation.

Mr Chairman, with leave of the House, I withdraw the motion. I now give notice that the two Votes which we would have discussed simultaneously will be dealt with in succession and that we shall therefore also be sitting this evening. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The order in which the items appear on the Order Paper, is a matter which rests with the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. The first order of the day appearing on the Order Paper, is the Appropriation Bill which we have just finished. The following order of the day is the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill. [Interjections.] Just give me a chance to make my point. On Friday the hon the Leader of the House announced that today he would move that there would be certain hours of sitting on Wednesday. He proceeded and said:

Probably—

Order! No, the hon member may not make a speech.

Sir, it is merely an announcement.

Order! What is the point of order?

It is not a notice of motion that the House go into committee after …

Order! No, there is a rule that says that the House may go into committee immediately without any motion.

Mr Chairman, I am aware of that rule. However, I also know about the rule that says that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is entitled to compile the Order Paper. We are now moving away from the Order Paper. That is quite another matter. We should adhere to the Order Paper, unless the House decides otherwise. If there is going to be a motion that the Order Paper is going to be deviated from, then we want to have the opportunity to address you on that.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! No, the Chief Whip must wait. The hon member for Yeoville raised a point of order first.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If in fact the hon the Leader of the House wants to do what he wants to do, then we have to actually vote on it because we should then be debating the first Vote in Committee, which is “Parliament”, and then we should deal with the Votes in the order in which they appear in the estimates. That order can only be changed under defined circumstances and it does not lie within the power of the hon the Leader of the House to decide now that he is going to change the order of what should take place. That requires a decision of this House and so his threat, which I think he has made out of pique, is a hollow one. Therefore we should debate the Vote of “Parliament” now if he wants to do that. Otherwise we can deal with the Vote of “Transport”.

Order! No, I do not think that is the situation. However, allow me to take this matter under advice for half a minute.

’Order! I have considered the matter and have looked at the Rule as I understand it. I have made mistakes in my life before and a few times I have also been right, but be that as it may, I now ask the hon the Leader of the House when he wants the Committee Stage to take place.

Motion, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1:

Mr Chairman … [Interjections.]

Order! That debate is over. The hon member may proceed.

What has happened during the past few days in this House, also has a very definite effect on all the Votes being discussed at this stage of the debate. [Interjections.] An attempt has been made here …

Order! The Committee must first settle down. Hon members who want to leave the Committee must do so now so that there can be order. The hon member may proceed.

I maintain that these events also have an effect on the Budget as such in respect of the various departments, because this attests to a specific form of government and a specific approach to matters which are as important as the Transport Vote inter alia.

I want to point out that the purpose of this entire procedure was to get the programme more or less back on schedule, in order to maintain a certain deadline so that we could discuss the Vote of the hon the State President later on this week. This entire dilemma of the Government was caused by the foolishness of the NP, namely power-sharing. Last week we were supposed to have started a debate on the amending of the Constitution Act and the new Rules of Parliament, in the respective Houses …

What has that got to do with the debates?

The hon member will see, because I am coming to that.

These amendments and new rules are being introduced by the NP to establish joint debates of the three Houses of Parliament. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices.

The debate was supposed to have started last Friday and lasted until Tuesday. On Friday the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives was nowhere near Parliament and according to newspaper reports this was the reason why the House of Representatives did not sit. As a result the co-ordination of debates in the respective Houses miscarried.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: What the hon member is discussing now has nothing to do with the debate on the Transport Vote.

Order! The hon member may proceed, but I would appreciate it if he would confine himself to the Vote under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I shall indicate the relevance, but I merely want to say at this stage that the hon members of the governing party know that they have been hurt, because they saw that they were getting the short end of the stick and were not getting what they wanted. However, I need time to develop my argument and I hope that they will afford me the opportunity to do so, as I shall do for them when they are speaking. [Interjections.]

Owing to the behaviour of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives there is now a lack of co-ordination in the debates of the Houses. We are now scurrying around in this House in order to extricate ourselves from this dilemma and get the programme more or less back on schedule. Once again it is the NP which is bending the knee to the House of Representatives. Only last Friday the hon the Leader of the House informed us that today …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member has not got anywhere near the Vote under discussion yet.

Order! In all fairness to the hon member for Roodepoort: He has not really had much of a chance to do so.

We only heard last Friday morning that we would probably—not definitely—debate the Transport Vote today. It seems to me that the hon members on that side no longer have any respect for preparation and a proper debate. They change the programme as they like in the knowledge that many of them can sit back and take it easy and rely on the prior preparation of some of their hon members which is a fairly on-going process. It does not work that way in the opposition parties. Here virtually all of us participate in almost all the debates.

Order! The hon member should now start discussing the Vote under consideration.

He has made his point.

Because we have now eventually decided that we will continue with the debate on the Transport Vote—this involves an R800 million budget and is therefore very important—I want to discuss certain points in the time at my disposal. I am doing so against the background of the fact that we unfortunately had insufficient time to prepare as we would have liked to have done. I am saying right at the start of the debate that there are very important matters we would have liked to have discussed in far greater depth.

I feel it is a great pity that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs did not create a special opportunity to have an in-depth debate in this House on the matters dealt with in the White Paper on the National Transport Policy. The hon member for Soutpansberg and I asked last year already that such an opportunity should be created, and the hon the Minister indicated that we could most probably do so in this debate. It is actually ironic that we are now being hurried on by his party and are not even being given more than a weekend to prepare for the discussion of this extremely important Vote.

At this stage I am therefore making another appeal to the hon the Minister to create a special opportunity during the course of the business of this session—perhaps by way of a private member’s motion—for us to discuss fully the matters in the White Paper. It is absolutely essential for us to ascertain precisely what the Government’s motivation, view and advance planning are in respect of the matters raised in the White Paper.

The necessity for this is underlined by an item under the heading “Desegregation of Public Transport Services” on page 36 of the 1986-87 report of the Department of Transport, or rather the National Transport Commission. I am quoting:

A large number of technical matters are mentioned in the White Paper, but we do not have an indication anywhere that it is the policy of the Government to desegregate public transport.

This is one of the aspects we would like to raise, and I am going to raise it now and ask the hon the Minister at this early stage to take this Committee into his confidence and let us know whether it is NP policy to desegregate public transport, as the annual report of the National Transport Commission indicates. We should like to hear what the hon the Minister has to say about this.

It therefore appears that desegregation, or racial integration, of public transport is also a fixed project of the Department of Transport, or the National Transport Commission. Now I am asking since when this has been the policy. Why was this not spelt out prior to last year’s general election? Why has it been announced in this way so that we have to look for it in a report …

They were afraid!

… or is this yet another of those fatal aspects of NP policy which the NP is hiding from the White voters?

The CP strongly rejects the desegregation of public transport, and when it comes into power, it will single-mindedly segregate public transport again.

I want to go further. In the Argus of 13 April and The Star of 14 April it was reported that a middle-aged White woman was shot dead in Rosebank, Johannesburg, last week during a wild shoot-out at a taxi-rank in that suburb. Another person was stabbed to death during the same spate of violence. According to the report in The Star the Government’s handling of the Black taxi industry is held responsible for this violence, and I should like to quote from the report:

The report carries on in this vein.

Sir, another aspect I should like to raise is the entire matter of the toll roads which are also NP policy now. I would very much have liked to elaborate on this, but because I see that my time is running out I want in conclusion to ask the hon the Minister to spell out to us all the Government’s intentions. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on after the hon member for Roodepoort. He will pardon me if I do not react to his speech, but I want to refer to a number of other matters. In the 600 seconds available to me I shall therefore leave him, with his problems, at that.

I want to use this opportunity first of all to congratulate the new Director-General, Mr Ronnie Meyer, who is dealing with his first budget here and I also want to wish him everything of the best on the road ahead in the Department of Transport.

I should like to return to the theme of my speech and dwell for a while on an aspect that I think is receiving a fair amount of attention at the moment. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to tell us what his standpoint is on the lighting of a road such as the Ben Schoeman Highway. At the moment we are all aware that the Ben Schoeman Highway is being rebuilt at great cost and that at this stage, when completed, it will be a very good highway with its three lanes in each direction. Whilst there is a great deal of disruption and whilst this road system is being worked on I should nonetheless like to ask the hon the Minister, as I have said, just to make plain to us what the possibilities of doing this are, and what his standpoint is in this connection.

Due to a lack of time I only want to deal briefly with the lighting of a freeway of that nature. It nonetheless has certain substantial benefits with regard to the better utilisation of the road in question, the maintenance of higher safety standards and so forth. Of course, as we all know, that road runs through an area with a particular traffic density. Whereas at the moment approximately 50 000 vehicles are using that road daily, we can expect that, according to the trends and statistics of growth, close on 100 000 vehicles per day will be using that road within the next seven or eight years. On the basis of that I should like to ask the hon the Minister what his standpoint is in this connection.

I shall leave it at that for a moment. I trust that a road of the size and importance of the Ben Schoeman Highway will compel the hon the Minister to inform us about the details with regard to what is being envisaged in this connection. Nevertheless I cannot drop the subject of the Ben Schoeman Highway without asking the hon the Minister another question about it.

We are in the process of developing toll roads elsewhere. We have contracted out certain roads as toll roads subject to certain conditions. Immediately this highway, which carries such a large number of vehicles every day, is drawn into the debate and that is when conflicting reports are received, particularly from the ignorant who begin to speculate. It has even been said that this road is going to be privatised. The one half says that it is going to become a private toll road. The other half says it is going to become a Government-owned toll road. This is a matter which is arousing a fair amount of emotion at the moment. I think it is therefore a good opportunity today to remove the uncertainty surrounding this matter once and for all. I should therefore like to hear from the hon the Minister what the future of the Ben Schoeman Highway is going to be.

Whilst I am discussing the roads in the Transvaal there is a final aspect that I should like to raise. I should like to know what the development plans with regard to the other roads in the Transvaal are going to be in future. In particular I should like to know what the possibility is of improving the road we know as the Kranskop Toll Road and extending it further to the north.

With the economic development that is taking place particularly in the North Eastern Transvaal there is a particular need with regard to this. During the recent Easter period we noted that this road functioned very well up to the end of the toll road. Further on there were unfortunately problems once again, particularly with regard to the overutilisation of the capacity of the road system. I should therefore like to know what the hon the Minister and the department’s long-term view is with regard to the improvement of that road. Is it going to become a toll road? Is this road going to be privatised? What are the future plans with regard to this road?

Furthermore I should like to return to another very important aspect that we touched on in the previous debate on the SATS. In the hon the Minister Budget speech he referred to the privatisation of the SA Airways. The hon the Minister also indicated in his Budget speech that it is very important that we first examine deregulation as an alternative. I support the hon the Minister on that. We should first of all deregulate so that we can create competition before privatisation is considered at all. Since deregulation will take place in the Department of Transport, I should like to deal with this subject here. In particular I also want to refer—I unfortunately do not have time to dwell on it—to the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation and in particular to chapter 5. Paragraph 8.3.3, on page 13, reads as follows:

It continues:

I agree with that standpoint. I think it is a very important one. As to that, I should like to express a few ideas for the benefit of the hon the Minister with regard to the deregulation of the South African internal scheduled air transport services.

I think we have reached a stage at which the Margo Report has become obsolete. We can really put the Margo Report into storage now. The White Paper on the Margo Report represents a bygone era. The speech of the hon the State President at the opening of this year’s Parliamentary session and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs’ Budget speech has made the Margo Report obsolete.

This brings us to the Department of Transport which has to carry out the work pertaining to deregulation. They are the people responsible for deregulation.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister in anticipation for the information he will once again give us. I also want to thank him because we know he has appointed a project team to go into this aspect in detail. It was not long ago since the hon the Minister announced this in my home town, but it did not receive the necessary attention, and I should like to ask the hon the Minister, if there is time, also to give the Committee further information and an explanation on that aspect particularly as far as the creation of competition on existing established internal routes is concerned.

Here we should be very careful. I know the SAA is experiencing many problems because when they are not taking off with open fuel tanks, there are flights for which there are no aircraft, but we should be very careful when necessity forces us to look at competition, deregulation and the choice of the consumer in this case. I should therefore like to hear how the hon the Minister views the road ahead in regard to this matter.

We should be sensitive, particularly when it comes to the existing airlines as well as the airlines that will have to develop alongside the SAA in future. Every decision that is taken on this—I want to issue a warning in this connection at the outset—will have to be an extremely carefully considered decision, because established interests cannot simply be ploughed under for the sake of something else. We have something, and we have to protect it. In the protection that is given to the SAA, we should at the same time allow scope for an additional airline to develop as well. It is clear that an alternative airline could also begin competing internally to great advantage, and certainly in a viable way and in the interests of the travelling public.

In the first place I think of it as being a comparative service. It is therefore a case of what applies to A, also applying to B and C. One should not be favoured above the other. Furthermore, I think that when routes and equipment are discussed, special attention will have to be given to equality.

I also want to state that the people who make a study of this subject and who are going to participate in it, should also bear in mind that there are risks involved here, risks for all parties who participate in it. We should know about those risks. I do not want to go into these risks in detail because I do not think there is time available for that, but I just want to highlight the concept “risks to which everyone will be subject” so that the necessary attention will be paid to the matter in its wider concept.

Everyone who participates in it should have the opportunity to extend themselves and to grow. Those who cannot run those risks, regardless of who they are, should—this is in the normal course of a free economy—go under. That is the tragedy of it. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Primrose will pardon me if I do not follow on his speech. I just want to say that it was not his fault that his speech on this occasion was somewhat shorter than his speech in this debate normally is, and I regret that because I like to hear him speak.

In the first place, Sir, I should like to congratulate the new Director-General of the Department of Transport whose first budget debate I believe this is. I should like to welcome him and also thank his staff for the work they put in last year. Mr Chairman, may I somewhat belatedly ask for the privilege of the first half-hour?

I believe that the most important subject for debate under this Vote is the subject that was raised by the hon member for Primrose, namely deregulation as a result of the National Transport Policy Study and the White Paper thereon. Now, however, we have a Bill on the Order Paper dealing with deregulation, and we will therefore have the opportunity to debate the whole question of deregulation during the passage of that Bill, so I do not intend taking that matter any further in the debate at this stage.

What concerns me is that the Department of Transport is responsible for the control of civil aviation in South Africa, and it is therefore responsible for safety in the air. This is therefore the right place to discuss the appalling loss of life on South African aeroplanes in the past six months. There have been three major accidents.

It is my view that the public relations handling of the tragic loss of many lives on the Helderberg was a mini-disaster area in itself. The immediate reaction of this Government is predictable in any such situation, and can be adequately summed up in the words “cover up”. The facts surrounding the fire and the final moments of the Helderberg were allowed to trickle out, and in the process they were exaggerated and distorted. There should have been prompt and full statements on all the incontrovertible facts surrounding the loss of the Helderberg, but instead we were treated to endless statements by hon Ministers and lengthy coverage of their departure for Mauritius.

It has now emerged that before the Helderberg crash took place, the Boeing company issued a service bulletin relating to the possibility of defects that could lead to fires in the cargo hold. This was most significant in view of the fact that there was apparently a fire in the hold of the Helderberg. The response of SAA’s official spokesman to questions from the Press about this bulletin was that they had not received that service bulletin because SAA did not have any of the affected jumbo jets. This proved to be untrue, and five of SAA’s jumbos including the Helderberg were directly affected. Another spokesman then corrected the first statement and said that the directive had been received and that all the aeroplanes had been checked. Whom do we believe?

The latter spokesman also said that last week’s return to Jan Smuts Airport of a Boeing 737 with a major fuel leak was an indication of the high safety standards of SAA. I think the opposite. The leak was apparently caused by a seal which had perished. Why was this defective seal not spotted when the aircraft was inspected, and why was it not seen during refuelling, as it must surely have been visible? Perishing does not happen suddenly; it is a lengthy process, and could surely have been spotted before it resulted in the midair leak.

We then had the mid-air explosion of the Bandeiranate aircraft en route from Phalaborwa to Johannesburg. Apparently this was caused by a bomb smuggled on board at Phalaborwa. This has caused concern in respect of safety procedures at that airport.

Order! I gain the impression that the hon member is discussing matters which actually pertain to the SATS.

No, Sir. I have just referred to the Bandeiranate aircraft that was flying from Phalaborwa to Jan Smuts, and finally I would like to mention the recent Dakota crash. I am therefore dealing with safety in the air.

What else do we know that could be relevant to air safety? We know that SAA’s pilots have been most unhappy at the way they have been treated. Secondly, I must disclose that I was asked by the engineering association of SAA to try to arrange a meeting with the hon the Minister, as their attempts over a considerable period to arrange such a meeting had been unsuccessful. They were also unhappy with their conditions of service.

Then, of course, there are unhappy air traffic controllers, and this has resulted in a shortage of staff in an area vital to air safety. The most recent figures I have, which relate to 24 February this year, indicate that there is a total shortage of 11 air traffic controllers. At Jan Smuts Airport, there is a shortage of eight air traffic controllers. In August 1987 I established that at Lusaka Airport, which is used by SAA aircraft, the localiser was not working, the instrument landing system was not fully operational and the approach lights on both runways were not in full working order. I presume that meant that those lights were out. The hon the Minister would not, however, make a statement at the time in response to my question.

I therefore request the hon the Minister, firstly, to obtain confirmation from the Directorate of Civil Aviation that the five affected jumbos were properly inspected by SAA in terms of the service bulletin from Boeing, and that this is reflected in the service log books of those particular aircraft; and secondly, that the DCA carries out a special investigation into safety standards at all airports within South Africa and the operations of all local airlines operating within the country. I do not mean airlines such as Lufthansa and KLM; I am obviously referring to local airlines.

I want to turn next to South African roads, where again the safety record is not good. The safety aspects will be dealt with by my hon colleague from Parktown, but I will deal with the funding of roads, starting with toll roads.

In his opening address this session the hon the State President announced an extension of the toll road system and told us that at 1987 values there was R2 150 million to be spent. This is a very large sum indeed. Our toll road system is not looking so good at the moment. Reference to the latest report of the Department of Transport shows us the following losses for the year concerned: On the Tsitsikamma Toll Road the loss was R544 759; on the Marianhill Toll Road it was R3 070 329 and on the Kranskop it was R3 301 945. The total amounts to R6 917 million on these three toll plazas and this despite interest-free loans of R97 million from the Department of Transport. Interest of 7% on this amount would double the loss.

The point I want to make is that I am happy that private enterprise should handle toll roads, but we must not flog off existing national roads to these companies. Any toll facility should be built by private enterprise ab initio and there must always be a reasonable alternative route. There must also be a reasonable fee for the use of the toll road. It would be reasonable if, however, the State wished to sell any or all of the existing toll roads to private enterprise.

We must also be careful to ensure that no employees of the Department of Transport or even retired or former employees, become directors of, or employees of, or consultants to any private organisation which can be favourably affected by decisions of the Department of Transport. I say this because last year, in another department, an official who was concerned in a favourable decision for a company, subsequently retired and became a director of that company with, in addition, a preferential share allocation. We have not had that in the Department of Transport and I hope we never do.

Whom are you referring to?

I am referring to the department handled by the hon member for Constantia. He made a speech in this regard, I think it was, last year.

The hon the Minister told us that money collected from imports on the sale of fuel that formerly went to the National Road Fund will in future go directly to the fiscus. In 1988-89 this is estimated to amount to R1 070 million—a whopping boost for the fiscus. This worries me. It also worries the Automobile Association. I want to quote from a telex we received from them which is a copy of a telex sent to the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology in regard to the National Road Fund:

They refer to the National Road Fund and I fully agree with them. Will that money be spent on the roads or will it disappear into the maw of Government spending? I am already worried about the National Road Fund accounts. In the latest report we find that they had an income of no less than R619 million. Of this, however, only R226,765 million was spent on the construction of new roads or major maintenance. Only R2,5 million was contributed to level crossing elimination, and I suggest that that is totally inadequate. Yet R8 million was spent by the CSIR, R34 million was paid in consultants’ fees and R10,6 million was spent on administration. I do not believe the figures stand up to inspection. As a result, the fund went to bed with R168,8 million which was added to the previous unspent total to bring the final total of unspent moneys in the National Road Fund to no less than R585 million at the end of the year concerned.

I suppose that will also disappear into the fiscus. I want to ask the hon the Minister specifically whether the build-up of this fund from past years will be transferred to the fiscus as well, or whether it is only new income which emanates from the fuel levy that will go into the fiscus.

In spite of these enormous accumulations of money taken from the motorists, the Government has also announced major increases in heavy vehicle licence fees which will bring in no less than R200 million. This is direct interference with the free-market system for the purpose of making road transport less competitive vis-a-vis rail transport. In view of the enormous sums collected on fuel sales this amount is not needed for road building. The Government is unable to spend the amount now flowing into the National Road Fund, and the motorist is having to pay and pay and pay in order to subsidise a profligate Government that spends and spends and spends. I forecast that the R1 207 million collected in 1988-89 will not be spent on road transport but on a variety of other departments.

Mr Chairman, I must take umbrage at what was said by the hon member who has just sat down, because I think that for him to make the statement that the Government acted predictably with a cover-up concerning the wreck of the Helderberg is a little unfair; with respect, I think it is very unfair.

He then went on to say that he knew of all the factors that caused the Helderberg to crash—this was perished, this and that were wrong. [Interjections.] I want to ask him whether he is relying on fact or rumour. If he is relying on fact, I would respectfully suggest that the hon member gives evidence to the committee that is investigating the accident. I think it is very important, and if he has the courage of a camel, he will do precisely that. [Interjections.]

He went on to say that various accidents had taken place and he intimated that the mere fact that the pilots and air-traffic controllers were unhappy about salaries might have had an effect on the accidents that have taken place. If I read the hon member correctly, that was a slur on the pilots and air-traffic controllers, because irrespective of whether they are unhappy about their salaries or conditions of service, I do not believe that they would allow their safety record to be placed in jeopardy. I think it is a disgrace that an hon member can stand up in this House and have the effrontery to suggest that such a thing could take place.

You are misquoting me!

I am not misquoting the hon member. He should read his own speech.

You are misquoting me.

People tend to forget that without the advent of tolls the cost of motoring and transportation would rise. Transportation as a whole represents a sizeable proportion of the gross domestic product. It has been quoted as being as high as 20%, depending on how it is defined. With regard to road transport the cost of providing the infrastructure, that is roads, is approximately 15% of the cost of the transportation sector. While a good network of roads is very desirable, there are also other priorities that Government has to look to. I cite housing, education and defence as examples.

Many demands are made on the Government by the public but there is a limit to what the available resources can provide. One is absolutely amazed at some of the Press reports that have been published recently in respect of the privatisation of certain toll roads. In this regard it is interesting to hear the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central say that he now agrees with toll roads. It was not so long ago that that hon member and his party opposed the enabling legislation that made toll roads applicable. The hon member is not listening, however. [Interjections.]

On the one hand we have the newspapers shouting “privatisation!” and in chorus organised commerce shout the same; yet when Government sticks its neck out and privatises, it is criticised mercilessly.

What are the facts of the situation? Interested parties were asked to express their interest in the possibility of the privatisation of certain roads by way of tolling. Some seven parties expressed interest in the venture. Those seven were later reduced to four and in the final negotiation two parties, namely Tollway and Tollcon were involved.

We must accept that tolls are foreign to our way of life in South Africa. Therefore the emotions of the motorists will run extremely high in this regard. However, one must bear in mind that there is no toll envisaged in the RS A that will not save the motorist money. That is a very important point. Criticism has been levelled at the Government for the fact that, by privatising toll roads, it is going to cost the motorist more than would have been the case if the Government ran the toll roads. One has simply to look at some of the newspaper cuttings: “N3 row—fund blunder claim”. We go on to another one: “Privatisation slam—Tollcon to rebuild two thirds of N3”, “Government told off for siphoning funds”. So it goes on. There is in reality a certain element of truth in the statement that motorists will have to pay slightly more if the road is privatised. However, one must note that in the contracts entered into with the private companies it is clearly stated that the toll charge may not be more than 75% of the savings had the motorist used an alternative route.

I just want to reiterate what I said two minutes ago. Without tolls the cost of motoring and transportation would rise. We all want privatisation, but what is it all about? It means viability when taking over a subsidised State function. In other words, the business ethnic must apply—a return on capital invested. Mrs Thatcher is put on a pedestal when it comes to privatisation. She is continually rammed down our throats as an example to follow. But what did Mrs Thatcher do with the British Hovercraft Company? She actually sold it for the princely sum of £1 so that it would be a viable enterprise to the private entrepreneur who took it over. The Government has the same responsibility. If it wants to privatise no one will take over any present State function unless it is profitable. I ask whether one can blame them. Throughout all the negotiations in respect of the privatisation of tolls, the department team was led by Dr Wim de Villiers. People must accept that the only philosophy that is acceptable is viability when it comes to privatisation. It is common cause that anywhere in the world toll roads in the initial stages are shaky when it comes to cash flow. It is for this reason that the State will reinvest in the toll consortiums to a maximum of 25% of its total shareholding the tax payable on profits for the first 10 years by way of purchasing listed shares in the consortiums operating the tolls. Any time thereafter the State can dispose of its quoted shares. Hopefully the State will show a profit on them.

One may question the reason for this approach, but it must be conceded that privatising toll roads immediately makes finance available to provide the necessary infrastructure for roads. It also provides additional funding for road construction by the State. I would like to cite an example. Let us look at the finance involved in the N3 project: Cedara to Frere, a 94 km stretch of road to be upgraded at a cost of R80 million; Warden to Villiers, a 97 km stretch of new road at a total cost of R190 million; Kewersfontein to Warden, a 95 km stretch of new road over the escarpment at a cost of R260 million; Villiers to Heidelberg, a 60 km stretch to be made into a two-lane road at a cost of R70 million. So we are looking at a project with an equity commitment of over R100 million and borrowings of R1 billion. I submit therefore that without viable privatisation with regard to certain roads, major works on the N3 by the Government would not have taken place this century. What would the consequences have been, when one takes into consideration the traffic build-up? I wonder if anybody could put a price on the slaughter that took place on our roads this last Easter.

I would like to go further and ask the hon the Minister if there is any reason for not disposing of the present toll roads being run by the department to private enterprise once they become viable propositions. Furthermore, has the time not come to amend legislation that insists on an alternate route to all toll roads, because the costs are going to be prohibitive to provide such an alternate route, especially as far as new routes are concerned. This must be looked at very seriously.

I now wish to touch on a parochial matter, and that is the possibility of tolling the last section of the national road at Port Edward. This section handles a large volume of traffic that frequents our border with the Transkei, mainly for entertainment purposes.

The problem is that prior to this we were unable to toll this road because it was not a national road. Circumstances have changed, but the province was forced into the position where because of the volume of traffic and the dangerous road a considerable amount of money was needed to upgrade it. I would like to suggest that an in-depth study takes place in this regard as to the viability of such a toll road with the toll to be placed at the Port Edward end of the road. When this in-depth study takes place I ask further that part of the toll charged go back to the maintenance of the road and the other part to the regional services council to provide improvements of facilities for the motorists and for the people who frequent the coastal area.

In other words, that is another tax!

This particular toll has many facets to it which could benefit both private enterprise and the local regional services council. However, time unfortunately precludes me from elaborating on the situation.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has just made a remark about it being another tax. I told him just now—but he was not listening—that not so long ago he and his party opposed the enabling legislation that made provision for toll roads. Today, however, he stands up and says that he agrees with the privatisation of toll roads. Has there been a change? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for South Coast and associate myself with what he said. It is actually a great pleasure to listen to someone who knows what he is talking about. I associate myself with the points of view with regard to the SAA that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central expressed. I think it falls outside the scope of this discussion. Although I share the feeling of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central with regard to the safety of the SAA, I want to tell him that my opinion of the involvement of Civil Aviation in the SAA is that it is excellent.

If we look at the three recent accidents after the Helderberg we see that in two of these accidents there was considerable loss of life. In the recent disaster over the weekend the pilot displayed remarkable and heroic presence of mind by steering the aircraft away from the crowd and letting it crash in a safe place. It shows once again that the training of that pilot was excellent. He was prepared for such an emergency situation. When we look at the actions of those involved in civil aviation, including the training of pilots, we see that it is a primary consideration for them to ensure that the pilot is properly trained for the type of aircraft that he is going to fly. Normally we find that someone who drives a car, drives a particular car and was given a licence for it and is then allowed to drive another vehicle at will with the same licence. A pilot is licenced for a specific aircraft and it is the task of Civil Aviation to ensure that he is properly evaluated and properly trained for that specific task.

They cannot undertake the training themselves, any more than Civil Aviation can undertake the training of the mechanic who maintains that aircraft. In a supervisory and co-ordinating capacity, however, they keep an eye on that person’s activities and can actually hold him responsible for certain repair work that he carries out.

In the Civil Aviation training programme for pilots there is a wonderful principle according to which money is made available to enable young men who cannot afford the expensive training fees to obtain a private pilot’s licence with the aid of a subsidy from Civil Aviation. I think it is a brilliant idea. If it were not for this support the aircraft industry that is developing at a phenomenal rate in South Africa at the moment would have been crippled by a shortage of trained people who pilot aircraft in a private capacity.

We often tend to look only at the part of the aviation industry with which we come into contact every day, for example, when we fly from D F Malan to Jan Smuts Airport. However, when we go behind the scenes and inspect the whole spectrum of the aviation industry in South Africa, we realise how phenomenal the task of Civil Aviation is. When we take a close look at our present safety record, we must truly say that Civil Aviation is carrying out its task properly.

It is true that air traffic controllers are at present dissatisfied with their salary packages and that some of them are being enticed away by foreign companies. It is self-evident that these air traffic controllers are so well trained that they will be a tremendous asset to any country in the world. It is also true that an air traffic controller must also have certain personality traits. They are therefore sought-after people.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to launch a thorough investigation into the training of the air traffic controller and the position that he occupies in the South African aviation industry. We overlook those people. We do not hear or see them and are only aware of the aircraft in which we find ourselves and the announcements that are made over the radio. However, we do not really know what takes place behind the scenes. If we were to remove the air traffic controller from the spectrum of that industry, we would definitely deal a blow to the present safety standard in this country. I therefore advocate that the hon the Minister launch a thorough investigation into the conditions under which these people work. The promotion opportunities for these people could also perhaps be considered. They are a small group of people in the Department of Transport who are doing an excellent job, but who, because they are small in number, have a promotion ceiling. It will perhaps be desirable to offer these people greater scope for progress and greater promotion opportunities within this department.

Of course, I cannot agree with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central who wanted to attribute the fuel leak to the inability of Civil Aviation to prevent this type of defects in time by adhering to the regulations. It is very difficult to determine when a rubber seal is going to perish and one can surely not expect that the man who refuels the aircraft should have to evaluate that rubber seal. The Boeing factory has certain regulations that are meticulously adhered to during the repair of these aircraft by the SA A under the watchful eye of Civil Aviation. If the Boeing company fails to prescribe that that particular seal must be replaced at a particular time, Civil Aviation will ensure that it is done in time in that specific case as well as on the other aircraft. When one enters the airport building, goes through the security control which falls under the Civil Aviation Division, walks across the runway and boards the aircraft one should be aware of what has already taken place behind the scenes under the watchful eye of this capable division. When that aircraft lands, the process starts all over again until that aircraft has eventually been prepared, according to the regulations, for the following flight.

The condition of the airport in Lusaka was referred to. It falls outside of the jurisdiction of Civil Aviation and we can proudly say that there is not a single airport in South Africa that suffers the same shortcomings as those of Lusaka airport.

However, let us add that the SAA uses that runway. It is also being used by other air services of the world, however, and it is the duty of those carriers to complain about the conditions there. We can proudly say that the airports here in South Africa are not in that sort of state.

I also want to mention another aspect that one does not always notice in passing, namely that in South Africa there is an increasing number of private aircraft being used from airports that do not fall directly under the Department of Transport or the Civil Aviation Division. We often overlook that aspect.

If I may just come back to my reference to the air traffic controllers, I also want to say that every time an aircraft is delayed at one of these neighbouring airports because it is unable to take off, considerable financial losses are suffered. Many of these companies have expensive aircraft, expensive equipment and very expensive staff, and every time an aircraft is delayed for even a minute, heavy expenses are incurred. I should like the hon the Minister to look into this aspect as well. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Maraisburg’s reference to the tragic air disasters—inter alia the Helderberg, Bop Air and the recent Dakota air disasters. They were all tragic incidents.

However, I want to concentrate on the two aspects of safety and security measures at airports. There is a perceptible correspondence between the recent Dakota air disaster and the Helderberg air disaster where there were indications that a fire breaking out in the hold or in the cabin was a possible cause, while the transport of explosive materials, chemical or otherwise, was indicated as a possible cause in the Bop Air disaster.

Although the investigations undertaken by Civil Aviation have not yet been finalised, the South African travelling public is extremely concerned about two aspects of safety in particular, and one often hears people asking whether current security measures are adequate to make air travel safe, and in the case of the Dakota air disaster, whether this particular kind of aeroplane should not be withdrawn from private air transport.

Viewed against the background of the excellent service it has provided in the past, South Africa cannot afford to lose the standing that it has acquired as a result of its safety record over many years due to circumstances that could possibly have been prevented by taking further timeous safety measures.

Well done, Carel!

That is why it is imperative that the Division of Civil Aviation spares no expense or trouble to carry out a thorough investigation into the three air disasters, which were accompanied by a tremendous loss of life.

It is also very clear that the question of whether sufficient security measures and directives exist at airports should be given serious attention. This applies to international and large foreign airports, but particularly to the smaller airports that are used by private airlines. I believe that this urgent security aspect leaves much to be desired, in the case of private airports and at some smaller airports this has been neglected to a shocking extent. I myself can attest to this, and I refer to the Margate Airport as an example of one where people walk in with hand-luggage without being examined. I think this is extremely negligent.

Private airlines are experiencing a considerable upward trend in their services as a result of an increase in tourism, and the general travelling public must have the certainty that in these times of instability throughout the world they are protected against possible disasters. My request to the hon the Minister is that he urgently appoints a commission to investigate the security aspect on a more scientific basis and not to hesitate to involve experts from outside the division of Civil Aviation as well to improve the matter of security in a meaningful way.

The DC-3 aircraft, which is used particularly in the private airways, is already approximately 50 years old and I want to ask if the time has not come to withdraw this aeroplane from private air transport in particular. I know that the hon the Minister will possibly disagree with me, but this is a matter of an effective maintenance service for aircraft for which standard regulations exist.

Can the hon the Minister give us the assurance—perhaps via the Division of Civil Aviation—that these directives are being carried out exactly? This applies particularly to servicing instructions. We want to know whether these are being complied with. The question that is being asked, particularly by travellers, is whether there is any truth in the contention that the standard servicing periods are now being extended by 30% due to the heavy traffic.

With regard to the use of this aircraft, which is approximately 50 years old, I believe it is necessary that we scrutinise this aspect. We are all familiar with the record of the extreme reliability of the Dakota. My humble opinion is nonetheless that after so many long years of service the only institution that can maintain these aeroplanes in an adequate condition of airworthiness is the SA Air Force and that the Dakota aircraft that are in private ownership should be transferred to the Air Force.

We owe it to the air travellers of South Africa to see to it that the safety and the highest measure of security should be priority number one when this service is provided.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Nigel will pardon me if I do not react to him. [Interjections.]

Order!

Only two weeks ago, during the Easter weekend, it was shocking to learn that 223 people had died and 600 had been seriously injured in road accidents in our country. According to the Road Safety Council 8 433 fatal collisions were reported during 1987, and according to the CSIR every collision costs approximately R183 571—a total therefore of more than R1,5 billion. During 1986 a total of 614 692 motor vehicles were involved in road accidents at an estimated cost of R4,134 billion which, I am sure, the economy of this country can ill afford.

Road safety in South Africa is therefore a matter of serious concern, particularly when we consider that between 9 000 and 10 000 people die on our roads every year. Road safety, to my mind, is a national priority in which everybody, also every hon member of this House, must become involved.

The legal framework within which road safety is regulated is of course currently contained in the four provincial road traffic ordinances. I do not want to elaborate on this system, but we are pleased that according to the White Paper on Transport Policy a new framework is now being developed in the form of a Road Traffic Bill which we hope will be discussed and finalised by the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs during the course of this year. The purpose of the Road Traffic Bill is to unify the existing road traffic ordinances of the four provinces into a single piece of road traffic legislation and to establish a national transport policy with its main goal the provision of a safe and reliable service to the country. In the White Paper the measures to achieve the goal of a reliable and safe transport service are also defined. It was recommended that a road freight quality system, as well as a road passenger quality system be introduced and be combined into what will be known as a road transport quality system to ensure the protection of the safety of the public.

In order to implement the road transport quality system it is the Government’s policy that, and I quote from the White Paper:

Secondly, it is the goal—and I quote again—that—

Thirdly, Sir, it goes on to say:

As such it is clear that in future the central Government will make the overall policy, while the executive power will rest with the respective Administrators in the various provinces.

*That is all very well, but a successful national traffic policy is dependent on other factors, and I should like, time permitting, to mention a few.

The success of every system can be tested by the availability of the necessary and complete records. A few years ago, in order to exercise better control and inter alia to combat vehicle theft even though the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that the police are not even capable of doing that—to prevent the falsification of drivers’ licences and to be able to have the statistics and records of road traffic accidents as well as road traffic contraventions, the Department of Transport instructed the Traffic Information Bureau of the National Institute of Road Traffic and Road Research at the CSIR to establish the necessary registers.

This task has progressed considerably under the competent and very enthusiastic direction of Adv Theuns Botha, and the following registers are being compiled: (1) All motor vehicles, (2) all drivers’ licences, (3) all road traffic accidents and (4) all road traffic contraventions. This has been a very long-felt need and we are glad to know that two of these registers have already been put into operation, but unfortunately the implementation of the remaining registers has at this stage been delayed and in large measure perhaps rendered impossible by other factors over which the Traffic Information Bureau has no control. I shall come back to this matter.

To ensure that a national traffic policy succeeds, much better and stricter control will have to be exercised in respect of the issuing and maintenance of drivers’ licences. No uniformity exists in the testing according to the present system, as far as drivers’ licences are concerned, and it is being done by various authorities. Falsifications are the order of the day. I do not want to venture a figure, but it has been estimated that there could even be more than 500 000 falsified drivers’ licences in existence.

The validity of such drivers’ licences is of course indefinite. Even if the holder’s hearing and eyesight are impaired, or if he loses the use of his limbs or even some of his mental faculties, or whatever loss he may suffer, he remains in possession of a valid drivers’ licence which then in many cases becomes nothing but a permit to kill or maim road-users. [Interjections.]

Therefore it is essential in the first place that the tests for and the issuing of drivers’ licences should take place on a uniform basis. Secondly, all drivers’ licences must have a limited validity and be re-issued periodically, say every five years, without the holder necessarily being tested again. That will, however, depend on his record of traffic accidents and traffic contraventions as well as his physical ability to drive a vehicle safely.

The carrying of all drivers’ licences must be made obligatory, and this is where the whole problem arises, because it is only possible if the drivers’ licence does not form part of the identity document. I can understand that it is probably not easy to separate these two documents, but it was nevertheless very disappointing to hear that the Cabinet recently decided not to separate them.

This year it was my privilege to attend the congress of the National Road Safety Council. It was unanimously decided that the congress request the Cabinet to reconsider this matter urgently, and to separate drivers’ licences from identity documents so that the carrying of drivers’ licences can be made obligatory and so that all drivers’ licences can be re-issued in order to eliminate falsifications. [Interjections.]

I can only mention that we have received the full co-operation and support of the TB VC countries as well as the self-governing states at the moment and they are waiting for the Republic to take this essential step.

I come now to traffic safety education. According to a publication of the National Institute for Traffic and Road Research dated October 1987, there are various factors which contribute to traffic accidents, and these are classified into three categories: Firstly the human factor which plays a role in 90,6% of all traffic accidents, of which the following are the most important factors: Inattentiveness and lack of consideration, 30%; disregard of traffic regulations, 29%; reckless and negligent driving, 18%; driving incompetence, 7,5%; physical and emotional factors such as the abuse of alcohol and drugs, exhaustion, tension etc, 5,3%; road and environmental factors, 7% and what is interesting, is that accidents attributable to vehicle factors comprise only 2,4%.

From the above it is clear that humans are the major contributing factor to traffic accidents. On the other hand it is also clear that the implementation of the road traffic infrastructure by the authorities has been reasonably successful and that the law enforcement as far as the roadworthiness of vehicles is concerned has also been successful. Therefore there is no doubt that there must be a shift in emphasis in that more attention should be given to the human factor.

I have no doubt about the physical capabilities of drivers in general, but unfortunately the largest contributing factor to road safety is not the physical capabilities of road-users but their attitude towards their fellow road-users and the measure of responsibility with which they use the roads.

What I am in fact trying to say, is that there must be a change in attitude in respect of our road-users, and here the authorities have a very important educating role to perform. All population groups must be involved and reached. The best location for this educating task is at our schools, and eventually we shall have no alternative but to make road safety and everything it entails, part of our syllabi.

If one thinks about the fact that 47% of all those who die on our roads are pedestrians, we must not focus solely on motor vehicle drivers and passengers, but should also pay more attention to pedestrians. I foresee that as a result of the abolition of influx control legislation this problem of pedestrians will become far more serious in future.

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

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition for this opportunity.

It is with much gratitude that we took cognizance of the establishment of a road safety education faculty at the University of Potchefstroom. One is thankful for the work and research which is being done at other universities and bodies concerned with the promotion of road safety, as well as the important role the CSIR and the National Road Safety Council are fulfilling in this regard.

In conclusion I want to express the hope that all hon members, including those from the other Houses, will support us in persuading the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs in making it possible to separate the identity document and the drivers’ licence, to make it possible to realise the ideal of implementing the other registers, and in that way bringing about a better and safer traffic system for our country.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bethlehem has made a speech with which I believe we should all agree. We would certainly support his contention that the identity document should not include details of the driving licence. Both should be completely separate. His comments on road safety and his ideas were most praiseworthy and, all in all, it was a speech which we could go along with.

I want to talk about another matter. I would like to address the hon the Minister on the disgraceful state of South Africa’s airports from the passenger’s point of view. More specifically, I want to talk about Jan Smuts and D F Malan Airports, as those are the two airports of which I have considerable personal experience.

Perhaps I should start by describing a typical flight from Cape Town to Johannesburg which I experienced recently. This was not an unusual flight, and it did not take place during the Easter holiday period, when a degree of congestion and certain difficulties are inevitable. This was a normal flight during a normal period.

It was due to leave at 08h00, so I arrived at D F Malan Airport at approximately 07h10. At that stage, queues at the booking-in counters filled the space available and continued outside the entrance doors to the booking-in area. The space there is completely inadequate, and the degree of discomfort was enormous. Passengers pushing luggage trolleys were struggling to get their bags through the crowd. They were bumping into other passengers—the heel of one of my shoes was damaged—and, all in all, the position was chaotic because of the lack of space.

The hon the Minister is grinning. I do not know whether this is because he agrees with me or because he does not have to subject himself to this sort of thing.

Make him queue!

I stood in what appeared to be the shortest queue, but even then I finally received my boarding pass as late as 07h55, and I had been standing there since 07h10.

There were many people behind me in the queue still waiting to book in. Inevitably it took some time to get all the passengers on board, and the aircraft finally left something like half an hour late.

On arrival at Jan Smuts Airport I disembarked and had to wait for three quarters of an hour before my luggage appeared. That can sometimes be considered quick. It has taken both less and more time. The actual travelling time in the air had been in the region of an hour and three quarters while the time spent waiting around to book in and collect luggage had been approximately an hour and a half. This does not seem reasonable to me, Sir.

In addition to this the discomfort and overcrowding make travelling by air a very unpleasant experience these days; not because of the flight itself, but because of the inadequacies of the airport terminals and the services given to passengers.

There are other problems experienced by airports. Perhaps one should start with the problem of air-traffic controllers which hon members are all familiar with. I have no doubt that skilled air-traffic personnel deserve a better deal than the one they are getting, and I suggest to the hon the Minister that he considers some special category treatment in terms of salary and service conditions for these people. When one has people who are responsible for the lives and welfare of hundreds of passengers, they should be getting a better deal than they do at present. I understand they do not get much more than R2 000 per month. For the degree of responsibility that is involved in their job, they should get more.

I also want to raise the issue of what I believe is the antiquated radar system at Jan Smuts Airport. My information is that most of the equipment is out of date and that mixing different systems from France, Italy and Canada has not been very successful. The result of the recent breakdowns was annoying delays for passengers and for airline companies. It must be very aggravating indeed to have to be restricted because of inadequate radar control at Jan Smuts Airport. I will be grateful if the hon the Minister can tell us what plans there are to update the system in the future. I understand that a new radar display system for Jan Smuts Airport is on its way, or could even be there already, and this could improve the situation. I need to be convinced, however, that we are moving in the right direction, because it is not adequate at present.

Then there is the issue of the buildings themselves at Jan Smuts Airport. Jan Smuts Airport is our major gateway to the outside world and to the interior of South Africa. Firstly, many parts of the building are filthy. Dirt and rubbish lie around in the corners, and the whole impression given to arriving passengers, particularly in the domestic flight section, can only be an unpleasant one. Instead of the cool, spacious, clean buildings one would hope for, the opposite is the case. There is restriction and constriction and the visitor would have to be excused if he felt that he had arrived in some little banana republic rather than the major airport of a modern industrial state. This used not to be the case; we used to cope and we used to have airports that we were proud of. Just to go into the domestic section of either D F Malan Airport or Jan Smuts Airport at the moment is very depressing indeed.

The visitor’s impression would be reinforced if he had occasion to make use of the passenger services counter. The hon the Minister may remember that I wrote to him towards the end of last year about delays I had experienced at the domestic passenger services counter. Since that time I have watched their operations very carefully on most visits I have paid to the airport, and specifically at Jan Smuts Airport. The queues are inevitably long and progress is slow. There also appears to be no sense of urgency as far as staff is concerned. Waits of up to half an hour are frequently experienced and are fairly commonplace. On the particular occasion I wrote to the hon the Minister about, I waited in excess of half an hour.

Perhaps there should be separate counters for passengers purchasing tickets and passengers making bookings. I can remember one occasion standing there while somebody had a long discussion, talked about the booking they were going to make, dug around in their handbag for the money and discussed possibilities while fairly trivial matters do not receive attention. Perhaps there should be separate counters because people making trivial enquiries are being delayed at the moment.

When it comes to luggage, I am not convinced that any sense of urgency exists when passengers wait for their luggage to appear from the plane. To my mind three quarters of an hour is ridiculous.

I believe that it should be a matter of pride to the airport personnel that luggage should come through very much faster. I stress again that any sense of urgency and enthusiasm seems to be lacking.

I notice that embarking passengers at Jan Smuts Airport never have any indication of which gate they should check through when boarding a plane, apart from the announcement that is made. There are signs above the doors which are seldom if ever used now. I do not know why this is the case but it would be interesting to hear from the hon the Minister why this very simple and useful facility is not used. One does not always hear when an announcement is made. If that system is still working—it may be out of order at present—why do we not use it?

All in all, at Jan Smuts Airport, apart from the check-in counters where I have always been greeted with unfailing courtesy and efficiency—they are very good indeed—there does not seem to be any great team spirit and enthusiasm to give the best possible service to passengers. This then becomes a management problem. Whether it has to do with low salaries paid, I do not know, but I believe that something has to be done about staff motivation. I do not believe that there is the necessary staff motivation at our airports at present.

When it comes to keeping passengers informed about delays or other service difficulties, I believe there is inadequate public relations. Passengers are frequently left to mill about in ignorance as to any problem, something which can be most infuriating. Information about delays should be given frequently, and should immediately be accompanied by a courteous apology. This would go a long way towards avoiding passenger frustration. I can only say that I believe that the situation at Jan Smuts Airport has reached the stage where it is quite disgraceful, and I believe that urgent remedies must be found.

Cape Town must also do something about checkin facilities. The degree of discomfort experienced by passengers is insupportable. Could not some consideration be given to making use of the international section where there are 12 check-in counters instead of the present facilities where there are six check-in counters which are totally inadequate? I actually spoke to the supervisor one morning, and she said that the situation was absolutely impossible. They could not cope and they could not go faster because there just were not enough check-in counters at D F Malan Airport. Again the personnel at check-in counters are unfailingly courteous and they do their best, but the facilities are totally inadequate for the volume of passenger traffic from Cape Town to Johannesburg. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow on the hon member for Bryanston. I think he raised some very important points, and I can only associate myself with some of the criticisms that he has raised in regard to the trend towards inefficiency creeping in at the airports. What worries one most of all is that we had such a high record for good service at our airports and we are now experiencing a lowering of standards. One gains the impression that there is also an attitude of “could not care less” on the part of many of the officials when complaints are made.

In passing, I also just want to raise the question of parking facilities for members of Parliament at the airport at Durban. I do trust that something will be done about it, because it is iniquitous that the ordinary “common or garden” member of Parliament should have to put up with such inconvenience.

I just want to touch briefly on a point made by the hon member for South Coast. I wish to refer to his plea for a toll road to be situated at Port Edward. I would just like to warn the hon the Minister that the proximity of a toll to a certain well-patronised pleasure resort may result in motorists becoming stranded on their return journey by virtue of the fact of being unable to meet their toll commitments! [Interjections.] If he is referring to the road past Seapark, I can only agree with him 100%.

Are you speaking from experience?

Yes, indeed.

I wish to turn my attention to the question of the so-called privatisation of the N3 from Pietermaritzburg to Alberton. I wish to refer in particular to aspects relating to the establishment of a toll plaza at Mooi River. I am sure the hon the Minister is not surprised that I am on my feet during this debate. I want to discuss the question of the implications of this decision.

Now that the agreement has been signed between the State and the consortium concerned one must assume that the matter is now a fait accompli. However, the agreement itself has certain serious implications which remain and which need to be addressed and placed on record. Let me say from the outset that I regard the so-called privatisation of the N3 as a misnomer in that the manner in which this deal has been negotiated would be more appropriately described as a contractual agreement rather than an exercise in privatisation.

The decision to establish a toll plaza at Mooi River has raised certain fundamental issues which tend to conflict with certain undertakings given by the Government when the Toll Road Act was debated in Parliament. At that time the following assurances were given. Firstly, toll roads would only be built if they were considered essential and the cost thereof was not possible on account of a shortage of funds; secondly, if a suitable and well-maintained alternate road was available; thirdly, the cost of financing any such toll road was to be strictly controlled; and fourthly, tolls would fall away as soon as the road in question had been paid for.

From the information available it would appear that the Government has now changed its stance in that the agreement that was signed with the consortium concerned appears to offer no protection to the motoring public against exploitation and neither is there any respect for the undertakings which were originally given and to which I have already referred. Furthermore, the proposed toll fee of R3 in and R3 out that is to be charged at Mooi River is iniquitous and scandalous. It will have a detrimental effect on the commercial as well as the agricultural sectors in this area. This is all the more unacceptable because the Government has now agreed to incorporate a section of the existing national road into the contract on the premise that it will cost some R60 million to upgrade the section between Howick and Estcourt. I say this is absolute nonsense when one bears in mind that an amount of R25 million has been spent during the past three years on this section. I accept that it will be necessary for work to be undertaken from time to time to maintain the condition of the N3. However, I would like to ask why there is a need for further upgrading an already well-aligned road.

The principle of tolling an existing road deserves the strongest condemnation when one takes into consideration that motorists have been paying a levy of 8 cents per litre on petrol and 10 cents per litre on diesel into the National Road Fund for the very purpose of road maintenance. While on the subject of levies collected for the National Road Fund I call upon the hon the Minister to clarify the manner in which these funds will be made available now that the levies are being directed to the Treasury. I have no hesitation in saying that in this the consortium in question is the recipient of generous treatment by the Government. If certain reports are correct, it means that the public in Mooi River, and the Nottingham Road area in particular, are being publicly exploited as a result of the siting of a toll road at Mooi River, which is little more than a cash collection point to subsidise other sections of the N3. I make bold to say that this is nothing short of daylight robbery. It is a sweet additive to an already sucrose-filled contract.

I wish to refer just briefly to a letter that the hon the Minister wrote to the chairman of the Mooi River Farmers’ Association relative to confirming the point I have just made. I quote from the letter:

I want to stress the last point. The least the consortium can do under these circumstances is to grant a concession to all owners of NMR registered vehicles who will be bearing the brunt of any toll fees.

A further question that arises from the so-called privatisation of the N3 is the suitability of the alternate road between Nottingham Road and Hidcote. Here I wish to refer to a question that I asked on 29 March and the reply of the hon the Minister in connection with the alternate road. I quote from the answer:

The point I want to make is that the road that has been offered as an alternate road is quite unsuitable. When speaking of suitability one is looking principally at the safety factor of this road. As one who travels the alternate road regularly let me assure the hon the Minister that from a safety point of view this road is far from suitable and leaves much to be desired. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River again arrived at the point which he had raised before as regards the toll road which is to go through his constituency. All I want to say to the hon member is that he will have to be patient. In the long run he will find that that toll road will be of great benefit to his own constituency.

There is a specific matter which I should like to raise with the hon the Minister on this occasion. We have probably given this matter some attention already but I think it is no more than right that a person should refer to the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition on transport, the hon member for Roodepoort, who raised the point that they had not yet had an opportunity to discuss the White Paper. We have all had this White Paper in our possession for a very long time. The hon member has repeatedly had the opportunity of discussing it. Up to this point nothing has prevented the hon member from moving a private member’s motion in the House and discussing it. I can reassure the hon member in this respect, however, that the hon the Minister and the Government have in no way deviated from the White Paper and it will be carried out because we regard it as being in the interests of the transport industry in South Africa. We also regard it as being in the interests of deregulation and privatisation. The hon member can still have the opportunity, if he wants it, to discuss this.

Considerable mention has also been made in this debate of the fact that our aircraft have been involved in quite a number of accidents. We are all concerned about that matter. I want to say right at the outset that nobody can claim to be indifferent about aviation accidents.

It would be wrong, however, to ignore South Africa’s record entirely in this regard. That record is at hon members’ disposal. It appears from the latest report that about 103 aviation accidents were reported. Seven of those accidents were investigated and the findings will be available in the new report.

When one looks at the broad classification of the causes of those accidents, it is interesting to note that pilots were responsible for 63 of them; maintenance staff for only five; airworthiness for 14, and other reasons for approximately 14. This makes a total of 96. If one rounds the figure off to 100, it appears that pilots were responsible for approximately 60% of accidents. If a person considers the number of aircraft in South Africa and the number of accidents which take place, one finds that South Africa actually has a very good aviation record.

I know one is not permitted to discuss the SAA under this Vote but it is also a fact that, since its inception in the early thirties, the SAA has conveyed millions of passengers, and only 0,005% of its passengers have lost their lives as a result of accidents. This is certainly a record of which one can be very proud.

As I have already said, one cannot be indifferent to accidents. The South African aviation industry is very young, but so far has made excellent progress. In 1981 there were 6 214 pilots—pupil, private, commercial and senior airline—in South Africa. This number rose to 8 156 in 1986-87.

In 1982 there were 145 public airfields in South Africa; the number has now risen to 154. There are approximately 260 private and public airfields in South Africa now. It is interesting to note that our total aviation movements, both domestic and international, already exceed 247 000.

†If we add up the domestic and international passengers excluding transit passengers, they now total some 8 624 000. The freight handled by South African aeroplanes amounts to 181 million kg.

All the commercial airlines in South Africa are reporting considerable increases in passenger traffic. The upswing in the tourist industry is considered to be one of the most important reasons for this upswing. This makes heavy demands of our trained and untrained personnel and the pressure on the international and local airports will therefore also increase.

The criticism levelled at some of our airports today, Sir, is entirely due to the fact that we have had a terrific increase in the number of passengers. Even our local airfields, those which are not State airports and have very little to offer, will come under increasing pressure in the future.

’After the Second World War we had an exceptional core of pilots and people responsible for the maintenance of our aircraft. They satisfied both our commercial and training requirements, but those people have reached the end of their time and most of them have already retired. It is very clear to me now that we are entering an era in which aviation will become increasingly important, if we take privatisation and deregulation into account too, and I was merely wondering whether it was not high time that we should consider the possibility of creating an academy for aviation in South Africa.

Many people in many countries of the world have been able to make enormous progress by means of military and merchant navy academies and I wonder whether it is not high time that we, too, should consider this. I should like to put a strong request to the hon the Minister that we give consideration in the department—I should like to see this—to assigning the most important role in this regard to civil aviation, as the segment of transport which fulfils the most important functions concerning the training of our pilots, the maintenance of aircraft, the control of our airports and matters relating to air traffic controllers. We should also see whether it would be possible, through our universities and possibly also our technikons, to create such an academy for aviation in South Africa where not only pilots could be trained but also airport managers and all kinds of other personnel dealing with …

Navigators too.

Yes, it makes no difference; air traffic controllers too—everyone who has something to do with the promotion of aviation.

Hon members will ask me now why we cannot leave it to the private sector to initiate this type of thing itself. Some of its members are already training pilots and the Government assists by subsidising this—hon members can see from our budget that we contribute an appreciable amount to the training of pilots. This is quite right; nevertheless I can see that it will be the responsibility of the State to start this type of thing because, in the first place, we bear the greatest responsibility for it and, secondly, so that we can ensure that the matter is properly synchronised and co-ordinated. If not, Sir, I think the department which is responsible for setting standards is the most suitable body to take the lead in this regard.

I do not want to say that the private sector cannot play a significant role in this; with the greatest of pleasure! One must have their co-operation. Neither do I want to say, however, that this may be the situation ad infinitum, but at this stage, when aviation can play such an important part in the economic development of South Africa and the promotion of tourism and with a view to deregulation and privatisation, I believe that as regards civil aviation, the Department of Transport is the body which can take the lead here and conduct a proper investigation in co-operation with all the bodies concerned, even the Department of Defence and ordinary commercial pilots.

This request also emanates from the commercial pilots, because these people are just as concerned about the shortage of trained personnel required to promote aviation in South Africa. My appeal to the hon the Minister is that we give consideration to this proposal and in the year ahead perhaps assist in the creation of such an academy for aviation to combat problems regarding aviation safety and the shortage of personnel. That is my appeal to the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon the Deputy Minister. I want to tell him the CP will most definitely support the idea of an academy for aviation. I deduce from his speech that in his heart of hearts he, too, is also most concerned about aviation as it is operated at the moment. I want to say he should rather not become confused when so much is said about accidents. We are all inclined to note the accidents first and the rest only afterwards. I think the greatest source of concern at the moment is with regard to the masses of people, especially foreign tourists, and the shortcomings at our airports which are accentuated by this.

I wish to associate myself with the hon the Deputy Minister but I also want to address totally different representations to the hon the Minister as regards air transport. I want to know whether he cannot do something drastic about luggage at airports. We from the interior who come to Cape Town are not here because we want to be here; we have been sent here by our voters. The trouble one has in getting one’s luggage onto the aircraft and getting it back again afterwards, however, is something terrible. [Interjections.]

I should also like to know whether the hon the Minister cannot do something positive about the loudspeaker systems in airport buildings. One simply cannot hear them. And then there are the young ladies on the aircraft too. I do not know what they do with them, but they try to speak so fast that one normally cannot even hear what they are saying. One does not know whether they are saying one should jump out or run away. [Interjections.]

According to the very comprehensive annual report of the Department of Transport Affairs, the bypass near Middelburg is expected to be completed by the end of 1988. The first phase was completed last year and now a brand new problem has arisen which I should like to mention here. As a result of the devolution of authority to the four Administrators of the prospective provinces, businesses are being permitted to be established adjacent to these bypasses.

Disgraceful!

I think this is a very great source of concern to all of us. These things take place under the pretext of the so-called “truckin” system. I have no objection to that system. It comes down to making an area available where truck drivers can spend the night and sleep in a safe place. I do not object to this but I do object to the approaches to these sites. People’s lives are endangered by them and I am very dissatisfied about this.

A further worry is the following. The Administrators of these provinces permit these businesses without advertising or consulting local authorities in this regard. The next thing one knows, bulldozers are there and the site is being cleared. Nobody knows what is going on there. I can testify to what happened at Middelburg; the officials can also testify that I called them together and that they informed me that they had not known about it either. What is to become of existing businesses in these towns? I am not talking about Middelburg only now. Businesses which have been established for years are having their throats cut by these parasite undertakings. They are no longer merely “truck-ins”; they are no less than general businesses now. They can do whatever they like, everything under the sun, except that trucks spend the night there!

According to the Transvaal roads budget, only R100 million is budgeted for the construction and repair of roads there. What a farce! Not even the roads in the South Eastern Transvaal can be repaired on this. Has the time not come for the National Road Fund to be used for the repair of roads?

I should like to know of the hon the Minister when last tariffs were adjusted in respect of the mass of commuters who use the SATS. I have been informed that the number of Whites making use of this service has decreased drastically as a result of the unsafe conditions on trains. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is not systematically strangling passenger transport, which could be a good reason to terminate this service and to hand it to the taxi industry too, with the result which one of my colleagues spelt out earlier. According to newspaper reports, this taxi industry is influencing large passenger transport businesses in various spheres nationwide and is claiming many lives on our roads.

If one comes upon the scene of an accident and it appears that, as a result of potholes, the driver swerved and wiped himself and his family out in a collision with an oncoming truck, one starts looking around and asking oneself questions. I do not wish to declare war on heavy vehicles but surely there are certain realities involved which we should examine as we have an hon Minister of Transport Affairs who is not afraid of making decisions. When he prohibited smoking on aircraft, people moaned a little but now all are very satisfied with this.

No, who says so?

It is only “Oom Cas” who complains about it.

I ask the hon the Minister whether the possibility of prohibiting heavy vehicles on our roads after sundown should not be urgently looked into. Should those vehicles not be weighed again to establish whether they are overloaded? I can assure hon members 99,9% of those vehicles are overloaded. Let us just take another look at speed limits on our roads, at least insofar as they affect these heavy vehicles.

I have a last request to put to the hon the Minister.[Interjections.] I am being told to sit down but I want to say something else. [Interjections.] I am very concerned about the roads in the South Eastern Transvaal. I want to request the hon the Minister to have his department investigate the situation urgently and also that of roads nationwide. Is the hon the Minister budgeting the same amount this year for the elimination of level crossings? He did not spend a cent on it last year. Why is this work not being done?

Mr Chairman, the hon member spoke mainly about roads, and also mentioned road safety. I am glad he had a word of praise for the hon the Minister, because he has received little praise today. The hon the Minister should thank me too, because the only things he is being praised for these days are the things I asked him to do. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister has made a very interesting proposal about the aviation academy, which according to him will be controlled by a university and technikons. I think it is an excellent proposal—the PFP will support it—especially in view of the wide variety of factors that are needed today to make modern aviation, and its technical side in particular, a safe and viable operation. It is an excellent proposal, and we should like to obtain further particulars in this regard.

It was also clear from the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech—especially when one had been listening to hon members’ speeches today—that we are not satisfied with the present situation at our airports. I for one do not have major problems with the staff, although some members of staff do not always react very promptly. I make use of airports fairly regularly, and during the last few months we have spent about five times as much time at airports as we would have liked to. So far, I have found the staff extremely helpful. However, I want to mention a few matters that I consider to be important.

Firstly, I want to confirm what my colleague, the hon member for Bryanston, said about passenger services. The long queues and the problem one has with passenger services make it unpleasant and almost impossible to come to Cape Town. Then there is the computer which malfunctions and causes long queues. That is a major problem. Moreover, the announcements should be made more regularly and the public should be consulted more when a problem arises. In my opinion, this would be a great help.

†I listened to the hon member for Bethlehem’s speech with great interest. It was an interesting speech and it helped me a lot because I would like to follow on it. He has given most of the statistics to show the frightening carnage on South African roads. This can only lead to one conclusion and that is that South Africans do not drive cars but aim them!

Daily newspaper, radio and television reports inform us of this awful daily slaughter which reaches an unbelievable magnitude over holiday periods. Perhaps it is not well-known that about ten out of every hundred deaths in South Africa this year and every year will be as a result of road accidents. The other statistics given by the hon member for Bethlehem of the number of people killed and the cost to the country make unbelievable reading. All this does not include the pain and suffering, the hospitalisation, the maiming and severe injuries and the enormous load on our already overburdened health services. This is a very important defect in our South African system and we must do something about it.

Every year before long weekends or school holidays road safety authorities warn, beg and plead with the driving public to drive safely and carefully. Threats of fines and other punishment seem to have no effect. It must be clearly stated that road accidents can be prevented. We do not need to have road accidents. They can be prevented. In my opinion there are three causative factors to be reduced or eliminated. Firstly, there is the driver, his passenger or the pedestrian—call it the human factor; secondly, there is the motorcar, bus, taxi or other vehicle—call it the vehicle factor; and thirdly, there is the road system, road signs or bridge—call that the road factor.

There is no doubt that the human factor is the most common factor and the most important reason. I therefore want to address the issue of driving under the influence of alcohol because this is a preventable cause of many accidents. This is a major cause of the slaughter that takes place on our roads and can be prevented. Any driver found driving with an alcohol content higher than the legal limit must have his driver’s licence suspended for at least one year and, in respect of a second offence, he should have his driver’s licence suspended for life. A drunk at the steering wheel of a vehicle becomes a lethal weapon that can kill, there is no doubt about that.

Our law is too lenient; it must be changed immediately. When people in other countries I have visited—in Rumania and Australia—go to parties, those who drink do not drive. They will not drive a car; either they will get a taxi to take them home or one person in their party will not drink that night and take the others home. They have been so indoctrinated by the dangers, the fear of suspension, fines and what will happen to them, that they do not dare to drive a car when they are under the influence of liquor.

In South Africa the opposite is true. One finds people going to parties with bottles of wine, brandy and whisky; everybody drinks and then leaves the party without caring about getting back into their cars and driving it while they are under the influence.

It is because there is no threat to fear. I therefore appeal to the hon the Minister that provision should be made in the new Bill on road safety the people who abuse their right to drive a car, not only by consuming alcohol, but also by breaking traffic laws, should be punished. There should be an absolute fear instilled in South Africans so that they will drive carefully and safely.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Parktown. Before I get to the topic which I should like to discuss in this House, I want to ask that hon member whether he does not think that the driver’s licence which our drivers carry is not really issued after a test of skill? Anyone who can learn to read these road signs and who can eventually manage to park a motor vehicle between two other motor vehicles, can get a driver’s licence. His skill is not tested at all; nor his ability to react correctly in emergencies. I think this is also something which will have to be looked into.

I should also like to react to the hon member for Middelburg. I should also like to talk about this matter of overloaded lorries. I want to help him with his figures. The hon the Minister of Finance said earlier that the Official Opposition liked to play around with percentages. Only 16% of the heavy motor vehicles on the roads are overloaded, and not 99%. However, I say this in lighter vein.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, is that only the case in Middelburg? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Roodepoort tried to bring politics into a debate on a Vote like this one. He sided with SABTA in order to find a culprit to blame for what happened in Johannesburg. He quoted reports from newspapers regarding the woman who was shot dead and someone else who was wounded. It is always the Government’s fault. The Government is always to blame.

The industry has not yet been deregulated. We have Bills here which are still to be discussed in this session. This includes the South African Roads Board Bill and the Deregulation of Transport Bill. We shall have an opportunity to discuss them, but I should like to read hon members an extract from Business Day of 15 April, which appeared under the caption “Killing Competition”; then the hon member can figure this out for himself. This is not a newspaper which is well disposed towards this side of the House. I think they are sometimes more kindly disposed towards that side of the House than towards this side. Hon members on that side of the House have already said so to us in private conversations. This report reads as follows:

Hon members can insert “NP” here.

The report goes on in this vein. Then the following is said:

I want to agree with him in this regard.

I want to quote another extract to hon members. It comes from an article entitled “The Untouchables”, by Derick Thema, which appeared in the February edition of Inside South Africa. I think we are getting to the crux of the matter when we read what this gentleman has to say. He starts with a fairly long introduction, because he lives in Soweto himself, and he sees how these people operate. However, he raises a point which I consider to be important. He says—

Now we come to the important point. He says:

There is money in this industry, and there are a lot of people entering the industry. However, the people in that industry have not yet learnt that it is not necessary to deal with healthy competition in that way. One must be able to render a better service than the other person.

I want to quote further. He goes on to say:

I am going to show hon members how these people operate, and I have reason to believe that what this gentlemen says is true, particularly if one considers the incidents in which people were killed. He says:

This is true; we know this.

I have here a letter from the taxpayers’ association in my constituency, namely the Amalinda Taxpayers’ Association, in which they refer to what I call the kombi taxi industry and the danger which they pose to other road users in our cities. They refer specifically to the main road in Amalinda and they ask:

I should like to tell the hon the Minister that I do not think we must introduce more or stricter regulations at this stage. However, I think we must ascertain whether mechanisms cannot be introduced in an attempt to control this industry.

I held a number of discussions with our local traffic chief in East London regarding this problem. There are also technical problems which can be solved. I think in this regard we can talk to the SABS, which is already working on uniform codes for roadworthiness. The SABS wants to introduce these uniform codes throughout the country, because there are so many ways in which these kombi taxis are being used incorrectly in the cities. They stop where they like. They take no notice of the traffic authorities. When they are stopped and issued with a summons, they simply disappear. Particularly in the area where we live, between two independent states, it has become absolutely impossible for our traffic officers to handle the situation. I firmly believe that the only way in which one can control the industry is by impounding the kombi taxi under such circumstances. At the moment a summons is issued to the person driving the kombi taxi to appear in court on a certain date. In many cases they simply do not turn up, and the traffic authorities then patrol the roads and lie in wait for them. When they see the same kombi taxi whose driver was issued with a summons, they stop the taxi. Unfortunately the same person is not driving it; he is out of circulation for a month or two. One must also notice how the kombi taxis are overloaded. There are cases where up to 25 people are loaded into these minibuses. The minibuses are not licensed to carry that number of people. Attention must also be given to the manufacturer’s specifications of these vehicles. They specify that the front tyres must be 600 x 14 x 6 radials, and the rear tyres 600 x 14 x 10 radials.

What they do when they buy the minibus is to travel until those tyres are worn. It has now become a status symbol amongst them for the minibuses to have these “fancy” magnesium “die-cast” tyres. They then put on ordinary steel radial tyres. They usually use the 180 x 14 steel radial. As we all know, the sides of the steel radial are not as solid as those of other tyres. This causes instability, particularly because these taxis are frequently overloaded at the back. Sometimes four grown men are sitting on the back seat and that seat is behind the rear axle. This is the reason why the minibuses always look like a Boeing which is about to take off. It is not because they have such wonderful front suspension. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to deal with the same subject as the previous speaker and that is the question of Black-owned taxis or specifically the micro or minibuses. What he said, forms part of an ongoing debate as to whether or not the Black-owned taxi business should be better controlled or whether there should be more deregulation. That is still not clear and it is not quite clear either what the Government or the hon the Minister’s point of view on this issue is—that is despite the fact that the Government’s 1987 White Paper on Transport opposed control. The Competition Board has also argued in favour of deregulated passenger transport. That is the background against which there has been a mushrooming of Black-owned taxis, and more specifically of minibuses.

What has happened and what has now caused resistance to the further deregulation of Black buses is the alarming accident rate to which minibuses and Black-owned taxis contribute enormously. The NRSC has for example found that in the six months from January to June 1987 there were 18 715 accidents involving minibuses. That is more than 3 000 per month. These statistics are alarming and unless the taxi-owners and the Southern African Bus and Taxi Association pay urgent attention to the alarming accident rate of taxis and minibuses, the resistance to deregulation which is starting to appear will grow.

Many people have come up with different reasons as to why there is such a high accident rate. The Southern African Bus and Taxi Association has claimed that 70% to 80% of the accidents are caused by illegal taxi operators. The Public Carriers Association has said that the accident rate has risen because minibuses are breaking road rules in order to transport as many passengers as possible. There are also others who believe that the testing facilities are inadequate and understaffed, and that that contributes towards more unroadworthy taxis being on the road. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause but what is quite clear to me is that the taxi-owners and the associations under which they operate need to get their house in order so that they can assist in reducing the accident rate.

The hon the Minister—I suppose partly as a result of the high accident rate—stated in August of last year that the total deregulation of Black taxis would prompt “disaster and chaos.” Those were his words. He then said that the Government would create a central register to control standards of Black taxis. Sabta has also made proposals to the hon the Minister as to how to deal with the problem in which they asked him not to act unilaterally and to allow pirate taxis …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I believe there is no quorum in the committee.

Order! I request the Secretary to ascertain if there is a quorum.

Quorum

The attention of the presiding officer having been drawn to the presence of a quorum, debate resumed.

Could the hon the Minister give us an indication as to what the Government’s attitude is towards the Black-owned taxi business? Is he going to allow a moratorium, within which, with the assistance of the association, the industry can sort itself out and the owners of pirate taxi’s can become permit holders? I do not think anyone has suggested that the permit system should be scrapped altogether but at the moment there is no indication as to the direction in which the Government is moving.

Many restrictions on Black taxi-owners still exist and local authorities can play an important role in this regard. There are still local authorities that make no provision for Black taxi-ranks—Cape Town is one of them—and I believe Black taxi’s and minibuses do not have adequate facilities to load and offload passengers in Cape Town. The central business district of Johannesburg is totally inadequate for Black passenger transport by taxi. They should follow the example set in Randburg where plans are being made for 52 new taxistands for Black minibuses at a cost of R36 000 each. I believe local authorities have the obligation and responsibility to assist in the smooth transportation of passengers by providing such taxi-ranks.

I also want to deal very briefly with the question of subsidisation. Are RCS’s going to be given the responsibility and task of subsidising Black transport or transport in general? I believe that question has not yet been settled and that there are strong arguments for and against it. I ask the hon the Minister to give us an indication as to whether any progress has been made in that regard as far as Government thinking is concerned.

Mr Chairman, we have come to the end of this Committee discussion and it follows that a host of questions was put. It is altogether impossible to react to all of them but I shall try to give attention to the most important. If specific aspects remain which I do not get to, those hon members are free to take up the matter with my department.

The transport system of a country is like the circulatory system of every living organism. It supplies all parts of the organism with everything required to function soundly and to develop. Millions of tons of goods and millions of people have to be transported efficiently in the RSA every day to support the economic, social and security systems of the country effectively. As far as transport is concerned, the RSA is in the very fortunate position of having an infrastructure of the quality that it is.

I am referring to the infrastructure as regards rail, harbours, airports and roads. As regards roads, ours compare very well with those of other countries. In this regard we can be compared with a country like Australia, which is certainly a comparable country as far as geography and development is concerned. There are twice as many km of roads per km2 as in Australia.

And housing?

That has nothing to do with transport.

Oh yes, it has! It has!

I think a person will also be able to include housing. One can compare the number of houses that this country has built with the figure for any other country.

One does not travel in a house! [Interjections.]

The Department of Transport is responsible for the overall transport policy of South Africa and there are many good reasons why there must be an overall policy. In the first place, legislation which is related to cardinal transport affairs must be uniform. At present there are no fewer than 15 bodies capable of issuing proclamations on transport—the four provinces, SWA, the TB VC countries and the six self-governing states. There are 15 bodies and that is why it is necessary that uniformity must come at legislative level because this divisive legislation has an enormously negative influence on the flow of traffic in these areas.

Sir, I say that there must also be an overall policy to be able to regulate competition on a fair basis between all the modes of travel—air, rail, road and sea. There must be better co-ordination between the South African authorities and other countries in Southern Africa. This is also very important too because we also have a great deal of a traffic across our borders and, whenever we negotiate with states beyond our borders, the first question is what our arrangements are. They want a uniform arrangement before they reach an agreement.

Sir, I say that overall planning and policy are essential—for the rational allocation of funds, for standards, affordability and the availability of finance too.

In the last case, as far as this is concerned, it is important that there be a central data base for the proper planning of safety and quality and for development and policy adjustments. These aspects are consequences of the White Paper on Transport which forms the basis of all these different facets that have been tabled here. The question is how we have progressed since the tabling. Two Bills have already been referred to the standing committee, namely the Transport Deregulation Bill, which deals with the orderly phasing-in of transport, and the South African Roads Board Bill, in which the Road Fund and advice on roads are examined. The Road Traffic Bill is ready to be introduced. The envisaged passenger transport legislation has already been agreed to by the Cabinet and the Transport Advisory Council Act has already been dealt with. At present we are putting that council together.

On 1 December 1987 we proceeded to deregulate about 80% of our road goods transport, by declaring the areas within a radius of 300 kilometres open. I can now say that the chaos that was predicted as a result of those measures regarding the transport of goods did not materialise. At the moment the Rand Afrikaans University has instructions to carry out certain research work for us and to undertake an impact study as regards the consequences or the effect of that decision.

Having made these few general comments on policy, which is obviously important, I should like to deal with the various matters which were raised here. Before I do so, however, permit me to extend my hearty congratulations to the new Director-General of Transport Affairs, Mr Ronny Meyer, who is sitting in the officials’ bay on this occasion—his first attendance of the discussion of this Budget Vote in his new capacity—and to thank him for what he has already accomplished in that office. He is a fine young man who is eager to tackle this position, to which many responsibilities are attached and which offers many challenges. He is a civil engineer by profession but is also well grounded in Government administration for which he holds additional qualifications.

Hear, hear!

We wish him everything of the best for the term ahead.

The hon member for Primrose, the NP chief spokesman on this portfolio and chairman of the standing committee, also deserves my hearty thanks for the work he does in his capacity as chairman of the standing committee involved. In the first case he referred to the question of lighting or the possibility of this along the Ben Schoeman Highway.

This is a matter we have to examine from all angles. After all, it is an expensive process to light such a road. That throughway is 21 kilometres in length and it will cost R16 million to instal the necessary lighting. One’s first reaction is obviously that this is too expensive. Should one spend so much money on lighting? That is the approach until one examines the details involved; one then finds the very important aspect that almost 50% of all accidents occur at night. Research overseas has indicated that that 50% decreases by up to 30% with proper lighting. When one then takes note of how much the accidents cost which occur on that stretch of road—after all, we have proper statistics on this—one finds that the saving which will ultimately be brought about—when one accepts that 50% of all accidents occur at night and that this could decrease by up to 30%—could amount even to R84 million over a period of 10 years. That is the saving we can achieve for the country. The moment one realises this, it becomes clear that the R16 million is actually a very great investment in the interests of the country. In addition, who can estimate the value of the lives which will be saved by this?

Another very important matter is the fact that this road will run through a built-up area within the next 10 to 15 years, which will make the installation of lighting essential there in any case. One certainly cannot have a road of this nature without lighting in a built-up area. When we take all these aspects into account, I think hon members will agree with me that it would be unwise not to light this road. That is why the details are in front of me at present and I intend to approve the lighting of that road.

Especially once Norweto is there!

The hon member for Primrose wanted to know what the position was concerning the possibility whether the Ben Schoeman Highway would become a toll road or not.

This is an important question because that is a busy road. I do not think it should be the policy—it will definitely not be my policy—necessarily to make any road which carries a great deal of traffic, a toll road. When one is talking about toll roads, one should have a specific reason to want to make a particular road a toll road. There were in fact particular reasons related to funds—the hon member for South Coast explained this to the hon member for Mooi River—why we did this regarding the N3 road, also as regards upgrading that road as soon as possible. I think there is no reason at present to take such a decision as regards the Ben Schoeman Highway and that, too, is why it is certainly not under consideration. It is important that this be said.

The hon member also referred to the further development of a certain road in the Northern Transvaal. He referred to traffic density during the Easter weekend and so on. The road to Pietersburg is a matter which has already been discussed and investigated from time to time over a long period. Consequently I am pleased to be able to say we can now start doing something positive about it.

We have decided that this matter should be addressed practically in two phases. Firstly, the existing road must be improved and the immediate traffic requirements addressed. I am now referring to the area south of Pietersburg, that is to say the road from Middelfontein through Naboomspruit and Potgietersrus to Pietersburg. As from 1989 three contracts will be awarded for a total amount of R46 million. This will lead to the improvement of this road, the tarring of the shoulders and also the addition of lanes for overtaking.

As regards the section north of Pietersburg—between Pietersburg and Louis Trichardt—designs are currently being completed for the construction of improved shoulders, ramps, improvements to drainage and reinforcement to paving. The Transvaal Provincial Administration unit in Pietersburg is expected to make a start on the work during 1989 and it is estimated that the work will amount to approximately R34,5 million.

After the jobs and improvements mentioned above have been completed, the road as a whole is expected to satisfy capacity requirements until 1996 at least but a start is already being made on work which has to take place after that time. When we have to give further consideration to the possibility of making it a throughway, this will be done in close co-operation with all the communities which have an interest in it.

The hon member also referred to the deregulation of air transport. I cannot say more about this than that I have appointed private consultants to investigate the matter of limited competition in the aviation industry. I asked them to submit a preliminary report to me by as early as the end of June if their final report was not ready.

I do not think I should take this any further at this stage. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central delivered a speech in rather bad taste. The hon member said that he could only describe the Helderberg incident as a cover-up.

I was referring to the public relations aspect of it.

I am absolutely sure that the hon member said that merely to stir up emotions.

Wrong!

Has the hon member heard of the Margo Commission of Inquiry?

Of course!

The hon member acted as though there was no such inquiry to be held.

That is not true.

If the hon member feels so strongly about this cover-up, I call on him to give evidence before this commission. He has already been invited to do so by the hon member for South Coast. I hope he will accept that invitation.

*Mr Chairman, the fact remains that we have to view incidents like the Helderberg disaster, as well as the other two accidents to which the hon member referred, with great responsibility.

†The hon member referred to the “appalling safety record” in an interview with one of the newspapers. He must be more specific because we do not know the causes of those accidents as yet.

*What is extremely important is that we should not make an emotive issue out of this. The hon member has done this once again. Take that fuel leak which has now been repeated ad nauseam in the Press. If one takes into account that the airflow was away from the motors where the fuel leak occurred, and if one further considers that the atmospheric temperature is several degrees below freezing point, there is no, absolutely no possibility of fire.

Oh, come on!

That is true! That is a fact. It often happens that aircraft jettison fuel in order to land. They do this frequently. Why has the hon member never lamented that? In that case there are many tons of fuel in question. The hon member is trying to stir up emotion. I request him not to do this. I also request the media to approach this, and to make their reports, with greater caution. One merely harms oneself in this way and shocks and upsets people for nothing.

Compare this with ordinary fuel which is taken in at an ordinary garage and which is much more inflammable than the kerosene which these jets use, and which is handled at a normal temperature. One sees how fuel is spilt there. Have hon members ever refused to fill up their cars because they were afraid of a fire hazard there? This fire hazard is much greater, however, than a leak of this nature. I myself have been on board an aircraft which sprang a leak at the fuel intake cover. We simply turned back, landed, had it repaired and took off again.

I request the hon member to deal with this matter of the emotions aroused, with caution. I do not think he does it deliberately but he should first ascertain the facts before saying something like this. I shall reply later on the matter of air traffic controllers.

The hon member also referred to our heavy losses on toll roads. I think the hon member knows better. Surely the hon member knows that one loses at the beginning but that it is a long-term undertaking. It is the same as when a person buys a house through a building society. Initially one pays off almost nothing, only to begin making a profit later because it is calculated over a period of 20 years. As regards the National Road Fund, it is true that we shall have to negotiate with the Treasury for it in future. All the money goes into the Treasury. What is in the National Road Fund at present remains there, but it will be taken into account in future allocations.

The hon member for Roodepoort referred to violence committed in connection with Black taxis. I think the hon member for East London North has already dealt with this. If people take the law into their own hands, it becomes a matter for the police, who will certainly act upon it …

The hon member for East London North, like the hon member for Roodepoort, quoted from newspaper reports. I also want to quote from the report in Business Day, in which it is said—

The manner of dealing with that situation is specifically to be found in the legislation we shall discuss here, when the hon member will be able to talk about the White Paper again. Many Bills will soon be discussed here and then he will be able to talk about the White Paper again. The hon member could have spoken about the White Paper already this afternoon—the hon member has it at his disposal—but then he discussed politics instead of dealing with the White Paper. The Acts on which the White Paper is based will necessitate many hours of discussion here.

The hon member also spoke about desegregation and about the paragraph in which it is referred to. The annual report states clearly on the subject of desegregation that the object of the inquiry is merely to determine the extent of desegregation which is already present in public transport in South Africa and to establish what the attitude of those passengers is to desegregated transport. This is the object of the inquiry and that information will be sent to regional services councils so that they may be aware of the situation regarding it.

The hon member also referred to toll roads. Unfortunately I cannot give a long explanation of this subject as my time is extremely limited; I have only a few minutes.

I am grateful to the hon member for Bethlehem, who made an excellent speech here on road safety. He referred to the separation of the driving licence from the identity document. As the hon member knows, the Government came to a decision that the driving licence should remain part of the identity document. At the moment we are examining whether we cannot still achieve the object which the hon member suggested, even if it forms part of the identity document.

The education of road users is very important. I think I want to furnish a little information on recent road deaths for the information of hon members. The number of road deaths was 223 in comparison with the 191 of last year but it was over a longer period of time and there was obviously more traffic. There was also the additional problem that schools, universities and technikons closed on the same date on which the Easter weekend started.

The number of fatal collisions increased by 5% as against those of last year.

The increase in road traffic can be calculated at approximately 25%. Although the actual figures are higher this year than those of last year, the rate is somewhat lower. This does not make this entire matter any less topical and I thank the hon member for dealing with this matter in such a capable way today. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister raised a very important aspect, namely the question of an academy for aviation. I shall conduct in-depth discussions with him and the department on this because I think it is definitely a matter which deserves attention, especially as we are starting to think about more technically-orientated training. By coincidence, I read only today that for every trained engineer, four technicians have to be trained and that for every technician who is trained, there have to be six trained artisans. In other words, the solution lies in this direction. I thank him very much for his contribution.

†As far as the hon member for Mooi River is concerned, it is unfortunately so that it is not possible to satisfy everybody. I know that Mooi River, his home town, is adjacent to the N3. It is not possible to accommodate everybody. However, the hon member is wrong when he says there is no protection against exploitation. Every person can only be charged a maximum of 75% of what he is saving.

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

No, unfortunately not. I have very limited time. I have still got plenty to reply to.

If the charges are too high the market will force them out. There is an alternative route, and I have already indicated to the hon member that that will be kept in a reasonable condition of repair.

*It is also possible that special agreements can be reached with those people on the tariffs they must pay. This is not out of the question. The hon member therefore has my sympathy. He also came to speak to me beforehand in a very responsible way but it is unfortunately the case that we cannot satisfy everybody.

†I thank the hon member for South Coast for his effective replies to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, especially with regard to toll roads. The hon member also asked whether it was necessary that there should always be an alternative route. As the legislation stands at the moment, it is of course compulsory. He mentioned a particular road. Before we can toll that road or decide on it, it needs to be investigated properly in order to determine the potential of that road. However, we can look into the situation to determine whether there is a possibility of making exceptions while retaining the qualification that there must be an alternative route. As I say, we could make provision for exceptions. We can discuss that at a later occasion. I thank the hon member for taking part in this debate.

*The hon member for Maraisburg made an appeal here in respect of air traffic controllers and the importance of their training. He also requested that, in the light of the importance of this particular profession, their possibilities for promotion should be examined too. I agree with the hon member that these people do important work. At present I am having their remuneration structure investigated with a view to affording them better opportunities for progress.

I can tell the hon member that we are training 30 cadets at the moment. Seven of them have practically completed their course already. We are further examining the possibility of extending air traffic control to the smaller airports too as soon as we have enough trained air traffic controllers—and we shall continue this training until we have enough. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Middelburg referred to the handling of luggage and the loudspeaker system, but the important point to which he actually referred and which I also want to raise is that of permitting businesses along bypasses. This is a difficult matter and something which is actually in the hands of the Administrators involved. The NTC cannot refuse those applications unless they concern road safety. The actual decision, however, is in the hands of the respective Administrators. I think there are no people better equipped or better able to establish businesses there, if this were to become necessary, than specifically the local community. After all, they are in a far better position to compete with people from elsewhere.

The hon member, as well as the hon member for East London North, referred to vehicles which are overloaded. In this regard I want to submit an interesting result of recent research to hon members. It appears from the investigation that 16% are overloaded and that this 16% of overloaded vehicles are responsible for 57% of our road damage. For this reason the appeals made by the hon members in this regard are of cardinal importance and will obviously be considered in detail in the investigation into the road quality system.

The hon member for Nigel appealed that we should take certain aircraft out of the air, as it were. He referred specifically to the Dakotas, but I want to tell the hon member that any aircraft is subjected to a specific maintenance schedule. There are airworthiness inspectors for this purpose, who are attached to the department and do the monitoring. The age of an aircraft does not necessarily determine the termination of its life cycle. There are probably other Dakotas which are still in use and giving good service but which are older than the aircraft concerned to which the hon member referred. I agree fully with the hon member that the standard of servicing as well as the standard of the aircraft should be such that we do not jeopardize the lives and conveyance of people.

The hon member for Bryanston apologized for his absence. He has probably gone to queue for his walk-on ticket in the meantime. He did not have a single good word for our airport services and I think that was exaggerated.

I think you are exaggerating now.

Sir, that is what I heard. The hon member for Parktown said, however, that he found people were not as impolite as the hon member for Bryanston alleged. [Interjections.]

I shall give him credit for the few kind words he might have said, but the bulk of his argument was very unkind and he spoke very disparagingly about these people. Hon members can go over his speech. [Interjections.] He referred to the radar system at Jan Smuts Airport. As I said a while ago, we must at least retain some balance when we discuss all these matters. It is unfair to denigrate the entire system because a person had to queue up on one day.

The radar system to which the hon member referred is being replaced by a new system in July and improvements are also being started at Jan Smuts Airport. We have been experiencing financial problems for years, however, and could start on improvements only this year. Hon members may rest assured that we shall undoubtedly do everything in our power in this regard.

The hon member for Parktown spoke on road safety.

Good speech!

Yes, he made a good speech.

He referred specifically to alcohol abuse. Incidentally, alcohol abuse is not the greatest contributory factor to road accidents. I agree with the hon member that a person cannot ignore the fact that it is one of the contributory factors. I want to tell the hon member, however, that we must have the co-operation of the public to ensure road safety and to have our traffic laws succeed. If traffic laws—I include laws on alcohol abuse here—are applied fairly to motorists without humiliating them, their co-operation will be obtained. I have no fault to find with the principle appealed for by the hon member.

The hon member for Durban Central also referred to the accident rate of Black minibuses. I could not quite establish where the hon member had obtained the figures to which he referred, but I have extracted certain illuminating figures. Minibuses are not the greatest offenders as regards the collision rate per 100 million km travelled. I shall mention the figures to hon members. When one examines the collision rate per 100 million km travelled, one finds that ordinary passenger cars are responsible for 896 collisions; minibuses for 761 collisions and ordinary buses for 1 372 collisions. The reason why there appear to be so many minibus collisions is that they are usually given so much publicity and quite a number of deaths usually occur in these collisions. [Interjections.] The collision rate for minibuses is therefore, as I have indicated here, not necessarily the highest.

The fact is—I am also saying this to the hon member for East London North—the quality of the road traffic system is embodied in the legislation to which I have referred and which we shall discuss here, and the Government’s policy on how to handle these problems is spelt out in it.

The hon member for East London North also requested that specific problems in his constituency receive attention. This is a matter of law enforcement which is performed by the police, provincial inspectors, local authorities and also departmental inspectors. We work very closely with those law enforcement bodies in all these matters. If he has a specific problem, however, he is welcome to bring it to my attention.

I thank all hon members who participated in the debate.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 26—“National Health and Population Development”:

Mr Chairman, at the outset I merely want to make three short announcements. Firstly I want to welcome the new Director-General. It is the first time that he is here during the discussion of this Vote. Dr Slabber had a brilliant student and academic career at Stellenbosch University. He was a dean at the University of the Orange Free State. He has had experience in management in the public sector and he is already making an important contribution to this department. It is my privilege to welcome him here.

The second announcement concerns the national welfare policy which has been formulated and accepted by the Government, and the policy document will be released shortly. It is being printed at the moment. This policy document is the Government’s responsibility, the principles, aims and goals of the policy as well as the role of voluntary welfare organisations having been very clearly spelt out. The structures for the implementation of this policy have also been indicated and in the policy it is also clearly stated that the Government has the responsibility of taking measures to prevent social and physical hardship for the country’s people. In terms of this policy special recognition is given to the role and place of voluntary welfare organisations. The partnership between the State on the one hand and the private sector on the other, which has been a matter of policy in South Africa for decades, is reaffirmed and entrenched in the welfare structures.

The private sector will be represented on local welfare committees; from there they will be represented on the regional welfare councils; subsequently on the advisory councils of the relevant population groups, and the advisory councils of the population groups will then appoint the people to serve on the National Welfare Council. The National Welfare Council must in turn report to the National Welfare Policy Council. The National Welfare Policy Council will consist of the Ministers who deal with welfare in respect of population groups—the Whites, the Coloureds, the Asians and the Blacks. They will all be represented on the National Welfare Policy Council. It is very clearly spelt out in this announcement that each population group is autonomous in the implementation of its welfare services—from community level right up to advisory councils.

I want to point out that in terms of this national welfare policy a very important role has been found for the comprehensive family and marriage policy which has been formulated. We are of the opinion that that is an important aspect of welfare in South Africa. The three responsible Ministers in the various Ministers’ Councils will, when their Votes are discussed, supply further particulars regarding the policy.

†The last announcement concerns an important matter, and that is the national plan which has been devised to prevent and combat the abuse of drugs and alcohol dependency and related problems. For the purpose of implementing this plan, the National Advisory Board on Rehabilitation Matters has appointed a subcommittee to attend to this matter, and the Government has accepted its recommendations.

When we consider the fact that approximately R530 million in production costs are lost annually as a result of alcohol abuse, and a further amount is lost as a result of alcohol-related health and medical costs, road accidents, violence, crime and social programmes, the total cost to this country relating to alcoholism amounts to about R1,1 billion.

Another important fact is that the seizure of dagga over the past few years is on a par with that of Mandrax and LSD. The number of prosecutions and convictions has also increased. The Cabinet has therefore approved the national plan for the prevention and combating of alcohol and drug abuse in South Africa. This plan comprises the following: The prevention of alcohol and drug abuse and alcoholism and drug dependence; the control of the availability of alcohol and other drugs; the facilitating of education-for-living programmes; the facilitating of effective measures to co-ordinate the prevention and treatment of alcohol and drug dependence; and the compilation, interpretation and dissemination of applicable knowledge and information on drug dependence and alcohol abuse.

Governmental and other bodies have been identified to attend to the objectives of this plan, and the Cabinet has decided that the department should give priority to the execution of this plan.

*Those are the three brief announcements which I wanted to start with. I am grateful to note that hon members are wide awake, and I look forward to a very pleasant and constructive debate. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, allow me on behalf of this side of the House, to congratulate the new Director-General, Dr Coen Slabber, most sincerely on his appointment. We hope that he will enjoy a very long and pleasant and fruitful term of office.

Hear, hear!

I must say the director-general was really thrown in at the deep end because he was told on Friday that the discussion of this Vote would take place today. I feel that this is asking a bit much. However, I must honestly say that when we made enquiries the department reacted quickly. I believe this entire matter actually does the Department of National Health and Population Development an injustice. [Interjections.] It is definitely not fair to give such an important department and its officials, as well as those of us in this party, such short notice to prepare ourselves for this debate. [Interjections.]

If these ad hoc arrangements of the last few days, which we experienced again this afternoon with regard to the amendment to the Joint Rules, typify the way in which health care is going to be handled by the Government in future, I believe this bodes ill for South Africa. It is disorganised. It is unplanned, visionless, undisciplined and what is more, it is threatening to degenerate into a circus. [Interjections.]

And you are the clown in the circus! [Interjections.]

This is taking place at great expense, Sir, and at the expense of the taxpayers of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to the two announcements which the hon the Minister has just made. As regards the first announcement I want to say that it is quite clear that something like social welfare and the envisaged social welfare board, which is going to be organised, is very obviously being shifted from the sphere of so-called own affairs to that of general affairs. Welfare services were an own affair par excellence. Now the hon the Minister, who is a general affairs Minister, has made this announcement, while the own affairs Ministers must simply fill in the particulars at the lowest level.

We have no problem with regard to the second announcement. We also feel very strongly about this, particularly when we consider the number of times drugs have been seized and the number of convictions for drug offences, both of which have increased drastically. This indicates that this is an industry, a state of affairs which we in the CP would very much like to see curtailed. We therefore agree fully with what the hon the Minister said in that announcement.

I spoke about lack of organisation. I want to say once again that there is unfortunately a certain lack of organisation in some branches of this department too.

I want to give an example of this. As hon members know, there was a fairly major flood disaster in the Free State. The department then decided to launch certain immunisation campaigns to prevent a possible epidemic of contagious diseases breaking out. In the Free State, in the vicinity of Vrede, it was advertised in the local newspaper that such immunisation campaigns would take place. However, someone wrote me a letter to tell me what actually happened during the immunisation campaign. I am quoting from this correspondent’s letter:

[Interjections.] He feels that the department, or whoever is responsible for campaigns of this kind, should try to make better arrangements. He feels this is a terrible waste of the taxpayer’s money and asked me to put this matter to the hon the Minister. However, he went on to say:

[Interjections.] I am merely mentioning this in passing because it is an example of poor organisation on the part of the department.

While we are now discussing the spending of State money, I want to mention that the media are giving John Citizen a disturbing picture of hospital services and particularly equipment. [Interjections.] During the past week we heard on Monitor that sophisticated apparatus such as that needed for the treatment of kidney stones without surgery by means, inter alia, of ultrasound therapy is only available in the private sector and not even at any academic training centre in South Africa. I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether this information which was given on Monitor is correct. We hear from the Free State, for example, that there is a big cut-back in this year’s budget in respect of furniture and equipment. Last year, for example, R30,9 million was voted compared with R11,9 million this year. The supplying of items such as spectacles and hearing aids to pensioners has virtually ceased.

On the other hand the cost of health care in South Africa is rising extremely quickly—from the public’s point of view. In this connection I must mention the disparity which exists between the White population group and other population groups. As regards income, full parity is now being achieved between the groups. We know from medical schemes that the so-called sickness profiles differ and the premium contributions of the other population groups are lower than those of the Whites.

I have here in my hand a circular from the Secretary for Health of Lebowa announcing new tariffs for hospitals. Hon members must now listen carefully. In respect of “costs per day” they divide patients into seven categories. The first category pertains to people who earn more than R3 000 per annum and pay R4,00 per day and the seventh category pertains to people who earn more than R25 000 per annum and pay R25,00 per day. Let us compare this with the Transvaal. The so-called P2 patient must pay R82,50 per day to be nursed in such a hospital. If he is a member of the prison services who was injured on duty or a police case, he pays R85,00 per day. If one is unfortunate enough to land up in the intensive care unit, it costs one R188,50 per day. [Interjections.]

In our part of the world the position is that the two hospitals are nine kilometers apart. At the hospital in Lebowa one does not pay more than R25,00 per day, whereas one pays R82,50 at the provincial hospital.

This is a provincial hospital, I am not even talking about private hospitals. I am now going to talk about medicine. In my opinion Beeld of 23 March published a fairly comprehensive and factually correct, report in this regard. They mention, for example, a bottle of a very popular medicine for the treatment of high blood pressure. The public sector pays R4,80 for this bottle of medicine. The private wholesaler pays R9,18 for it. Then he increases the price by 17% to this, and the retailer pays R10,74. He adds 50%, as well as a dispensing fee of R1,30 and a copy fee of 15 cents, and the final amount paid across the counter, including GST, is R19,67 for the same medicine.

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

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

I thank the hon member.

We can also consider the increase in the price of many well-known medicines such as Zantac, which is used in the treatments of stomach ulcers. Two years ago 30 tablets cost R58,92, and now they cost R87,27.

I know a great deal has been said on both sides. There was the Browne report; there was a White Paper; and matters were referred to the professional association, the medical associations, the pharmacy profession and the Competition Board. However, I think the time has come for the Government really to do something about this. I hope that in the course of this debate the hon the Minister will give an indication of what is going to be done about the uncontrolled increases taking place in this sector. Medicine accounts for 35% to 40% of the total payment by all medical funds is.

I should like to refer to a second matter which deserves to receive prominence in this debate, namely the dreadful way in which health services are being abused in South Africa by subversive elements whose objective is to overthrow the existing order. A relatively apolitical, neutral sphere of life like health services is, in my opinion, being blatantly exploited in a subtle way by revolutionary elements such as Namda, a so-called organised professional association. What is Namda? I am quoting from a pamphlet published by this organisation:

The activities of Namda are set out under the following headings: “Occupational health”, “New constitution” and “Health care and rehabilitation of detainees”.

Why should one join this association? One reason given is:

In other words, it is a so-called professional association in the field of medicine with overt political objectives which is detracting from the existing order in South Africa and bringing it into disfavour in the world, as was the case with the Anti-World Medical Association Campaign, which was active when the World Medical Association was to hold an international meeting in Cape Town in 1985. This is nothing but a boycott action against South Africa by a professional association. This association concentrates on health care for political detainees and in particular on occupational health.

The objective of this association and its cronies is to arouse a spirit of resistance or rebellion against the existing order. However, what worries me is that I read, inter alia, on page 25 of the annual report that the Director of the National Centre for Occupational Health is also a professor of occupational health at the University of the Witwatersrand. I have my doubts about that; I really have my doubts about that. I do not even know who this person is, but I want to ask the hon the Minister: Is this person a member of Namda, and how many people working at this centre for occupational health are members of Namda? I want this centre to be above suspicion and for us not to have a subtle infiltration of these elements particularly in the field of occupational health, and in this regard I want a clear statement from the hon the Minister. I should like to know viz that the standpoint of the hon the Minister and the Government is in respect of Namda. I should also very much like to know what the standpoint of the hon member for Parktown and the PFP is in respect of Namda.

Tell us what your standpoint is!

Our standpoint is quite clear. We are totally opposed to it. Mr Chairman, I also want to refer to Chapter 3, which deals inter alia with contagious diseases. Here a very small paragraph is devoted to the acquired immunity deficiency syndrome, AIDS, in which it is said that 64 cases had been diagnosed between 1 January 1982 and 5 October 1987 and that 44 people had already died. However, it does not report on the mineworkers, particularly those from Malawi, and I should like to know what the position is in this regard, because this report is fairly reassuring, in sharp contrast to the position in other parts of the world. I have here a report which appeared in an issue of the San Francisco of last year, which reads as follows:

It goes on to say:

Now, this is alarming, and I do not think this is the position in South Africa at the moment, but I should like to ask the hon the Minister what steps are being taken and what information is being given to the public.

According to the report a disease like tuberculosis is actually a far bigger killer. The medical health officer of the Cape divisional council reported as follows in Die Burger of 3 February, and I am quoting:

I asked by way of a question in this House whether the hon the Minister had seen this report, but at that stage he said he had not. However, I see that the department’s figures differ vastly from those of the divisional council, and I should like the hon the Minister to give us a clearer picture, particularly in respect of tuberculosis in the Peninsula.

With regard to civil pensioners I want to ask the hon the Minister when the long promised increase up to 75% of the original pension in respect of widows is going to be implemented. I hear that draft regulations in this connection were drawn up towards the end of last year. Perhaps the hon the Minister can make an announcement in this regard, particularly in view of the fact that there is not going to be an increase in civil pensions this year. This simply means that our aged in particular, those persons who retired a while ago with lower salaries, are battling at this stage. Particularly those persons who have to find a place to stay, are becoming poorer every year. If one calculates what it costs an aged White to take care of himself, we find that it costs no less than approximately R650 per month. I should like to know how many state pensioners who are widows get less than this amount.

In their day these people helped to build this country and it is this Government’s duty to look after them so that they do not live miserable lives, as we read every day in letters which are sent to us.

Lastly I want to discuss the professional conditions of the medical doctor and the pharmacist. As regard medical doctors we now find that the guideline tariff of the Medical Association, which for example lays down the consultation fees of general practitioners, is at the moment twice that of the statutory tariff. Doctors can only earn an acceptable income by increasing the turnover of their patients. In my opinion this is an unhealthy state of affairs. In my opinion the medical profession should in any case be given a real say in the determining of this tariff in terms of section 29 of the Medical Schemes Act.

At the moment the pharmacists are experiencing an astounding deprivatisation strategy by the Government. It has put an end to private pharmacies which used only to make up prescriptions and Transmed pharmacies which made up prescriptions on contract. What does the Government mean by this? The Government is saying that these small scale privatisation strategies were too expensive. How does the Government think it is going to launch the large-scale privatisation strategies? The small pharmacists in the small rural towns must now close their doors. The Government is telling them that the volume of the Government’s State tender medicines is going to increase further. This in turn will require a further subsidy from the consumer and will have catastrophic consequences for the pharmacist and the consumer. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg touched upon quite a number of subjects to which I naturally cannot react. I want to make one general statement, however, because he made a few unflattering comments about certain services.

Given our numbers in South Africa, the population distribution, the specific funds available and the manpower at our disposal, the Department of National Health and Population Development and other health services do an excellent job of work. The discussion of this Vote came down on the department rather suddenly. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and the officials heartily. One almost has the feeling that it was unnecessary for them to put everything in order now for the discussion of the Vote because their affairs are shipshape and in order. They very quickly activated the necessary machinery and I am very certain we shall have an excellent debate. I want to congratulate them on the splendid way in which they put the machinery into operation.

I also want to congratulate the new Director-General, Dr Coen Slabber, on his appointment. He has already shown his mettle as the Chief Executive Director of the Department of Health Services and Welfare. He is therefore no stranger to us; we merely congratulate him heartily and we are sure he will acquit himself very well of his task.

The Department of National Health and Population Development often reminds me of a very good relay team. One has excellent athletes who do the running and, if one athlete like Dr Retief has to leave the track, the baton is simply passed on to another excellent athlete, Dr Coen Slabber, and the contest proceeds. We are truly winners.

I want to thank the department further for this excellent annual report which hon members also received in good time. The information in it has been splendidly summarised and it is a pleasure to go through it. In this report, which is obviously that of 1987, there is reference to the Natal flood disaster. I should like to thank the hon the Minister and his officials very heartily, from our side, for the splendid way in which this department acted as a co-ordinator during this flood disaster in Natal and also during the recent flood disaster in the Orange Free State and North-Western Cape. I want to congratulate them on the way in which the department has acted, has furnished its services—excellent work of which we may all be proud—and is still furnishing its services.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to certain health facilities today, and more specifically to health facilities for non-Whites. You know that much has been said in the recent past about hospital beds and other similar problems, and I think it is a good thing for us to put the matter into the right perspective and not emphasise it in any biased way. Firstly, I should like to quote a few statistics, against the background of which I then want to discuss these facilities. If one regards the population of South Africa from a socio-economic viewpoint, 50% of the population consists of so-called Third-World people, 25% of First-World people and about 25% of people who are in a transitional stage between the Third World and the First World. This has enormously important implications for health services and the planning of health services because that 50%, or a little more, which consists of Third-World people, depend very heavily on the State for their health services. On the other hand, the 25%, which consists of First-World people, lean on the State far less, and there the question of privatisation obviously comes very strongly to the fore, but I do not want to go into that.

As regards medical funds, 55,6% of the White and 1,2% of the non-White population were covered by medical schemes in 1969, and an amount of R83 847 000 was paid in benefits. In 1974 the figures were 73% in the case of Whites and 2,4% for non-Whites. In 1979 the figures were 77,6% for Whites and 4,6% for non-Whites. In 1985, if we do not add Transmed, Polmed, the medical aid funds of the Prison Services and the Defence Force, in which many non-Whites are involved, the figures had risen to such an extent that 81,7% of Whites and 8,4% of non-Whites belonged to medical aid funds, plus the percentage from Transmed, Polmed, the Prison Service and the Defence Force already belonging to medical funds. You see, therefore, that almost 10% of Black people already belong to medical funds. This is a very important figure in the planning of health facilities. I obtained a number of statistics from the Department of National Health and Population Development, but I shall unfortunately not be able to quote them all to hon members. Research was done, inter alia, for every year between 1977 and 1981 inclusive.

It was found at that time that we had between 620 and 650 hospitals with 138 000 beds in South Africa. Roughly 3,5 million people were admitted to hospitals annually whilst 25 million outpatients and casualty consultations were provided every year. A fairly constant 37 million patient days per annum in these hospitals were recorded between 1977 and 1981.

*At a tariff of about R100 a day, R3,7 billion was spent on this. Hon members therefore see that hospital beds are an extremely expensive item.

†In respect of White admissions to hospitals the figure was 241 per thousand per year in 1981. In respect of Coloureds, it was 140 per thousand per year, Asians 133 per thousand per year and Blacks 112 per thousand per year.

*We then get to a very important factor, and that is the stay or the time spent in hospital. I shall return to this, but it is the point I want to raise tonight. In 1981 the average time Whites spent in hospital was 7,6 days; it was 11,7 days for so-called Coloureds, 7,1 days for Asians and 12,2 days for Blacks. Hon members can therefore see that the time spent in hospital by those of colour, and especially Blacks, was about 50% longer. I do not want to go into reasons for this now. There may be all kinds of reasons, for instance that they live further from hospitals, that there is frequently a shortage of staff, that people perhaps keep them there longer for that reason, etc. The fact is, however, that those people stay in hospital much longer and, as I have already said, this has enormous financial implications. There is a last figure I could mention.

†Just another very interesting fact is that the life expectancy at birth in the RSA has increased since 1960 from 45 to 57,5 years for Blacks, and in the case of Whites, from 68 to 70,4 years. These figures are considerably better than the average of 49,8 years for Blacks in Africa as a whole, and as good as the 68,1 years for Europe and the Americas.

*What I want to say here is that we may truly be proud of what is achieved in South Africa with the few people and the little money we have. [Time expired.]

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

I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the new Director General, Dr Slabber, upon his appointment. I am sure he will acquit himself well of his task. My only concern is that he is not an Ikey, and consequently I feel that he might not listen to me very carefully. In the meantime, relatively good and competent doctors have also qualified at other universities. I would like to extend my congratulations to him and bid him welcome.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that we on this side of the House support him in two of the statements he made here this afternoon. I have only one problem with them, as it is concerned with welfare. The hon the Minister made a policy statement in which he explained the future development policy. There are two words that bother me. Firstly there is the word “differentiation” and, secondly, “own affairs”. Surely the hon the Minister knows that the private welfare organisations are not too enamoured of differentiation and own affairs. At the moment they are not rendering a service to people on a racial or own-group basis. I hope the hon the Minister will respect that and that in his new policy development relating to this important task it will be borne in mind that private welfare organisations completely reject the idea of apartheid and differentiation based on colour. I shall not say that this is the case with everyone, but it is so with most of them.

†As far as his announcement about trying to gain better control in respect of alcohol and drug abuse is concerned, I wish to say that we welcome it, of course. I wish him and his department great success in such an important task.

I should like to refer briefly to the hon member for Pietersburg who issued a challenge about Namda. Like other organisations he may know of, Namda was started because of dissatisfaction with the policies of the department concerned with health in South Africa, and especially after the Biko affair. [Interjections.] It is not nonsense. I would certainly not try to defend them here today, but I should like to tell the hon member for Pietersburg that if ever Namda wished to become the major medical association in South Africa, the CP policy concerning health would have to become part of the South African situation.

Are you a member?

Am I a member? No. I have been asked this question several times. I do not know why people are so concerned whether I am a member or not. I am not a member and I hope that I will never be asked this question again.

The hon member for Pietersburg is always very concerned about other policies, but one thing that has never been spelled out in this House is the policy of the CP and how they would cope with rising medical expenses. We already know about the shortage of hospital beds for Blacks and the great distances Blacks presently have to travel to hospitals and other health care institutions. We also know that in the rural areas health care for Blacks is inadequate. It will be very interesting to know where the CP, with their policy of partition, will provide hospitals and other health facilities for Blacks. We know that there is a great shortage of White nurses in South Africa.

Why?

Because White women today do not want to qualify as nurses. Every attempt to encourage White women to train as nurses has failed and it is no use talking about salaries and conditions of service as far as this is concerned. I would like to ask the hon member for Pietersburg where they would get the White staff from to look after White patients. Do the White staff include people like cleaners, the people who would carry the bedpans etc?

Of course.

It is very easy to say that. If the policy of the CP is carried out our health services would collapse and Namda would become the largest medical association in South Africa.

The hon member for Langlaagte tried to develop a theme during his speech and I accept that the time limit of ten minutes is far to short for all of us to be able to do so. He tried to give statistics about the shortage of facilities for Blacks in our hospitals. There is, without doubt, a lot of truth in what he said, but he will concede that hospital beds for Blacks are overutilized. I have figures here which have a bearing on this subject. At the J G Strijdom Hospital for Whites the bed occupancy is only 60,5%, at the Johannesburg General Hospital the occupancy is only 67,9%, but at Coronation it is 94%, at Hillbrow 93% and at Baragwanath 105%. When one goes further, one finds that in reply to a question it was stated that the department of the hon Minister has projected that as far as major building works for 1991-92 are concerned, no beds for Whites but 4 802 for Nonwhites will be required. In reply to all my questions and in all the discussions I have had, the main reason advanced for the overcrowding and the lack of beds for Blacks is a lack of money. As far as the University of Natal Medical School is concerned, I asked when this hospital would be built. I was told that accommodation schedules had been completed and consultants had been appointed and that the building of the hospital would commence during 1990 as a ten year project, depending on available funds.

I also asked a question about the Mofolo community centre in Soweto. It was completed in May last year and has been serviced, but has not been utilized. Why not? The reply was: The Mofolo community centre has not yet been commissioned due to financial restrictions. I do not blame the hon Minister, because I believe that his department realises what the needs are, but whenever we ask questions about these problems, we hear that there is not enough money. The complications caused by this hon Minister’s Government and the replies to my questions make me very sad, because I realize that this shortage of facilities and money will continue.

I also asked whether any wards in hospitals administered by the State were integrated and if so, how many and in which hospitals. The reply was: No. Hospital facilities are provided according to the wishes and needs of the community. How can the Government say that? It is not true. Hospital facilities are provided according to the wishes of the National Government. That is what is happening. Why is it that Whites in the Transvaal wish to have hospitals of their own and Whites in the Groote Schuur and Tygerberg hospitals wish to lie in the same wards as Coloureds, Asians and Blacks? Has anybody asked these communities what there wishes are? I believe that the major cause of the lack of money to provide adequate hospital services in South Africa is the Government’s continued policy of racial segregation as far as health services are concerned. That is the reason and it will continue to be the reason until the Government discover this folly of theirs and make health a general affair and remove offensive racial discrimination from health services. I hope the hon Minister will reply to that.

I would like to ask the hon Minister and his two deputies how they feel about the habit of smoking. Unfortunately, I will not be able to deal with this, the major part of my speech, in full. Since his appointment the hon Minister has never in this House taken a stand on this very important problem. [Interjections.] He has done so outside, but I want to give him an opportunity to do so in this debate. Does the hon Minister agree that smoking is a major health risk and is the cause of numerous fatal diseases? I want to ask the hon Minister—and his deputy who represents a tobacco growing area—whether they agree that smoking is a health hazard. In the April issue of the S A Medical Journal it is stated that if the smoking rate among our Blacks and Coloureds were to exceed those of Whites, as is already occurring among the Coloureds, the rate of smoking related diseases is likely to result in between 120% and 1200% more deaths by the year 2000 in respect of Blacks and 64% more in respect of Coloureds. What I am trying to tell the hon Minister is that as the Blacks, Coloureds and other races are encouraged through advertising to smoke, this will be the result. These projected deaths only give one parameter—deaths. The increase in morbidity, medical treatment and hospitalization as a result of smoking related diseases will be too much for South Africa’s hard-pressed medical care sector to deal with without neglecting other desperately needed requirements. I would like to ask the hon Minister to reply to the following questions: 41,1% of Coloureds, 34,9% of Whites, 29% of Asians and 27,7% of Blacks were reported to be smokers in 1984. Does the hon Minister believe in the control of advertising? Does he believe in a total ban, a strong partial ban or a moderate partial ban? At present there is no Government decreed ban in South Africa. [Interjections.]

It is amazing that hon members on the other side can play the fool and treat such a serious problem with such flippancy and ridicule. I really find it unbelievable. Is the hon the Minister prepared to do something about changing this situation and to institute a ban? There is a voluntary agreement that direct cigarette advertising will not be televised, but that is the only step the Government has been prepared to take. [Interjections.] Secondly, does the hon Minister agree that cigarette packets be labelled (a) with a health warning; (b) a statement of tar and nicotine content and (c) a limit on tar and nicotine content? In South Africa, cigarette packets carry a health warning and a statement on tar and nicotine content on a voluntary basis. No legislation to limit the tar and nicotine content exists.

Thirdly, what about restrictions on where tobacco products can be sold and to what age groups of people? That is the next question. In South Africa sales of tobacco products to minors are not prohibited. Fourthly, what about imposing extra taxes or levies on tobacco products? In South Africa cigarettes are taxed, but this income does not directly fund anti-smoking activities. The fifth point is in regard to tax incentives and/or subsidies for replacing tobacco with other crops. In South Africa there is none. The sixth point is in regard to restrictions on smoking in public places. In many countries bans exist on national or localised levels. In South Africa provincial and municipal by-laws, and not the Government, prohibit smoking in certain public places only. Finally, what about restrictions on smoking in the work-place? As far as this point is concerned, there is nothing in South Africa, except perhaps the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act, that may possibly be applicable.

I ask the hon the Minister these questions because I hope he will state his views on smoking in this debate clearly today and tell us what he and his department are willing to do about it.

Finally, I would like to mention a report in a newspaper of I think today about a Durban prostitute who is a known Aids carrier. The hon the Minister laughs, but I think it is a very important issue that an Aids carrier is allowed to sell her sex and her Aids freely.

Her last test was negative.

Fine. What will the hon the Minister do if a known Aids carrier uses a prostitute? What will he do in such a case? What will he do to put an end to these cases selling sex? Does he agree that Aids should be notifiable or will he be able to draft some other form of legislation? His answer that the last test was negative may unfortunately mean that this is a problem that will occur in the future. What will the hon the Minister do about it?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parktown will forgive me if I do not react to his address. Most of his speech dealt with health matters and I am sure they will be handled by either of my two colleagues. Nonetheless, I found his contribution most interesting.

*Once again it is a privilege to address this Committee on an extremely important topic. The House has, on a previous occasion, discussed the importance of the population development programme, and I am convinced that all hon members of the House will support the programme in principle.

†At this stage I would like to endorse the sentiments of all hon members insofar as our new Director-General is concerned.

*It is obvious that if South Africa does not maintain a balance between its sources of subsistence—that includes its natural resources and socio-economic capabilities—and the size of its population, it could have disastrous consequences for all the inhabitants of South Africa. In order to eliminate the population growth problem successfully in a multi-cultural and complex society such as that of South Africa, responsible and purposeful action is required. A programme which is not sensitive to the social and cultural realities of South Africa cannot succeed in the long run.

The aims of the programme must thus be realisable within the social, economic and political realities of South Africa. The success of this programme will, in the long run, most certainly be determined by the extent to which the economy can recover, the extent to which we shall be able to succeed in meaningfully accommodating the political aspirations of all population groups on all levels, the extent to which social mobility in South Africa is going to be permitted, encouraged and promoted, the extent to which the circumstances of especially the developing areas and communities are effectively improved—I am speaking about developing areas and communities, because I do not like the term “Third World”—and by the extent to which the population development programme is popularised.

South Africa is inextricably part of Southern Africa. It is an illusion to want to think that South Africa can isolate itself from the ever-increasing population growth of Southern Africa. We have a joint responsibility in this regard, and from a democratic point of view we shall have to help the states of Southern Africa to gain control over their population growth. This help implies financial support and expertise.

The question of population growth is and will continue to be the single major issue of South and Southern Africa. Research clearly indicates that a country can only recover successfully in economic terms if the population growth can be contained. One can study the success stories of various countries in the Far East and in South America. There population growth declined dramatically and was followed by economic recovery. Consequently there is a clear correlation between population growth and the economy.

We are continually engaged in critically evaluating the programme, basing this on demographic facts in respect of the optimalisation of the programme. In this process the Population Development Board plays a very important role, consisting as it does of leading experts from the private sector and functioning under the competent guidance of Prof J P de Lange. I want to express my sincere thanks to hon members of the board, people who make valuable and highly appreciated contributions to the success of the programme.

It is very clear that if we want to succeed with the population development programme, we shall in future have to concentrate much more on programmes geared to the achievement of a low number of children per woman, in other words a lower TFR, an increased use of family planning, a higher educational level, a higher literacy level, a lower infant mortality rate, fewer teenage pregnancies, an increased per capita income, an increased life expectancy and a lower room density. We shall simply have to intensify this programme if we want to achieve the demographic goals.

The Chief Directorate: Population Development is, inter alia, responsible for marketing and advertising the programme at all levels and in gaining co-operation and involvement in its implementation from all organizations to ensure that the population development programmes take place in a co-ordinated way and that a specific momentum is maintained in the practical implementation of the programme.

At the moment there are 133 professional officers, representative of all the population groups who are active in the field in promoting the programme at various levels. The programme has already been established at grass-roots level in 700 communities, and the aim is to expand it in the 1988-89 financial year to a further 450 communities.

A national advertising and liaison programme has been launched in the past year. The main purpose of the 1987-88 campaign was to make all opinion-makers of all population groups aware of the problem; to acquire private sector support for the programme and to promote responsible ways of solving the problem. Our first analyses of the advertising and liaison programme indicate that it was successful. Surveys indicate that the awareness of the population-group problem in the RS A amongst more than 90% of the opinion-makers has been intensified and that they are sympathetic towards the population development programme. The advertising and liaison programme will be expanded in the 1988-89 financial year in order to promote practical support among the opinion-makers for the implementation of the population development programme and to establish an awareness of the population growth problem and its consequences among the masses.

We are all aware that the population growth on White farms is very high. The average number of children per Black woman on White farms is estimated at 5,7. The Rural Foundation continues to do excellent work in raising the general living conditions of farm labourers. The State has increased its subsidy to the Rural Foundation by 26%, to an amount of R6,66 million for the 1988-89 financial year, so that it can expand its activities on farms.

The Rural Foundation is at present active on 3 000 farms and they reach a total of approximately 200 000 people. If one examines the progress that the Rural Foundation made during the 1985-86 financial year, one sees an expansion of 88% in respect of farms or farmers who have joined the programme. That is definitely a remarkable achievement. The Rural Foundation scientifically monitors the progress made on farms and the results indicate, inter alia, a remarkable improvement in the general quality of life of the farm workers, as well as a definite decline in population growth.

Today I want to pay tribute to the board of the Rural Foundation, the management of the Foundation, and every community developer in the employ of the Foundation. The contribution which this group of men and women are making towards the development of the human potential in the RSA is remarkable.

†To name just one example: Recently a joint campaign by the Western Province Surf Lifesaving Association and the Rural Foundation to reduce the drowning toll on farms in the Western Cape was undertaken. I might add that this was successful.

Order! The hon member for George may not stand there. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I also want to pay tribute to every farmer and his wife who have joined the Rural Foundation and have actively made an effort to improve the living conditions of their farm labourers. They are most certainly engaged in pioneering work and are making an invaluable contribution to the achievement of the goals of the population development programme.

What is heartening, however, is that the Rural Foundation has, to an increasing extent, succeeded in expanding its activities to the Northern and South-Eastern Transvaal, where the population growth is very large.

Seen from the point of view of a population development programme, the following priority magisterial districts in the rural areas are among the first 20: Ermelo, Standerton, Vryburg, Bethal, Hoöveldrif, Piet Retief, Albany, Middelburg—Transvaal, Pietersburg, Potgietersrus, Witbank, Gordonia, Waterberg and Barberton. They are situated mainly in the Transvaal rural areas. We do find, however, the following urban magisterial districts among the first 20 areas accorded the highest priority: Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage, East London, Wynberg, Johannesburg and Bloemfontein.

In the management of the programme we concentrate especially on these priority areas which have been determined in accordance with a specific formula.

I must also mention that much progress has been made in the TBVC countries, in particular. These countries have already formally decided on a population development programme, and a population development expert from the RSA has already been seconded to Venda and Ciskei on request. The Republic of Bophuthatswana has created a Ministry and a full-fledged government department for population development, the first in Africa. That is indeed a remarkable initiative.

Good progress has also been made in the self-governing areas. All the self-governing areas, with the exception of KwaNdebele, have already decided, in principle, in favour of a population development programme. A population development expert from the RSA has already been seconded to Qwaqwa on request.

During recent meetings between the Ministers responsible for population development in the RSA and in the TBVC countries, and between RSA and the self-governing territories, an important decision was taken, namely that a joint publicity programme for Southern Africa be launched to promote the aims of population development.

The implementation of the population development programme is our greatest challenge. The long-term future of Southern Africa will most definitely be determined by the success or lack of success of this programme. We are the last generation who are still capable of doing anything about this problem. The reality of the problem renders it essential that we, in the interests of all people in South and Southern Africa, mobilise all resources and capabilities in order to defuse the time bomb of population growth.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to speak after the hon the Deputy Minister, and I hope he will not resent the fact that I am not going to react to his speech. He made a very interesting speech and I should like to congratulate him on it. [Interjections.]

Someone once said that most men need a wife because every now and then something happens for which one cannot give the Government the blame. [Interjections.] When I look at some of the hon members in the opposition benches I do not think they really need a wife, because they blame the Government for everything that happens anyway.

Do you give your wife the blame, then? [Interjections.]

As the representative of the Welkom constituency, I want to thank the hon the Minister for his sympathetic attitude and the personal attention he has given to the great problem of the critical shortage of hospital beds for Black patients in Welkom.

There is a great deal of appreciation for the fact that the building project in respect of the construction of the new hospital for Blacks in Welkom is receiving the highest priority from the hon the Minister. The provincial administration of the Free State is at present making use of rented accommodation in the Oppenheimer Mine Hospital, as well as of temporary structures at the existing hospital. As a result of the steadily growing demand for hospital facilities for Blacks, the aforementioned facilities are entirely inadequate.

The provincial authorities have accordingly decided to plan a new regional hospital for Welkom—a hospital with 620 beds. In that plan provision is also made for a further extension with 800 beds. The department has already lent its support to the project. The Treasury Committee for Building Norms and Cost Limitations has already approved the project, and hopefully tenders will soon be requested for its construction.

This evening, however, I want to talk about something entirely different. In the past, health services were mainly doctor-orientated. However, today’s modern health services are based on the services of various professional teams such as the nurses, dentists, pharmacists, physiotherapists, radiographers, occupational therapists, health inspectors, medical scientists, veterinary surgeons, etc. Everyone plays a very important role. At the end of 1986 there were approximately 2 200 doctors, 7 500 pharmacists, 2 300 health inspectors, 2 500 physiotherapists, 1 170 occupational therapists and 64 000 registered nurses, 83% of whom were practising. This evening, however, I want to single out one of these teams, namely the gentle right hand of the medical profession—the nursing staff in our country.

Hear, hear!

Sir, the nursing corps undoubtedly plays the most important role in the provision of health services to the community and in truth they form the heart of society as a whole, just as the SAMS form the heart of the Defence Force. It is a pleasure for me to pay tribute to them, and I earnestly request that this heart of society should be well-treated and cared for, and finance simply must be found for this purpose.

However, there are certain important trends which are giving cause for concern at the moment. Firstly there is an unsatisfactory average annual percentage growth in the ranks of registered nurses, that is to say professional nurses. Since 1960 the percentage figure has shrunk from 5,6% to a meagre 2% today. Secondly there has been a dramatic decrease in student numbers, and the number of first-year registrations has decreased from 10 300 in 1981 to 4 200 in 1986. That is a total decrease of approximately 60%.

In contrast there was an increase of approximately 35% in the number of first-year registrations in respect of enrolled nurses—the figure increased from 3 800 in 1981 to 5 900 in 1986. It is therefore very clear that the number of enrolled nurses—that is to say the staff nurse, as we know her—will soon overtake the number of registered nurses—that is to say the professional nurse; the sister, as most people call her. This could have some important implications for the nursing profession in the future, and it is going to place greater responsibilities on the nurse’s shoulders, with a concomitant increase in stress.

Perhaps one should consider the possibility of affiliating the nursing colleges at regional hospitals with universities so that more effective training facilities could be brought closer to the students, particularly to those married women who live in certain areas and cannot attend the colleges in the larger centres.

It has already been made known that the hon the Minister plans to hold in-depth discussions, in the near future, with the South African Nursing Council, and that the National Health Council has already approved the appointment of a committee to investigate and report on the entire question of nurses’ training. I want to express the hope that this investigation will lead to positive proposals being made to the department.

I want to conclude by moving somewhat closer to those who look after our own health interests here in Parliament, namely the Parliamentary nursing staff.

Hear, hear!

Inconspicuously and without ceremony, they perform a very important function. Although the doctors in the House help out here and there, it is actually these people who look after our health. From early in the morning until the House adjourns in the evening they stand faithfully at their posts, ready to attend to the hon members’ headaches, stomach cramps and painful gout-afflicted toes, etc.

Rather leave our ailments out of it! [Interjections.]

Furthermore, it is certainly reassuring to know that they are always there and are prepared for any eventuality. I should like to pay tribute to them this evening and to thank them on behalf of this side of the House for what they do with so much love and dedication.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member will not hold it against me if I do not react to what he said. I imagined he represented the miners in his constituency; however, he made representations on behalf of Black people only. [Interjections.]

Do Black people not work on the mines? [Interjections.]

Oh, you are paranoid, Arrie! [Interjections.]

Up to this point we have not heard a single word on the possible increase of pensions this year. I therefore assume that the hon the Minister will adopt the same course as his colleagues by saying that there is no prospect of an increase this year because there is no money for it. I want to submit to the hon the Minister, however …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Benoni entitled to say that the hon member for Carletonville is schizophrenic? I suggest you instruct him to withdraw it and also to apologise to the hon member for Carletonville for this.

Order! The hon member for Benoni used the word “paranoid”, not “schizophrenic”.

He said the hon member for Carletonville was schizophrenic, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Benoni can tell me himself which word he used.

Mr Chairman, I said the hon member for Carletonville was schizophrenic.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that remark.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member for Carletonville may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Benoni should rather confine himself to the affairs in his own constituency and approach me less often for help when he has problems among his miners. He should rather do his own homework so that he can know how to do his own job. [Interjections.]

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister kindly to see whether a possibility does not exist for pensioners who suffer from pneumoconiosis, or their widows, to get an increase this year. These are the people who are already in the last stage of certification; the ones who have sacrificed their lives—I repeat lives—for the benefit of the economy of this country. Without the miner, South Africa would not be where it is today.

I now wish to refer briefly to a question I asked the hon the Minister in the debate on this Budget Vote last year. I wanted to know of him whether lump sums would be increased. His reply was merely that I was to read clause 2 of the Bill; this would answer my question. The hon the Minister implied that these people would receive an increase. Up to this point he has not said that he regretted not having read the relevant legislation. He did not even know what it contained. That is why he was under the impression that these people would receive an increase.

I must say the hon member for Langlaagte did apologise for this. He tried to apologise, however, after he had written a note to me in which he said, inter alia, that I should tryout the principles; they worked every time. That was his attempt at an apology. My request to him is to make sure first—then it will not be necessary to apologise.

I wish to pause for a moment at the draft legislation which has now been sent to all bodies for comment. In 1977 a commission was appointed, originally just to investigate whether it was possible to pay out money to a miner or someone suffering from an occupational disease if he had not been certified. This investigation led to an examination of the entire Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act. It is exactly 11 years since this commission started its inquiry and published its report in 1981. Now we come along with draft legislation. When this legislation is analysed, it is clear that it is once again the miner in this country who will be at a disadvantage. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister again. After 10 years it is high time a new commission were appointed. We should rather think about another commission before the envisaged legislation comes into operation.

I want to mention just a few relevant points. Lump-sum payments fall away. We revert to a pension system in which a person will receive 40% of a maximum amount of R1 500 if he was certified in the first stage. A person in the second stage will receive 75% of an amount of R1 500. If he takes his money and invests it, he will be far better off over a period of 10 years than if he received this pension. When the pensioner dies, his widow receives only 40% of that pension. In this case it is also better to pay a lump sum.

In addition, post-mortem examinations now fall away if someone is certified in the first stage. When someone is certified in the second stage, pneumoconiosis has to be a contributory factor to the person’s death. We know that annually pneumoconiosis is not a cause of death or a contributory factor in 1% of cases of miners who die. We also know, however, that miners who are certified in the first and second stages make out 52% of all post-mortem examinations. Here too the miner will therefore be prejudiced.

I also want to refer to tuberculosis. At present a worker may be compensated for tuberculosis and, when a worker has contracted tuberculosis together with an occupational disease, he is certified in the last stage and compensated accordingly. They are saying that sufferers from tuberculosis will only be compensated when it is incurable. I ask again that this be looked into.

We now get to periodic examinations. As I understand the draft legislation—I hope the hon the Minister is not going to say I understood it incorrectly again—these examinations are now being carried out on the mines. The employer is responsible for having these examinations carried out. At present examinations are done by the medical bureau, and miners are already saying the bureau is a white elephant. If an employer who has a doctor in his service were to be responsible for that examination, workers would be even more dissatisfied with that examination. The draft legislation cannot be submitted to a standing committee this year. This is impossible because comment on it is still being awaited. To avoid these unnecessary restrictions on miners, I again request the hon the Minister preferably to appoint a new commission which will be able to see to miners’ interests. I want to repeat that we must not look after the interests of mining tycoons. Last year they were the ones who were opposed to an increase. This year they will benefit if legislation is passed.

If the hon the Minister were to increase lumpsum amounts this year, that money would not come out of the taxpayer’s pocket. It would come from funds levied by the Compensation Commissioner; they are funds which are lying there. The hon the Minister did not increase lump-sum amounts last year, and it will not cost the taxpayer one cent. I appeal to the hon the Minister to look at those lump-sum amounts and to compensate the worker, who ensures that the economy remains sound, and to put him on his feet.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parktown is now making use of every opportunity in this House to denigrate smoking and the tobacco industry as a whole. I merely want to tell him, in a very friendly manner, that I would very much like to debate this subject with him.

On television!

We can debate it in this Chamber. We are in this House now. [Interjections.] Unfortunately I shall not hold that discussion with him this evening, because I want to deal with another subject. However, I do hope the hon Minister will give him a good dressing down this evening because he is extremely unsympathetic, aggressive and one-sided in his attack on smoking.

[Inaudible.]

My bench-mate says he has stopped smoking. I also stopped, and it was not difficult. [Interjections.] The hon members on the other side who are shouting and complaining so loudly all have tobacco-producing constituencies, and they should take cognisance of this. [Interjections.]

By how many votes did you lose?

Order! I am not going to allow these interjections. The hon member for Humansdorp may proceed.

I shall give the hon members another opportunity. We can discuss this again in an agricultural debate.

This evening I want to discuss malaria. The unusually high incidence of malaria in our country recently has caused the spotlight to be focussed anew on this troublesome and feared disease. Earlier this year prominence was also given to it in the Press, but I think it would be a good idea to take this opportunity to exchange a few thoughts on it. It has even been said that we have had more problems in the Defence Force than has previously been the case, but actually the contrary has been proved to be true.

The World Health Organisation estimates that in sub-Saharan Africa alone 80 million cases of malaria occur annually. This tremendous incidence is accompanied by the realisation that the disease is also one of the major causes of deaths among children.

Closer to home, we know that the low-lying areas of the Transvaal, from Messina to Komatipoort, in the Eastern Transvaal Lowveld, as well as the northern parts of Natal and KwaZulu, can be considered to be the southern borders of the endemic malaria areas of the continent. We are dealing with a South African problem which is also an African problem, and we therefore cannot relax our vigilance. In other words the priority which must be accorded to malaria cannot be allowed to diminish.

I therefore want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact that various factors render it essential that proper planning take place in time to combat the increasing incidence of this disease. Together with bilharzia and other diseases, malaria is one of the so-called old diseases which often catch us unprepared by their unexpectedly rapid advance. For example, 7 103 cases were identified throughout the country in 1978, 11 358 in 1985, and 10 449 in 1987. During the past summer large parts of the summer-rainfall area of the Republic have had particularly good rains, and if measures are not taken in time the mosquito population can be expected to increase markedly.

My question now is whether the department has taken sufficient cognisance of the fact that meteorologists predict a 10-year wet period for South Africa, in other words that we are now quite probably entering such a wet cycle. I want to say that this requires timeous planning for an extended mosquito-combating campaign. After all, prevention is always cheaper than cure. Besides combating mosquitoes, preventative measures can also be taken by the effective distribution of malaria pills, the so-called quinine tablets. My question to the hon the Minister is: Do we have sufficient supplies under such circumstances. Furthermore I want to say that if these pills, as bitter as gall they are, were to be sugar-coated, it would lead to consumers, especially those visiting the Game Reserve, taking the full, recommended dosage even after they have returned home.

Mr Chairman, a further problem is the flood of refugees streaming across our borders as a result of unrest situations outside our borders. That not only increases the number of malaria sufferers in our area, but also increases the possibility of foreign strains of malaria being transmitted to us, and in this case being spread by the host, namely man. I therefore ask: Is our programme for combating this disease adequate for tracing and treating these foreign malaria sufferers? Do we have sufficient funds? My fears are confirmed by the summarised comment I received from the department, from which I shall quote briefly:

Mr Chairman, in the light of this we want to ask the hon the Minister whether he could set our minds at rest as regards this problem we have in our country.

Mr Chairman, one cannot help asking oneself how the population development programme is really being implemented in the rural areas.

It is of such a nature that you are going to lose your seat in Parys.

Sir, perhaps that hon member does not need a population development programme because his prospects in the CP are nil.

Yes, I only received 8 155 votes.

Order!

The hon member need not participate in a population development programme because today he has once again lost a court case as a result of defamation perpetrated by his party. [Interjections.]

You have lost three defamation suits against me. [Interjections.]

Let us take a look at what is really being done, and let us look in particular at the permanent and mobile service points throughout the country and at the results of these services that are being rendered in the rural areas. There are 30 youth health clinics throughout the country and there are permanent service points in 200 towns. There are eight terminuses and these services are being rendered in 447 White residential areas and 619 other residential areas. Furthermore, these services are being rendered in 210 industrial and commercial areas, in 12 prisons and on 34 farms. I think one should look at whether the permanent service points on farms could not perhaps be expanded, because certain population groups have far more faith in a permanent service point than in a mobile service point.

There are also permanent service points at 78 health service centres and 328 clinic hospitals, 381 offering doctors’ services only and 43 on the mines. That gives us a total of 2 390 of these permanent service points.

The number of mobile service points in towns is 93; at terminuses, 10; in White residential areas, 1 381; in other residential areas, 333; in industries and businesses, 3 989; in prisons, 79; and on farms—this is important—there are 49 150 mobile service points. Extended services are, in fact, therefore being provided on farms, where we have the largest increase in the population, by way of mobile service points. As I have said, however, the faith in a permanent service centre is greater than that in a mobile service centre.

There are 61 mobile service points on the mines, and under district services alone there are 173. That gives us a total of 55 269 of these mobile service points. Added to the permanent service points, this comes to 57 659. Sir, this is indeed a laudable service which is being rendered on a very wide front.

One hundred well-equipped mobile units, together with a large number of other motor vehicles, are used in rendering this service at mobile clinic points. An estimated total of 1 803 390 women were protected against unwanted pregnancy during the 1987-88 financial year. An active effort is being made among more than half of the country’s population under the age of 20 to modify the attitudes and behaviour of this group of people in relation to their knowledge of and their attitude towards sexuality and norms relating to the size of families. This service is being rendered in a responsible manner so that these young people can come to realise that they must plan all aspects of their behaviour.

The manpower utilized to make this service available comes from the private sector. In this regard we are particularly grateful that people are making themselves available to render these services without any compensation.

I shall yet refer to the results in the private sector and all three of the Government sectors. Every possible opportunity must be utilized to promote the availability of family planning. For this reason family planning is being offered as a part of all the other health services. Under this scheme 511 doctors, 2 712 nurses and 2 103 educational staff are being employed in a full-time capacity to manage the family planning programme. Mr Chairman, please allow me to enumerate certain other statistics contained in the annual report, because I am convinced that the annual report is not available for everyone to see what the results are. The average number of children per Black woman in the metropolitan areas is 2,8. In semirural areas it is still 4,2. In the urban areas it is 5,7. That includes the self-governing territories. In the TBVC states it is still 6,3. Here we have another enormous task, therefore, in bringing the population development programme to full fruition. The progress that has been made during the past two years, in the metropolitan areas in particular, is very encouraging. The PWV area, where more than four million Blacks live, serves as a good example. Here the result in 1984 was three children per woman, and in 1986 it was 2,8 children per woman. Mr Chairman, what does that tell us? It tells us that as people develop and as their standard of living improves, they also begin to plan their responsibilities in respect of the children they bring into the world. This is therefore a laudable programme in which this department is engaged, and we wish them every success with it in future.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg earlier this evening referred to the problem of the high cost of medicine and I wish to express a few views on this matter myself. It is without question that this has become a very difficult problem affecting a very large number of people in this country. It goes without saying that it adds to the suffering of the sick and/or frail also additional financial concern which inevitably must follow from the high cost of medicine and condemns them to a steadily worsening situation. The argument is often used by those who try to justify this situation—they are mainly people who are in the business of providing and dispensing and distributing medicines—that some people are too inclined to go to their doctors far too easily for all sorts of problems, real or imaginary, and that they are far too ready to demand medicines for some matters that may not really justify or require medicines. It is simply immoral to advance this argument in justification of the high cost of medicines. There may well be many instances where people are far too inclined to demand the attention of a doctor or to want to pay the high cost of the medicine by demanding compensation from their medical aid schemes for problems that do not deserve this kind of attention. This argument may never be used as a justification to put something as vital as medicine beyond the reach of the vast majority of medicine users who really need it. I think it was in November last year the hon the Minister conceded that the cost of medicine was a problem.

He has in fact ordered an investigation of this matter by the South African Pharmacy Council. In addition, the hon the Minister has authorised a study of the possible privatisation of certain medical facilities. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must not converse so loudly.

In this respect I should just like to warn that one should not see privatisation as the cure-all for every problem, and certainly not for the cost of medicines. The manufacture and distribution of medicine have been in the hands mainly of the private sector for a long time, and thus far the position has shown that they are not capable of keeping the price of prescribed or other medicines down; instead, there have been indications of some questionable marketing practices on behalf of some of the pharmaceutical manufacturers. Hon members may recall that there was a very prominent story in Rapport of 3 April about some company or other that entertained a very large number of doctors and pharmacists very lavishly to try to promote their own particular brand of medicine. The entertainment and food were presented on a very lavish scale and in such a way as almost to suggest that medicine is really a luxury item, and that one can spend money on such a scale that the impression is created that there is no limit to the funds available to spend on the promotion of medicine and that the cost can then be recovered at some later stage from the long-suffering patient.

Let us get privatisation into perspective. There may be much to be said for the privatisation of certain services, possibly even certain health services, but it does not solve every problem. I certainly have reservations as to the extent to which it will have an effect, if any, on the cost of medicines. I would ask the hon the Minister to inform us when he expects the investigation into this matter to be completed. I also hope he can tell us whether he has already reacted to the proposals submitted to him by the South African Pharmaceutical Society in respect of costs. This problem of the high cost of medicine is becoming critical and it is not helped by the recent budgetary decisions which have restricted the tax-deductibility of medical costs, and clearly also the tax-deductibility of the cost of the medicine itself. The situation requires the Government’s urgent attention and I hope that the Government will act quickly and decisively in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I also want to add my gratitude to that expressed by many others towards the officials of our department, as well as to my persona) officials, for the work they have done during the past year. This is a first-rate team which is promoting the image of our department in an outstanding manner. I want to thank them very much.

I find it very strange, however, that the hon member for Green Point is participating in a debate on national health. I think it is the first time this has happened. [Interjections.]

It is strange, however, that he did not speak about the unoccupied beds and the inequalities that exist, etc. After all, one has the impression that whenever the hon member for Parktown speaks, he says that if we were simply to fill the unoccupied beds in White hospitals with people of colour, and if we were simply to throw everything open, all our problems would disappear and we would no longer have any problems. That is the impression they create outside this House. [Interjections.] They forget, however, that even if we were to make alternative use of the 6 000-plus—I think it is—unoccupied White beds throughout the entire Republic, this would still not solve our problems. We must deal with this problem in another manner.

That immediately brings me to the questions the hon member for Parktown also asked last year when this Vote was discussed. They dealt precisely with the question of health services for Blacks. The hon member referred to the King Edward VIII Hospital, which he had visited. I have already told the hon member on a previous occasion that the situation prevailing there is anything but a satisfactory one. In fact, I think that in many respects it is shocking, but I want to repeat—the hon member says he is despondent because all we ever say is that there are no funds—that it is as simple as that: There are no funds.

When we speak about the upgrading or establishment of facilities to meet the needs that exist, we are talking about large sums of money. When we speak about the money that would be involved in the building of an academic hospital in Durban, we are talking, in present monetary terms, about R170 million or even R180 million. The hon member gives forth that an academic hospital is something one could, in any event, build in a matter of a year or two, but it is possible for a few decades to elapse between the time one first gives consideration to the building of an academic hospital and the day one is able to put it into commission.

Nevertheless, we are giving attention to that matter in accordance with our programme. This will eventually lead to the development of the King Edward VIII Hospital as a regional hospital. In any event, since we spoke to each other last year, we can attest to certain work that has been done at King Edward VIII Hospital, as has been the case at other hospitals.

An amount of approximately R4 million has been appropriated which will now be spent on the provision of facilities there, for example the conversion of the out-patient section and the establishment of a bloodbank for the laboratories of the casualty section. Work is therefore being done in this regard.

There is also the most cordial co-operation possible with the Government of KwaZulu in order to put the Prince Usini Hospital fully into commission. Whereas last year it was still not in use at all, at the moment more than 600 beds are already being used.

We know full well, as a result of a reply which the hon the Minister gave last year, that we shall be able to tackle the task of upgrading the King Edwart VIII Hospital properly once we are able to empty some of the wards, and the only way we can do this is to put the Prince Usini Hospital into commission. Once we have done this, we shall be able to do what is necessary.

The hon member for Carletonville himself said he had misread the proposed legislation last year when they were discussing another piece of legislation, and now he has misread the legislation this year as well. [Interjections.] Yes, he has misread the legislation again because he says that in the draft Bill that we have drawn up and released for commentary, it states that the workers must now, in any event …

Order!

… have those investigations done by the bureau. That is simply not true. That is not what is stated in the draft Bill. What is stated in the draft Bill is that an employer may be granted permission by the bureau to perform those specific investigations, but subject to a certain condition. Such an employer would need the necessary apparatus, all the expertise and everything associated with it. In addition all those reports would have to go back to the bureau because that is the body which will ultimately co-ordinate the decisions that are taken in regard to compensation and so on.

I remember that last year, just after he had come here, the hon member made a speech. The point at issue at the time was some commission or other that had been appointed, and he said—his words were very clear but I do not know in which column of Hansard they are recorded—it was nothing but committees and commissions and commissions and commissions. Can you believe it, this evening he comes here and asks for a commission! I cannot understand it.

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

No, Sir, I cannot answer any questions now.

To come back to the investigations by the bureau, I want to say that I cannot understand why the hon member is forever complaining that the bureau’s services are not up to scratch. There are all sorts of complaints about people being processed like sausages through a sausage machine, that old doctors who can no longer think for themselves are doing the work. Those are the sort of complaints we are receiving, and the hon member equally merrily joins in. Now that the condition is being laid down that the employer must have the best possible apparatus in order to conduct the investigations, the hon member is not satisfied either. [Interjections.]

The legislation currently under consideration, and to which the hon member referred, was sent to 467 bodies and persons. We obtained a list of those employers who were registered in terms of the Labour Relations Act. We are not dealing here only with workers in the mining industry, or with controlled mines and controlled works, but with the interests of those workers, wherever they may work, who are exposed to certain risk-producing conditions which could ultimately result in their contracting a diagnosed, compensatable, permanent and incurable disease. Meanwhile a further 106 bodies have asked for the draft legislation to be sent to them. This takes time, however. We must make provision for diametrically opposed opinions on this legislation, that is to say from the National Union of Mine Workers, the Chamber of Mines and the Mine Workers’ Union. In order to achieve consensus we are going to approach this matter with patience, and as we said in the White Paper, we shall give employers and employees the opportunity to make the necessary contributions before the legislation goes to the standing committee for discussion and is approved by the Cabinet. We are therefore in the process of giving attention to the final product. I personally hope that we shall still be able to submit it to the standing committee during the course of this year. If we are not able to do so we shall simply have to be even more patient. In any event we intend to take a thorough look at the work, an intention we made clear in the White Paper which dealt with this inquiry conducted by the Nieuwenhuizen Commission.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Deputy Minister gave the hon member for Carletonville a very good answer. I do not want to add anything to what the hon the Deputy Minister said. I think he performed his task admirably.

I want to come back to a question which the hon member for Parys raised here, namely that of the population development programme. It is not necessary for me to say—we all know—that we are living in a changing world and that this world will make more and more demands on us. Southern Africa, and South Africa too, are no exception to this rule. Virtually all these demands are being made by homo sapiens, by man. As the years go by these demands are becoming increasingly more numerous and complex. They are no longer as simple as they were in the past. The demands that are being made on us in South Africa are not only in the economic sphere, but in the social sphere as well. If we were to draw a comparison between the demands in the year 1652, when Jan van Riebeeck arrived here, and those in 1982—that is 330 years later—we would see two widely divergent poles, as different from one another as the North Pole and the South Pole. Of course the question that immediately arises is where these demands come from. The answer is, quite simply, the tremendous increase in our country’s population.

This increase in numbers which, in my opinion, has not yet been brought completely under control, is probably the single biggest problem with which our country will be faced in the future. We can implement fine-sounding economic and financial plans in the short, medium and long term, but such plans will not do us any good if we cannot manage our population development programmes properly. The combating of inflation, the Defence Force and other security services, and foreign exchange controls will not do this country any good if we cannot achieve a high degree of success in piloting through our population development programmes.

However, it is one thing to talk about population development and quite another to make it succeed. In this regard we all have a role to play. It is not up to the Government to make a population development programme succeed; each and every one of us has a role to play in these population development programmes in the future. Most people see in such a programme the ultimate objective of a permanent reduction in the number of children per fertile woman. As an ultimate objective there is nothing wrong with that, but as an objective in itself I feel that it is of no value.

Let us suppose we eventually achieve our ultimate objective of bringing the RSA’s number of children per fertile woman within acceptable demographic limits. The question then would be how we would maintain it at that level. What must we do to prevent ourselves being caught up once again in a cycle in which there is a rising trend in the number of births per fertile woman? The answer would appear to be obvious; the quality of life of the Third-World component must quite simply be raised to a higher level.

When one looks at the steadily rising costs of medication, hospitalisation, social services and so on, it is obvious that we have only one choice in relation to this problem, namely that we must quite simply make more funds available now for the upliftment of the people of our Third-World component. After all, it is a fact that the number of births per fertile woman among a middle class with a reasonable standard of living is lower than that of a group living under typical Third-World conditions. There are already many examples of this in the RSA. The hon member for Parys was referring to this when he said that the number of births per fertile woman particularly among the Third-World population group in the urban areas had drastically decreased.

However, it is in the rural and remote areas that we are experiencing our problem. Here in the House we concern ourselves with questions such as bringing back the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, or privatising parts of the Public Service, etc, but all those things will do us very little good if we do not bring our population development programme under control. I might almost go so far as to say that we are attempting to build a wonderful state whilst Rome is smouldering at our very feet. Worst of all, many of us have our eyes closed to this problem. We quite simply say that it is the Government’s job to restrict numbers and we get on with our daily tasks. If it were that simple, we could succeed in this task, but unfortunately it is not that simple.

In my view the amount that we have appropriated for our population development programmes this year is merely an amount to appease our consciences to a certain extent. It is definitely not nearly enough to achieve the desired result, namely to drastically reduce the number of births per fertile woman on the one hand and, on the other, to ensure that those people will also attain an essential quality of life which, to a large extent, will prevent us from backsliding once we have achieved our ultimate objective, namely that of reducing the number of births per fertile woman to within demographically acceptable limits.

I think it is just a drop in the ocean. When one takes a hard look at the rural areas—the hon member for Parys referred to them—what degree of success has been achieved? In my view not much success has been achieved. My appeal is for us to do much more, particularly in our rural areas. I know that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will say that the Whites’ money is once again going to be spent on helping the Blacks. There is little doubt that that will be the reaction I get. I want to tell them that all the money we would save if we were to give it only to the Whites would not do us any good if there were millions of hungry people sitting on our borders and watching us. I really do want to tell them this evening that the situation is so serious that by the year 2000 we might have to start fighting the original border wars again in order to keep hungry, emaciated people outside our borders. We simply must realise that the money we are spending on population development is a premium we are paying for the future of this country. It is a future which could be a prosperous one for all of us if we put our shoulders to the wheel and did not merely look selfishly to our own interests.

Mr Chairman, I would have liked to discuss the whole issue of teaching hospitals and in particular the serious problems facing King Edward VIII Hospital in Durban. The hon the Deputy Minister referred to this to some extent and I am sorry that I do not have the time to reply to him tonight, because some of the things he said, in fact, concern me greatly.

I want to address myself to another issue tonight touching many people in the Natal-KwaZulu area. That is, of course, the Disaster Relief Fund which falls under the control of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. I concede immediately—I say this very sincerely indeed—that it must be extremely difficult for any government to deal with a problem or disaster of the magnitude of the floods that we experienced in Natal and in the rest of this country over the past six months. I do not believe that the great loss of life, the destruction of property, the devastation of farmlands, roads, railways, bridges and buildings is a problem that any government would wish to have to deal with. Of equal concern, therefore, must have been the organisation and the control of the relief fund that of course followed on from this natural disaster. With regard to the latter, I concede that great care has to be taken in the disbursement out of relief funds to people who claim to have been affected by the floods. Care has also to be taken to ensure that only those people who genuinely deserve assistance are actually given that assistance. However, I am sure that the hon the Minister and his department have done all they can to do just that.

In reply to a question put to him by the hon member for Pinetown the hon the Minister indicated that some 82 000 applications for flood relief had in fact been received. That is an enormous number of applications to be sorted out and sifted through.

But I want to say in this House tonight that I believe that I am extremely fortunate that I was not a Black man living in the more rural areas of Natal KwaZulu such as, for example, Ntuzuma, at the time of the floods. I believe that I am even more fortunate that I am not one of the people in that area who lost property in the floods and who consequently had to apply for financial assistance.

It hurts when I hear of the way in which many of the people in these areas have in fact been treated. Not only did they in the first instance have to complete an 11-page application form for financial assistance—which was beyond the educational capacity of many of these people—but then having submitted these forms and having waited close on five months for something to happen, they had their application forms returned to them and were told to complete a new form. The new form had to be returned in person to the magistrate of the district in which their property was situated. That in itself was a difficult task for them to perform, taking into account the extraordinary circumstances under which many of these people live. They were given approximately one month to do so with no explanation as to why there had been a change in plan and with no apology for the delay or change. I find this a totally unacceptable situation.

Where exactly was that?

Ntuzuma in the KwaZulu area.

What was the person’s name?

I will give the person’s name to the hon the Minister at a later date.

You must give it to me today, because I want to answer you tomorrow.

I will give it to the hon the Minister tonight with pleasure. I have it here. [Interjections.]

I am making a speech at this particular time and I am sure the hon the Minister will have a chance to reply later on.

He has more time than you have.

Certainly, he has more time than I have.

Mr Chairman, I find this whole situation totally unacceptable and a rather sad way to treat people who are the victims of what has been described by many as the worst natural disaster in this country’s history. I wish I had the time to read to this House a memo that I received from a person who took an applicant to the Ntuzuma Magistrates’ Court so that he could hand in his application form. It reads like a description of a circus and I can assure hon members that I do not mean to be facetious. However, the only difference is that if I had been one of the hundreds of people who tried desperately that day—or any other day—to hand over a second application form to one of the only three officials who were handling those applications, I would have been far closer to tears than to laughter.

I would like the hon the Minister to explain to me tonight what went wrong. Why was it necessary that people in certain areas had to be treated in a way that would appear to be little more than delaying tactics on the part of the Government? All those people asked for was assistance to rebuild their homes. Why were they forced to complete more forms five months after the flood, and how long do they have to wait before they get the assistance they asked for?

I would also like to ask the hon the Minister whether the 22 500 people who by 10 March 1988 had not yet received payments, were Blacks from this area. I suspect they were, Mr Chairman. There were also very strong rumours, which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister, among people who had been affected by the floods that if they were to receive any assistance, it would be a token gesture of only R60 to R70 per applicant, regardless of the size of their claim. I hope that this is only a rumour and that there is no truth in it. However, I would like to know from the hon the Minister if this is true. If not, the hon the Minister needs …

He says it’s a rumour.

The hon the Minister says it is a rumour. However, I want to tell the hon the Minister that it is extremely important that he does everything in his power to allay the fears of these people as soon as possible. The best way in which the hon the Minister can do this, is to make the relief pay-outs as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, I would like to say again that I would not like the job of organising a flood relief fund. However, this job was undertaken by the Government and it is extremely important that everybody who has made application for assistance be treated fairly and equally regardless of race or irrespective of the area in which they live.

I would also like to address another point. We in Natal were aware of the fact that a number of organisations established their own flood relief funds. These organisations did a tremendous amount of good work in helping people who had been affected by the floods. We are in fact concerned to find now that the Government has decreed that as far as the floods in the Free State are concerned, people can make contributions to the National Disaster Fund only. I am not sure that this is a very good decision. We in the PFP are concerned about this. I would like the hon the Minister to explain to us why this is the case, and if there are any plans to change this decision.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban North will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. After all, it is clear that there is a common bond between us, namely that we have been hit by the floods in our constituencies. In that respect I thank the hon member very much for his appeal.

This evening, by way of acclamation and with all the means at my disposal, I want to endorse what various speakers have said about the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech on our population development programme. I cannot put it better than this impressive pamphlet that has been distributed by the department. Every South African knows the facts relating to Bangladesh, Biafra and Ethiopia. We have seen them on television. The question is, however, whether hon members and I are certain that this could not happen in South Africa. South Africa is, naturally, the richest and most progressive country in Africa. The question is, however, whether South Africa will remain so.

We are also faced with a serious population growth problem. It is so serious that within the space of only 13 years, when the baby of today is a teenager, our population will double to approximately 47 million. I quote:

It sounds familiar to me as a farmer. It reminds me of an image from my youth of a herd of thirsty cattle at an empty trough, flattening the wire fence and trampling everything in their path.

The advertisement for “Projek Toekomsmens” in Rapport of 1 November 1987 continues as follows:

Mr Chairman, if we differ, we must settle this matter here, because we truly cannot afford to approach this cardinal precondition for our continued existence in South Africa in a divided fashion. We are the last generation that is still able to do something about it. This has been said repeatedly, but we cannot say it often enough.

For us, as representatives of constituencies, there is one great challenge. If we are able to say at the end of the year that we have reached 100 opinionformers and attempted to persuade them and convince them of the value of population development, we shall have achieved something for our constituencies. If we can provide 100 of our opinion-formers in our constituencies with this very important booklet, namely Bevolkingsgroei—Suid-Afrika se eie Tydbom, and ask them to distribute it in the constituency, we shall have done something to promote South Africa’s continued existence. If we can involve 1000 people in “Projek Toekomsmens”, in terms of which everyone must endorse the fact that he understands the vital necessity of improving the standard of living of the people of South Africa and asks to be informed about what role he can play, then we shall have achieved something in regard to South Africa’s continued existence. That is what we can do.

Let us just take a brief look at the field of population development in South Africa. The chief demographic objective, as has already been repeatedly stated, is a TFR figure of 2,1 by the year 2010. In order the achieve this, the entire field must be covered.

Let us look at the various fields. The first and the most important is that of education. Population development has set a goal of a literacy level of 90,7% among Blacks by the year 2015. The programme involves education for at least seven years for all population groups, informal education, literacy programmes, population education at school, community development and education for women. Just think of the well-known slogan: When one educates a man, one person is educated; when one educates a woman, a family or a people is educated. After all, the entire educational system is aimed at producing a person who has the will and the desire to improve the quality of his own life, and if we achieve that we shall have succeeded insofar as our primary educational objective is concerned.

The second largest area is that of manpower training. Here, too, we do not have any magical formula. The programme is aimed at providing manpower training in every field; once again to involve the woman in this training process; and also—this is every important, and has already been stated repeatedly in this House—to increase the productivity of the workers, because if one has a productive worker, he is in demand and can then improve the quality of his life through his own efforts. Here, too, both the formal business sector and the informal sector must be involved.

The third area is that of primary health care. In this regard the objective is that of an IMR figure of 8 per 1 000 by the year 2015 for all the population groups. The programme encompasses basic services such as fresh water, sanitation and refuse removal, education and instruction with regard to healthy living habits, community development once again, and the lowering of the IMR.

The fourth area is that of family planning, about which a great deal has already been said this evening. The fifth area is that of the economy in which we are striving towards a PPCI of R333 for Whites and up to R250 for Blacks by the year 2015.

The sixth most important area is that of housing, and here we are striving towards the ideal of a room density of between 65% and 72% in the year 2015. Urbanisation is the next area in which matters must take place in an orderly fashion, particularly with regard to basic services, infrastructure, electricity, community development and so on.

The eighth area, about which a great deal has also been said in this debate, is that of the urban areas. We are grateful for what has been done in this area by the Urban Foundation, which last year alone received an amount of R3,4 million for the subsidisation of the salaries of community developers. All this work is being done under the direction of the Chief Directorate: Population Development. Under this directorate we find, in turn, the Directorate: Information, which is responsible for ensuring that the communities are well-informed. Apart from these, there is also the Directorate: Demographic and Population Analysis, which is responsible for the introduction of a PDP data system, in terms of which we may monitor progress as well as identifying new areas. In addition there are the Directorate: Development Strategy and the Sub-Directorate: TBVC countries. We are grateful for all the success that is being achieved at the moment in all these areas.

I thank the department very sincerely for this, and in conclusion I ask once again for support for the most important project that has ever been launched by any Government for the continued existence of people in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I will address myself in the same positive direction as the hon member for Smithfield. Firstly, I should like to praise the hon the Minister and his department for a most cogent approach to the many problems we face in the field of National Health and Population Development. Despite the financial constraints we face, this budget goes a long way towards addressing many important issues.

In view, however, of the increasingly onerous demands being made upon the State, and hence on the taxpayer, with regard to the provision of these services, I should, with respect, submit that the time has come to put in place mechanisms designed to evolve and execute a vertically integrated policy which will involve as many elements as possible in Government, private enterprise, academic institutions and among the public at large without unnecessarily attracting undue additional expenditure.

I am greatly heartened by the initiative taken by the hon the Minister to privatise certain hospitals, and saddened that there are no takers because no one wants to take over the medical headaches of the State. While venomous critics constantly harp on what they describe as increased costs arising from so-called apartheid, that is simply a reprehensible argument. As the hon the Minister said in a recent newspaper article, in the case of the Baragwanath Siamese twins the mother paid only R22, while the share of the State was a staggering R126 000. Would those venomous critics call on a poor Black woman to pay such costs? So much for so-called apartheid medical services!

It is my firm belief that the privatisation of hospitals should be contingent upon the ability of universities to take them over as teaching hospitals catering for the entire spectrum of medical care from the most sophisticated and complicated of operations to the provision of satellite clinics and crisis intervention centres.

The financial burden involved could be met by a combination of subsidies from the State, the relevant provinces, by the universities concerned and by private enterprise. Here I would suggest that donations in this regard be made tax deductible as regards private enterprise, which is currently pouring millions into sport sponsorships as opposed to involving itself in more socially responsible areas such as health and welfare.

I see nothing particularly edifying in a tobacco company sponsoring a sporting event when so many smoking-related diseases and conditions have to be treated at public expense. This, however, is my private and personal opinion.

I would suggest that to enhance this vertically integrated policy, GST, and subsequently VAT, be removed from all such privatised hospitals and from all medicines dispensed by private practitioners. Bed costs and theatre costs at such hospitals should be nominal but should not, in my view, exclude a certain class of medical aid member whose benefits do not permit him or her to pay for de luxe medical service at private clinics and the like.

I am particularly grateful that the hon the Minister has addressed the question of the increased cost of medicine. In this regard I am advised that certain companies deliberately overprice raw materials at source in order to extract greater profit from local operations. This of course leads to huge price increases locally. Laudable efforts are being made almost daily by local companies to keep costs down but I believe that much more must be done. In particular I think the time has come for the file to be reopened on generic substitution and, where bio-availability criteria have been satisfied and laid down by the Medicines Control Council, generic substitution should be encouraged on a large scale. The start-up costs of an entirely self-sufficient medicaments industry would be prohibitive yet there is no reason why the State and the public should be prejudiced by marketing tactics and profit margins.

It is also clear that firm steps will have to be taken to wipe out all negative perceptions which despite excellent publicity campaigns still exist as regards the nursing profession. I must also highlight the difficulty in recruiting workers in the field of the treatment of physically and mentally disadvantaged persons because of the unnatural and inhuman stigma attached thereto.

It seems to me that action must also be taken against certain trade unions which are holding loaded guns to the collective heads of homes for the aged and for the handicapped, with salary demands none of them can afford and to the point where even professionally qualified registered nurses have to clean the floors because union members have decided they will not do the dirty work. I submit that there is no place for obstructionist trade unions in the field of health and welfare. To allow such conditions to continue is surely to invite a great deterioration in such services, a drastic reduction in therapeutic programmes and even possible health risks.

I would with respect submit that the following points be considered as parameters for a vertically integrated policy. Firstly, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, national service should be extended to women of all races, with the primary aim of serving on the health front. After basic training women should be detached to hospitals and clinics, possibly in their own areas where they should also do the female equivalent of the national service camps from time to time. This service could also accommodate the needs of civil defence.

Secondly, all voluntary organisations now connected with health and welfare services should try to merge and work more closely together to avoid wasted effort and duplication of services. Again, I would suggest that donations to such organisations be eligible for tax rebates to encourage individual and private sector participation.

Thirdly, the establishment of chairs of suicidology and crisis intervention—endowed by private enterprise and also subject to tax rebates—should be established at universities to provide a training field for personnel in the areas of crisis intervention, suicide prevention services and other areas where such expertise is currently sadly lacking.

I recognise that this is an ambitious programme and that for it to work we must not become bogged down by red tape. Since the programme cuts across the work of other departments I would with respect suggest that the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare be the primary umbrella organisation and that representatives of health departments be co-opted to serve on it, where necessary. In addition, I believe that the powers of the standing committee should be such as to enable it to cut through red tape and refer matters rapidly and directly to the competent authority and, if needs be, even to the Competition Board.

I submit that bold action should be taken before matters deteriorate further in the face of an increase in population and problems for which the Government cannot be held responsible. However, since the Government has a duty to address these matters as cost-efficiently as possible, I submit with respect that it can only do so effectively by putting into place those mechanisms to help society help itself, providing facilities to the advantage of all and to the detriment of none.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister deserves the strongest possible criticism for the scandalous way he has treated the aged of this country this year. They represent the softest possible target for attack, and they have been savaged. We need to look at the crushing burden of the payments they have to make, and also at the pitiful and racially apportioned amounts paid to them.

I respectfully suggest that it is high time this sector of the population, the so-called “grey power”, became politically active on a single issue, namely that of pensions. This has attracted attention in American election campaigns, with each candidate having to face a barrage of questions from pensioners on their attitude to social welfare. Perhaps a meeting in the constituency of Florida or that of Ceres, or in any other NP constituency, with pensioners gathering their attack, would not go amiss.

In coming to terms with inflation, a quest we in these benches most strongly applaud, the hon the Minister has had to balance the pressures applied by various departments and political forces. He has therefore granted no general salary increase to the Public Service and given no increase at all to civil pensioners. We support the former, but we find the latter totally indefensible, as increases for civil pensioners are paid largely from the Stabilisation Fund, to which every public servant contributes. They appear to be receiving no increase simply because social pensioners are not receiving an increase. If this is correct, it is a disgraceful reason.

We have no reason whatsoever to believe that the Government has a logical and consequential social welfare policy in this regard. There are 960 000 public servants contributing to the pension funds, and there are 124 000 civil pensioners. This year the State contribution to the Stabilisation Fund will increase by 15% from R213 million last year to R245 million. The State pays into the fund, but nothing is going to come out of it.

The amounts paid to the 124 000 civil pensioners range from the pitiful to the very large. We believe, as the hon member for Pietersburg said, that it is very important to take care of those who retired a long time ago and who are at the moment receiving a pitifully small civil pension. They should get an increase this year.

Secondly, I should like to turn to military pensions. This hon Minister is responsible for the approximately 12 000 military pensioners. Here too no increase is to be granted this year, and once again we find this an indefensible and incomprehensible policy.

I wish also to reiterate the unhappiness previously expressed from these benches regarding the payment of military disablement pensions in the three categories set out in the Military Pensions Act. Allow me to present an example. The present pension for a 100% disabled category A military pensioner, including a 25% allowance, is R1 485 per month. That is for somebody who can prove that he has acquired the equivalent of a three-year bachelor’s degree. For a 100% disabled category C pensioner, however, again including the 25% allowance, the amount is only R935 per month. He receives 59% less because he does not have or cannot prove that he has matric.

The hon the Minister made a gross error three years ago in introducing these differentiated payments into the Act, and we believe that they should be removed. Allow me to quote from an article by Willem Steenkamp which appeared in the Cape Times of 26 March 1986 under the headline “Education means nought in foxhole”. The hon the Minister will be aware of it, as I am sure it is quoted to him time after time. It reads as follows:

This refers to two soldiers in a foxhole—

The SA Legion, the authority this hon Minister quoted three years ago as supporting differentiation in military pensions, is totally opposed to this, according to its statements of last year. We believe that this differentiation in military pensions must be reduced very quickly.

Thirdly, I would like to turn to pension funds. Last year the hon the Minister spent much of the time in this debate discussing the State employees’ pension funds. We have had a lot of answers; I am not certain we have had all the answers. What worries me is the answer to the kind of question I have posed this hon Minister on whether the audit reports for the other funds, the Temporary Employees’ Pension Fund and the Associated Institutions Pension Fund, are available. The hon the Minister indicates that the reports are not yet available. I believe, and hope, that we are not going to go through exactly the same cycle of dragging information out of this hon Minister as we did regarding the Government Service Pension Fund. As regards that, I can do no better than quote from the Treasury’s Reply to the Resolution of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. From this we note that an Advisory Committee has been appointed, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, I would hope that that committee would look at the difficulties this hon Minister and the changes he introduced on 21 September last year and 11 March this year. I would hope that that committee takes note of the clear indication in the Press from the Teachers’ Federal Council that they intend to move towards legal action against this hon Minister as regards non-consultation before the 21 September regulations, and the non-handling of the claims that had been submitted, in some cases, up to six months before—claims that this hon Minister’s department did not handle because they were not in their hands by 21 September.

Mr Chairman, it would appear the hon member for Pinetown was on his usual bleat, for some of which I do not blame him, but it does remind me that you cannot make a sheep by standing a man on his legs but you can make a flock of sheep stand in that position and have a crowd of men. I do not know whom that applies to.

Mr Chairman, the outbreak of a disease must be viewed in a very serious light. This is particularly distressing when it involves a disease like poliomyelitis, which we know to be wholly preventable through the attainment of satisfactory levels of herd immunity in all communities in the country. The first safe and effective vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk in the USA in 1955, and this was followed by an oral vaccine developed by Albert Sabine. Since then, the general world control appears to have been well established. In South Africa, only five cases of poliomyelitis were reported from 1983 to 1987. In the health programme, the amount spent in 1986-87 was just over R200 000 and in 1987-88, R237 000. In retrospect, the recent polio epidemic in Natal/KwaZulu can be looked upon as a model regarding the handling of such outbreaks. There was astute observation and response when it all started. Three serious cases of polio were registered at King Edward VIII Hospital in Durban. This prompted an immediate epidemiological analysis of the situation so that intervention could be based on the facts known at the time. Briefly, this amounted to defining over 200 cases. All were Black and scattered over many districts in Natal/KwaZulu. Over 90% were in the age group under five years, and over 90% had the type I polio virus. One third of the children showed evidence of having been vaccinated and another third said that they had never been vaccinated. These facts are disturbing, but they allowed the health authorities to target their containment programme at the group that had been shown to be at the highest risk, which was Black children under five years, not in selected districts but scattered throughout the region.

The investigation showed that the cold chain had not been adequately maintained in certain areas, that the vaccination programme needed strengthening as regards its outreach, and that the management of the vaccine required further investigation, for some had contracted the disease despite evidence that they had been fully vaccinated.

It was thus shown that inactivated vaccine had inadvertently been administered to a number of the children. The containment of this outbreak highlighted the functional of close co-operation among the various health authorities involved, including specialist virologists from the National Institute of Virology, and the indispensable role of timeous, accurate and complete information on which to base a rational response, as well as the fact that longer-term action required attention. These include the need for the sustained education of the community, pointing out the value of full vaccination coverage, the need to measure attainment of such coverage in terms of quantified targets, and attention to detail, which includes the sound management of such mundane things as the functioning of fridges.

In the city of Pietermaritzburg a mass immunisation programme in schools was mounted on 18 February. Implications were considerable, to say the least. The city had to deal with over 40 000 children of all race groups. Staff and vaccine to cover the whole population presented serious problems. However, the excellent response from the Department of National Health and Population Development, schools and the Department of National Education, parents, children and the community in general enabled the exercise to be completed by the end of March. We have appreciation for the excellent work of the Medical Officer of Health and his staff in Pietermaritzburg in accomplishing a most difficult and complicated task in such a short space of time with what seems to be outstanding results.

I also want to deal briefly with the floods in Natal. All the people owe a great debt of gratitude for the priority attention given by the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development and members of State President’s Disaster Relief Committee to, and for their superb handling of the Natal flood disaster in September and October last year, and again in February this year. Those who have received assistance, financially and otherwise, are even more grateful. This year’s Budget provides for about R26 million while an amount of R123 million was provided for in the Additional Appropriation Bill.

There has been criticism from the PFP benches about the handling of the flood relief but I know that the urgent or emergency cases—those who were suffering real hardship—were handled superbly. For many in Pietermaritzburg, however, the rejection of claims submitted by sports bodies whose facilities are situated in the flood plain and were virtually destroyed when over 600mm rain fell in three days, is disappointing, if not heart-breaking. While rugby and cricket fields can be restored through hard work, the non-racial tennis complex, Kershaw Park, controlled by the Pietermaritzburg Tennis Association and comprising 15 tennis courts, was totally destroyed by the devastating floods. I discuss this because sporting activity promotes healthy living. A loss of such facilities affects that lifestyle.

As a sports coach for over 20 years at provincial and international level, I know full well the value of sport in producing a healthy nation. Even sadder than this rejection of these sporting bodies’ claims was the content of a recent letter to the editor of the Natal Witness by leading Sacos disciples in Natal, messrs Hickson and Bhamjee. These South African Council on Sport agitators who still squawk the parrot-cry of “No normal sport in an abnormal society”, take the stance that public funds should not be used to restore White-controlled facilities to what what they term their previously obscenely high levels, knowing full well that these facilities are open to all, irrespective of race or creed. These are the people who agitate and who lobby against our sportsmen and women, giving the Sam Ramshamy’s of this world false propaganda of racism in sport in South Africa as a means to achieve their political goal of a Marxist-led take-over of the country. Their attempts to use the suffering of people in the disastrous floods in Natal, in addition to the pressures of the leftwing town councils, the Welsh Rugby Union and the pressures of the Supreme Council of Sport upon the International Amateur Athletics Union led by a corrupt chairman to bar an innocent Zola Budd, all for the sake of political gain and the fostering of racial prejudice, leaves one with a feeling of despair and utter revulsion.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South will excuse me if I do not pursue his line of argument in the four or five minutes remaining to me.

I am going to talk about hospital beds. At this stage, hon members are probably more interested in going to bed than the question of hospital beds! [Interjections.]

The point I want to make is that we cannot solve the problem experienced by the Blacks simply by making more and more beds available. That is simply not practically possible. I wish to substantiate my point by means of certain statistics which I have just mentioned and also a few additional arguments I want to raise. In 1986—this is also the prevailing situation—there were more or less 79 000 beds and other health facilities available for use by the non-White component of our population. The contribution by the provinces was about 47% of the beds, 11% were at industrial hospitals, and approximately 34% of beds were allocated to tuberculosis, psychiatry and leprosy. From 1980 to 1986 about 4 000 beds were added. If we continue to provide beds at the same rate, a further 9 600 beds will become available by the end of the century. This increase will be effected through the joint efforts of both the public and the private sectors. I should like to add, in passing, that 950 clinics are available at present and that the more clinics there are and the more services they provide, of course, the fewer beds are required. The Department of National Health and Population Development has made certain projections in respect of the future requirements of non-Whites. Unfortunately I do not have time to quote those projections now. The projections were made assuming a goal of two, three and even four beds per thousand of the population. I can simply add, taking two beds per thousand of the population as an example, that if we continued to provide beds at the present rate, by the year 2020 we would begin to fall behind, even with two beds per thousand as the norm. If we aimed at providing three beds per thousand, we would already be falling behind in 1994. Should our goal be four beds per thousand of the population, then a shortage of 19 000 beds already exists. The provision of these hospital beds is naturally tremendously expensive. The hon member for Parktown referred to that and said that there was a shortage of funds. That is the problem. The shortage of funds and the shortage of manpower are the two major factors responsible for the problem. If we take the 1986 figure of 79 000 beds as a basis, with two thousand as a norm, approximately 49 000 beds will have to be provided by the year 2030. Assuming that these beds are provided at a cost of R75 000 per bed, then the total cost, calculated in 1987 rand-values, will amount to about R3 700 million. If three per thousand were taken as the norm, the cost would amount to R8 500 million. If operating costs were also included, we would be looking at an additional figure of approximately R5 000 million in the next 40 years. The country would simply not be able to afford this. The wide discrepancy between what can be afforded on one hand and what is required on the other will have to be resolved, and the question, finally, is how one can bridge that gulf. In the Cape Province there is currently a shortage of 584 beds. If one could reduce hospital occupancy by as little as 0,56 days per patient, there would, in fact, be too many beds. The point I want to make is that the answer does not lie simply in the provision of more and more beds. The country will simply not be able to afford that. The beds are there for sick people, and we must, by means of the Population Development Programme and the National Plan for Health Service Facilities, ensure that fewer people become sick. By doing so, we will reduce the demand for beds.

Mr Chairman, I move:

We on this side of the House object to that motion.

There is no provision for debate on that question.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—79: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzd, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Matthee, P A; Meyer, A T; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Olivier, P J S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Van der Merwe, C J; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Wyk, J A; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Golden, S G A; Jordaan, A L; Maree, M D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

NOES—16: Coetzee, H J; Derby-Lewis, C J; Gerber, A; Jacobs, S C; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H.

Question agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, we were stunned by the situation which confronted us today. We began with a programme and, while the House was sitting, the hon the Leader of the House arbitrarily altered it because he had disregarded a rule of the House and wanted to make us sit elsewhere in what would have been an irregular sitting. We are dealing here with a bizarre display which does the country no credit. I think it is scandalous that we have to conduct our business in such a manner in this, the highest Chamber of the land. Allow me briefly to go over the events which preceded this motion.

Suddenly, out of the blue and without previous indication to the Opposition Whips, the hon the Leader of the House rose on 28 March and gave notice of a motion that the adjournment rule be suspended on 18 and 19 April. Out of the blue he informed the House that the new Standing Rules and Orders would be debated from 15 April until the debates on the Rules and Orders and the consequential legislation, namely the Constitution Amendment Bill, were completed on the evening of Tuesday, 19 April.

Furthermore, we were informed that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders would meet at 08h30 on the 11th and 12th and would then deal with the amended Standing Rules and Orders. We had to hear the rest of this story, which led to today’s events, in Friday morning’s Die Burger. Then we heard about the programme for today’s sitting. We discovered, not from the Whips, but from Die Burger, that the Labour Party had taken the initiative and had apparently accepted the Standing Rules and Orders, subject to certain amendments, as early as last year. It was then that the whip was suddenly cracked on 29 March. The hon the State President’s Vote was due for debate on 21 April. At all costs, this had to happen at a joint sitting in the “Taj Mahal”. [Interjections.] The matter to be discussed in all haste.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order for the Parliamentary buildings and parts of those buildings to be referred to in such a derogatory manner?

Order! I am not sure what the intention was. Was the hon member referring to the large Chamber?

I am referring to the place which looks to us like the building I mentioned. [Interjections.]

Senior Ministers were asked summarily to drop important affairs of State in order to have the Standing Rules and Orders adopted. At the end of September last year, we went through exactly the same process.

Order! I think the matter at issue is the reasons why we should not adjourn. I have great difficulty in seeing the connection between this and the activities of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

Mr Chairman, the business of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders led directly to today’s events and to the motion of the hon the Leader of the House that the House should adjourn at this stage.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The Government thought it held the trump card. However, it was humiliatingly trumped by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives. [Interjections.] It actually happened again this year; for a whole week, while one of the most important debates of the parliamentary year was taking place here, there were only two or three Ministers in the House, while senior front-bench Ministers sat in the committee until 22h00 on Wednesday night in order to try to complete the Joint Rules. After that, the officials had to work at great speed throughout the night to prepare the Rules for Friday’s debate. For the second time it was delayed by the reverend with the trump card, while we had to find out what was going to happen in the House this week from the National newspapers. That is why we, the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, say that we in this House are dealing with a bizarre display and a farce. A farce is being made of the business of the House, and this illustrates clearly the shortcomings of the Constitution. I want to quote what the hon member for Soutpansberg said about this:

What has happened to the relaxed, self-assured modus operandi of the NP of yore? Why do we now, in these circumstances, have to start moving with feverish haste from one low point to another?

If we look at the Order Paper, we can see that the House is, in fact, being turned into a circus. We on this side of the House refuse to hop about like mountain goats on account of the whims of the NP Government, which is aimlessly scurrying around …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the member in which Patriot this speech of his is going to appear?

That is a nonsensical question which I do not deem worthy of a reply. I was saying that we refuse to hop about like mountain goats on account of the whims of the Government, which is aimlessly scurrying around from one unreasonable demand of the State President to another.

Mr Chairman, the hon member has just compared the members of the CP to goats. Is that permissible?

If hon members wish to carry on in that vein, we might as well go ahead, because we are in any event programmed to sit throughout the night until tomorrow evening. The frivolous way in which those hon members are now reacting substantiates my argument that they are making an absolute farce and a circus of this House.

For that reason it is our intention to proceed with the business of the House—that was our aim—and we shall vote against the motion of the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by saying that the hon Whip of the CP who says that we are proceeding without any specific plan and that they are being shunted around as a result, is concealing the fact that we tried to negotiate with them, but that they were immovable. We were not prevented by Rev Hendrickse and the Labour Party—that is the compliment that they have paid themselves—from commencing on Wednesday with a joint sitting in the Chamber of Parliament, but by them, the CP, because during negotiations they absolutely refused to agree to a debate on this matter that could have extended over three days and because they said in an obstructionistic way that they would take us beyond the point at which we could begin that debate on Wednesday.

Who? Us?

Yes, that is the information that I received.

That is hearsay.

That is the information—I speak from hearsay—that the hon the Chief Whip gave me.

Yes, it is hearsay.

We must not make the same mistake we made in previous sessions by scoring political points off one another and allowing the business of Parliament to suffer because we are unable to successfully finalise and bring to a point our objections and discussions in the forum that was created for that purpose.

The hon member is saying that it is we who are now virtually ignoring the Rules of the House and dealing with their rights as Parliamentarians in an almost crude fashion. They did that this afternoon. As long ago as 1965 the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders adopted a resolution—and it is the spirit of that resolution that emanated from this afternoon’s motion—that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No 176, the Speaker is authorised to publish the names of the members who were nominated to serve on select committees as well as any subsequent changes in membership in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House as soon as the Chief Whip or other Whips acting on behalf of the Government and other opposition parties furnished him with the names. The Committee on Standing Rules and Orders recommended that there should be a short procedure for constituting committees. They are still constituted in the same way, in the same spirit in which the idea of enlarged committees was introduced in the proposed rules so that we could dispose of more business and be more productive as a House, but who, contrary to that spirit, tried to score petty political points here this afternoon?

Who acted contrary to the spirit of section 88 of the Constitution? That section reads as follows:

Did this side of the House act contrary to the spirit of that section when we moved a motion in accordance with those conventions? Or did the Official Opposition and the PFP act contrary to it when they tried to score petty political points contrary to the conventions? No, this side of the House acts in accordance with the conventions. I am now telling hon members that we are exactly where we would have been earlier this evening if we had agreed to the motion that I moved earlier this afternoon. According to the programme that this side had envisaged, the debate on the Transport Vote would have been disposed of first and the debate on the National Health and Population Development Vote would have been on the point of adjournment and the hon the Minister would have made his reply tomorrow. Therefore, we on this side of the House suggest that we adjourn now because we are at the correct point in the programme. The programme of this Parliament will not be disrupted, within the ambit of the rules, by the Official Opposition or anyone who tries to disrupt that programme.

Hear, hear!

Tomorrow we shall complete what was programmed to be completed tomorrow. On Wednesday we shall begin with what we wanted to begin with on Wednesday.

For that reason I just want to say that it is we on this side of the House who ensure that planning is done in an orderly manner. [Interjections.] I want to say in all friendliness that the way to deal effectively with the business of this Parliament, and the way to spend the taxpayers’ money correctly, is to speak and negotiate and come to agreements between Whips in accordance with the traditions. These agreements must be fair and allow the opposition enough scope to state its case. If the opposition is serious about a matter, it will be given a long time in which to state its case. However, these discussions must bring matters to a point. It is in the interests of every hon member in this House that we know in advance what is happening. If the hon members want to be troublesome, surely they know that we can be troublesome too. Surely we no longer have to negotiate about what is to be discussed when. Surely they can read the Order Paper.

We read it in Die Burger.

No, surely hon member can consult the Order Paper to see what will be discussed every day from now until the end of the session.

Then do so!

Do those hon members want that kind of spirit to prevail? That is not the spirit in which we should like …

Are you threatening us?

No, I am merely saying that those hon members are now trying to regain here, at the eleventh hour, the initiative they lost this afternoon, because the Progs saw a point that they missed. They want to score points by trying to regain that initiative since everyone is laughing at them because the PFP took an initiative that the CP, as a dynamic opposition, did not utilise. [Interjections.] The CP is playing petty politics, but we shall ensure that the programme is commenced with in an orderly manner. They already know what is going to happen tomorrow and what is going to happen for the rest of the week. On Thursday we shall discuss what is going to happen next week. Therefore, I now propose that the House adjourn. If hon members now calculate our productivity for the day, they will see that we sat from 14h15 this afternoon, including the hour and a quarter that we gained by working through the lunch-break, until 23h15, with the normal time of adjournment for supper. I want to suggest that there will now be an opportunity for everyone to prepare themselves so that we can have a debate of a high standard tomorrow.

Mr Chairman…

Order! The hon member may not address me on this.

Why not?

Order! In the first place, because the Chair rules accordingly, and in the second place because the reply has now closed the debate.

Mr Chairman, then I want to address you on a point of order.

Order! What is your point of order?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to react to what the hon the Leader of the House …

Order!

No, the hon member may not react to that. [Interjections.] The hon member must resume his seat.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—80: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Matthee, P A; Meyer, A T; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Olivier, P J S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Van der Merwe, C J; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Wyk, J A; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanche, J P I; Golden, S G A; Jordaan, A L; Maree, M D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

NOES—16: Coetzee, H J; Derby-Lewis, C J; Gerber, A; Jacobs, S C; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I want to say at the outset that the concept of joint sittings is something that is long overdue in this Parliament. I think if anything can be said about the new proposals it is that that particular aspect is welcomed by just about every member of this Parliament, the tricameral Parliament as it is called.

There are many other things in these rules, however, which are certainly not acceptable. I should like to highlight some of these.

Let us look at the proposed Rule 10. This rule proposes to relegate the traditional no-confidence debate to a minor issue. The intention was explained to us in the joint committee. This discussion would take place in a joint sitting over four days and would be concluded without a reply from the introducer. This is in accordance with the proposed Rule 101 as contained in the Schedule. This is rather unusual! In the past when a Leader of the Official Opposition introduced a no-confidence motion, he replied to the discussion at the end of the debate. However, what we shall be doing in that discussion is simply to talk shop, because the introducer will not come back and justify what he said in his speech. This does not give us, as representatives of the people, the opportunity to comply with the wishes of the people we represent. That is why we are here.

What we want more than anything else in this Parliament, are answers. We do not only want answers, we want to negotiate …

What Rule are you referring to?

I am referring to the proposed Rule 10. If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council looks at clause 10, he will understand what I am referring to. It was clearly explained to us at the joint committee and we do know, of course, exactly what it means.

Another interesting point to consider is whether the hon the State President’s speech will henceforth be interesting and meaningful enough to capture the imagination for the proposed lengthy debate. This debate will take place over four days. The proposed duration of a no-confidence debate has been changed to one day. This debate will take place after the four day debate on the hon the State President’s speech. However, this no-confidence debate will take place in the separate Chambers and is going to last for six hours only. Mr Chairman, what are we doing here? If this debate is going to take place at all, the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives will obviously introduce the no-confidence debate and also reply to it at the end of the day. However, what do we really want? The main no-confidence debate, which will be conducted in a joint sitting, will not be replied to …

You do not understand. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member for Durban Suburbs an opportunity to state his case. [Interjections.] The hon member for Haarlem must come to order. The hon member for Durban Suburbs may proceed.

Sir, I am bringing this to the notice of hon members because in the past, after the hon the State President has delivered his speech, it has been asked in this House: “ What has he actually said?” There has been talk of “Rubicon speeches” and so on. However, the question that has always been asked in this House is: “ What has the hon the State President said about reform and advancement in that direction?”

He said Kippen should understand what he says. [Interjections.]

It has been asked: “ What has he said about the real changes that we are anticipating?” I ask hon members, what has he said in regard to the franchise that people in this Chamber are looking for today? [Interjections.] What did he say? Are we happy with the franchise—if one can call it that—as it is at present?

But what are you saying right now?

I am saying that the hon the State President must address those issues, and he must answer questions that shall be put to him.

But you went to see him. Why didn’t you ask him?

Order! The hon member for Mamre must come to order. The hon member for Durban Suburbs must stop repeating himself.

Mr Chairman, I want to move on to the next issue, namely the question of quorums in a joint committee meeting. This is one of the most revolutionary provisions in this entire schedule.

For the first time, Sir, quorums will not be required in debates.

Order! Is it to the proposed Rule 30 that the hon member is now referring to?

Sir, I am referring to the proposed Rule 60, not Rule 30. I have all the proposed amendments here. Rule 30 mentions quorum figures per House.

Order! I merely inquired from the hon member so that I am informed as to what in particular he is talking about. The hon member may proceed.

If you look at the proposed Rule 18, Sir, you will find the definition, and you will see that no quorums will be required in debates. In other words, Sir, an hon member may move his motion with just one other hon member sitting and listening to him. This is ridiculous, Sir. No quorums in debates! What is happening, Sir? Where are we heading? What will the rest of the hon members of Parliament be doing whilst a debate is in progress? [Interjections.]

What are you doing now?

Order! The hon member for Rietvlei must contain himself.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member must keep quiet when I call him to order. The hon member for Durban Suburbs may proceed.

Quorums will only be required when decisions have to be taken in the “big House”—as I heard it referred to over the weekend—where joint sittings will take place. I repeat, quorums will only be required at joint sittings when decisions have to be taken. There is a rider to this concept, however, in that although quorums will be required when decisions are taken in the joint committees, when the presiding officer refers a matter to Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker will consider the fact that the quorum of at least a House is present as being adequate for a decision to be taken. That provision is there, Sir. Once again I ask where are we going. A House may take a decision unilaterally in the absence of the other two Houses. That is ridiculous, Sir! [Interjections.] Why should this be? I mean, we are here for consensus politics. With whom shall that one House component be discussing a particular matter and how would it arrive at the conclusion when it is sitting by itself? We cannot agree to that kind of thing surely; the situation will be simply impossible but the LP has accepted this.

Let us turn to the actual voting. In terms of the proposed Rules, separate racial voting, as exercised in the standing committees at present, will still take place. The LP has agreed to this.

Order! Before the hon member turns to the different parts of the Schedule, can he please stipulate the particular proposed Rule so that I am convinced that he is on the right track?

Mr Chairman, I have prepared my speech along these lines.

Order! I realise that, but if I should have to give an immediate ruling I would then know what to say. For instance, the hon member could give me an indication that he is busy, for example, with the proposed Rule 35 or 43, or whatever. If he does that, I can at least give the proper ruling.

I shall do the best I can, Mr Chairman, but as I said, I have prepared my speech in this way.

Can we say, Sir, that we are making progress when, even with this new format, the status quo continues? Is this not an opportunity for us to bring about a change, for us to be able to vote nonracially across the board in the “big House”?

Is this not the opportune time to do it? Why are we maintaining that horrendous practice of voting on a racial basis? I read in a weekend newspaper that somebody said that we wanted the Blacks to join us in this Parliament. Of course we would like to see that, but when Blacks look at the new format and proposals, which are supposed to pave the way for the coming of the Black man to this Parliament, will they be prepared to come in and be considered a separate entity as we are the moment? We in this Parliament are working to get rid of racial segregation. That is what we are supposed to be doing. [Interjections.] That is our task, and here, we now have a new set of proposals before us, as well as the opportunity of bringing in, or suggesting for consideration, the concept of nonracialism in this Parliament. When one looks at the way the three Houses will sit at joint sittings, one realises that we will be sitting there along racial lines as the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. That is unacceptable. It is a ridiculous situation. I think it is about time we addressed the problem, because we are not addressing it at present.

You voted in the standing committee.

Sir, when did I vote against it? The LP, as far as I am concerned, has the same philosophy as the NP. [Interjections.] They are not saying anything against the NP proposals; and there are hon members of the LP …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Northern Cape must please be quiet. The hon member for Durban Suburbs may proceed.

Sir, I was not attacking anybody, but the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council asked me a question. I was amazed. I was like a voice in the wilderness at that meeting. Some members of the LP committee sat there and said nothing for the entire two days. We were prepared to discuss these proposals on Friday in this House, but then the LP ran away. [Interjections.] We were here. We were prepared to discuss these proposals and also to indicate why we were unhappy. The LP, however, was missing. It really shocked me. [Interjections.]

As I said earlier, it is not my intention to deride the new concept as far as debating in joint sittings is concerned, but the retention of apartheid when voting is unacceptable to us. What can we do about it? We are supposed to iron out these very issues in the standing committee, to come to an agreement, to reach consensus. That is where exchanges must take place. I am talking about real discussions to bring about the changes we need in this country, because people on the outside are being killed. People in the townships are being harassed and this is happening because they want to see changes. In the standing committee we had the opportunity to try to bring about these changes.

What did we do about it? The LP remained absolutely silent most of the time; some said nothing at all. Nobody backed me up. [Interjections.]

I want to turn to the proposed Rule 103 and touch on the question of the powers of the Chief Whip of Parliament. [Interjections.] As I said last year, I was not happy with the powers which were bestowed on my colleague over there, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Northern Cape please return to his seat and stop making interjections? The hon member for Durban Suburbs may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. When the actual rule was introduced, it stated that “the Chief Whip of Parliament shall decide” …

Decide on what?

He will decide on all the parliamentary programming. However, after a lengthy debate, a little phrase was added, namely that the Chief Whip of Parliament shall decide “after consultation with interested parties”. [Interjections.] Sir, I feel that that is saying nothing. All along, the Chief Whip of Parliament has been meeting with the various Whips from the three Houses. Programmes for the ensuing weeks, with regard to the Order Papers of the various Houses, have been discussed. Now, according to the new rules, it would appear that the Whips are to be left out by titles from the deliberations. The term “interested parties” is terribly wide; it is not specific. [Interjections.] Why is the Chief Whip of Parliament afraid to mention that he will deliberate with the other Whips of Parliament? We want to know what the position is going to be.

There is something that I do not understand. It was suggested that the Chief Whip of Parliament should discuss these matters with the Leaders of the Houses. That would also be ridiculous, because the opposition parties in the various Houses would be left out. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the House in the House of Representatives is an LP member. If he has to discuss matters with the Chief Whip of Parliament, I will be left out.

Of course, yes! [Interjections.]

However, Sir, as you have just heard, my people want me to take part in the deliberations, and I want to participate in those discussions. It is my job to find out what is going on and to inform my hon colleagues accordingly. If I am not there, what will the situation be? [Interjections.]

I would much rather see that that particular Rule read that “the Chief Whip of Parliament shall decide in concurrence with the chief and senior Whips in Parliament”. [Interjections.] That would be specific. We would at least know then that we were not being left out. [Interjections.] As it stands, the term “interested parties” does not mean a thing. How do I know whether the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament shall invite opposition whips too?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to enquire from you whether an office such as “Senior Whip” exists in Parliament. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Durban Suburbs may proceed.

Sir, I should like to give the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council an opportunity to say something now. I am interested to hear whether he will support these rules or not, and I will be listening very intently.

Finally, I want to say something about the way in which a member can be interrupted while delivering a speech. If one were to look at the proposed Rule 77 one would see that it says that a member may rise on a point of order or on a question of privilege. That is all it says; it does not say that a member may ask a question. [Interjections.] That privilege of a member must never be taken away. [Interjections.] Again, I say it must never be taken away. When one looks at Rule 88 one sees that there, too, it is not stated clearly, and I think it should be added that a member should be able to stand up and ask permission from the presiding officer to ask a question. This privilege must never be interfered with. Taking that away is interfering with the laws of debate. [Interjections.] If that is the case we are merely here in Parliament to listen to lectures. We are not schoolchildren. We are not here to listen to a man speak his mind without anyone being allowed to ask questions. [Interjections.] We must be able to stand up and ask to say something, just as we ask you, Sir. I have made it clear that a member should be able to stand up at his bench and ask for permission to ask a question—but it is not mentioned here—since I think it is a privilege of a member of Parliament to be able to do that. [Interjections.]

With these words I would like to resume my seat and say that I do not support the Rules as they have been formulated.

Mr Chairman, before making my other contribution I think I should deal with a few issues raised by the hon member for Durban Suburbs. The hon member is really misleading the House when he gives the indication that there will not be an opportunity for a no-confidence debate. In any case, the continuation of the practice is certainly ensured. However, when one looks at the situation, one realises that the no-confidence debate was, in a sense, merely an examination of the ruling party’s mistakes or successes. Having done that, one has drawn attention to where one stands. The no-confidence debate can certainly still take place.

I do not know why, but the hon member referred to the proposed Rule 10. However, Rule 10, as it stands proposed, does not exclude the possibility of a no-confidence debate. The reason we have supported the proposed Rule 10 is that in a joint debate one will be granted an opportunity of examining the state of the nation, and I believe an examination of and discussion on the question of the state of the nation is going to be far more important than spending so much time on bickering and other interests.

Initially one of our problems was that we would be confined to a discussion of the State President’s address. However, we do have the assurance that it goes wider. The State President is in a sense dealing with the state of the nation, as he sees it, and as his party sees it, and then hon members will have the right to broaden the whole question of an examination of the state of the nation. It is therefore actually not true to say that the whole question of no-confidence is excluded. I think it is an important departure from the old system, in that we can now look at the entire South African situation jointly and say things that we want to say where everybody can hear them.

It is also ridiculous to say that one House can vote alone. Nowhere does this make provision for that. It is true that in terms of the proposed Rule 69 (4) there is a possibility of members from one House voting alone in a standing committee, but nowhere is there a provision to the effect that any House may vote alone in a joint sitting if the other Houses are absent. This is the position exactly. Hansard will reflect the thinking.

Of course, the difficulty about the hon member who preceded me is that one does not know when he is thinking. One has to take a chance and try to interpret whether it is real thinking or not. It has even been said that he reminds one of somebody else who used to be in this Parliament and who was known as the “slow thinker”. In our own experience—this has happened in a standing committee—it happened that after we had already approved a clause the hon member would get up and say he did not understand what that particular clause was all about. This always happened in the standing committee after we had made a decision. Only then did the hon member want to know what was really implied or what was happening.

But if you are not here, nobody can think.

Well, that is why the hon member for Border is there. It is obvious that he sees himself as the only thinker on that side. Therefore he makes all the decisions for them.

Mr Chairman, looking at the situation broadly, it is a fact that the LP of South Africa was the prime mover in terms of joint meetings, because it is the ultimate hope that, as we progress, we will move away from the concept of three Houses of Parliament and, as proposed by the LP, move in terms of a federal structure towards one legislative assembly representative of all.

However, it does show progress away from the original Whites-only decision-making process to a situation of joint debates where cross-pollination can be effective. In spite of all its inadequacies, one of the good things of the tricameral structure is that over the past three or four years there have been opportunities—which were successfully used—for reaching a closer understanding of people’s thinking—that is those who can think—and also of political cross-pollination which I think is going to be needed in this country. If we are going to understand each other, we must understand that political thinking.

Our refusal last year to pass the schedule, which then resulted in the delay of joint debates, must be seen in the light of the fact that we did look at the question of the powers of the Chief Whip of Parliament and other factors. However, at no time—let me say this for the edification of the reporter of Die Burger—did the LP ever reject joint sittings. This so-called political reporter of Die Burger visits people at night and tries to get information from them.

*In case he did not understand the English, I want to say that his so-called political reporting reminds me of a mole that is burrowing in the dark, but as soon as it breaks out and realises it is in the light, it runs back to its hole. After all, it is true that since last year Die Burger has been trying to sow division in the LP.

But it exists.

That is why the hon member is dependent upon the LP for his own existence. [Interjections.] They tried to speculate that there were more than 50 people in our caucus who were unhappy about certain things. There were lead stories and front-page articles—as I said, it was just like a mole burrowing in the dark.

I think we have proved, however, that none of the attempts to sow division in our ranks have succeeded. I think this was also reflected on the front page of this newspaper which gave so much coverage to the LP. People may say that when people no longer talk about one, one must examine oneself, but while people are talking about one, one is an important person or an important party. Perhaps it is true that it is in fact because the LP became the most important political party in South Africa and actually took the place that had been filled by the NP previously, that we are now being denigrated. After all, it is true that no solutions for the future will be found without our contribution. That is why a concerted effort is being made to sow discord and division and to undermine my leadership. When one listens to the so-called Official Opposition, one wonders who is really the NP’s opposition and who has been co-opted. We see ourselves as the opposition as far as the principles of apartheid are concerned, whereas the hon members on the opposite side see themselves as our opposition. That really means that they are co-operating with the people opposing us. [Interjections.]

An example of this is that they are acting as those people’s mouthpiece. This was proved in this House when one of the hon members moved a motion about something the NP is still thinking about, viz that group areas should become an own affair. That motion came from the opposite side. [Interjections.]

What is the hon member for Strandfontein doing?

If the hon member does not understand the hon member for Strandfontein’s letter, he will never understand English.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The House is at present considering the report of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders. I submit that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is completely out of order. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not out of order because everything he is saying is completely relevant to what has taken place in respect of this report. I allowed the hon member for Durban Suburbs the same freedom. I only requested him to mention the numbers of the relevant Rules. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

The attack in Die Burger, this morning again in particular, must be viewed in light of the fact that our nonacceptance of the report has been seen recently as boycott tactics and obstruction, and therefore is relevant to this debate. This morning’s lead story once again mentioned political obstruction. Our presence here is proof that we are seeking a solution, however. The fact that we are here does not mean that we can be expected to agree to everything that is proposed. This is merely regarded as boycott tactics, but I want to repeat what I have said before, viz that this party does not accept boycott tactics as a principle.

Petty considerations were also mentioned. Once again this is a question of perspective or perception. What may be petty to the Whites is certainly not petty to us. I shall leave it at that, however. Let us merely say once again that our presence here is proof that we are trying to find solutions in a peaceful way by means of goodwill.

†In respect of the Schedule as well we want to say that one of the reasons for our protest is to bring to the attention the notion that in a developing position we must be careful not to move into a situation where we are ruled by regulations and proclamations.

One gets the impression that there is an increase in the promulgation of regulations and proclamations in the time in which we are living.

*Against this background the LP of South Africa wants to put it unequivocally that we stand for parliamentary democracy and are certainly seeking a peaceful democratic solution to the country’s problems. The LP is not prepared to subject itself to a system of co-optive domination by the NP, however. We are not willing to strengthen this kind of approach that can be interpreted as a willingness to accept a second-class citizenship. We see ourselves as equals in Parliament and we must be treated as equals.

One of our problems was the question of time. Since we were dissatisfied because the whole question of joint sittings had fallen through, we reconsidered the necessity for joint sittings and we reconsidered these Rules and the Schedule. In our opinion this was a priority, and we discussed the matter with senior members of the NP in November. When we were asked to advance the session, we felt this would give us an opportunity to deal with the matter, which is being dealt with so quickly now, in January, before the beginning of the session. That would have enabled us to begin this year with a joint session, but all the other standing committees were convened, some of them about unimportant matters, and this notable committee was convened only after the Easter recess.

I want to deny that we had sufficient time at our disposal by saying that this notice reached my desk only on 30 March, the day on which this House went into recess. I do not know how other hon members have the time to study documents during a recess when there is little enough opportunity to get to one’s constituency. I could not even take those documents with me during the recess. I am not the only one, because a senior member of the Cabinet did not even know that this document had ended up on his desk on 30 March. Our objection to this was the fact that the most important matter had to be dealt with so quickly. There are so many important things, and the whole future of joint debating and the standing committees will be affected by this document. Yet we had to work through this document quickly.

†Mr Chairman, it is so that we see this Parliament as the forerunner of one that will be nonracial. One has to start somewhere. However, some people do not understand what nonracialism means. One can dream—as we all do and as we ought to do—but unless one does something in regard to those dreams, they will be fruitless. I believe the hon member for Durban Suburbs is in this House for that very same reason. If we stand outside doing nothing about moving towards the ultimate, we will not get anywhere. I believe that we are definitely moving towards the creation of a new structure.

*It is to be questioned, however, whether the proposed rules under discussion are taking us closer to that objective or are merely a cosmetic rearrangement of the existing dispensation. Despite the problems we have with this, the things we are not happy with and the shortcomings, and because joint sittings still have to take place in this period, we now say, as proof of the fact that we are sincere in our search for solutions, that we are willing to accept this Schedule as it stands. As far as the symbolism of joint debating is concerned, I want to say immediately that it may result in a refreshing breeze in parliamentary politics against the background of the three Houses of Parliament which have developed from increasingly divergent priorities after three years.

†Mr Chairman, with reference to the proposed Rules 30 to 32, it is so that no House may vote on its own. We accepted that. What is important here, is that a quorum of each House must be present in the joint sitting before a decision may be taken. The quorums are stipulated in the proposed Rule 30, viz:

There is a guarantee, therefore, that decisions may only be reached during the joint debates when those quorums are present.

The proposed Rule 32 is an important one, and we should look at the difficulties it gives rise to.

The proposed Rule 69(4)—the old Standing Order 74—is one which certainly gave us problems. I should just like to quote it. The proposed Subrule (4) provides that:

We originally proposed that the provision end there. Subrule (4) goes on to read, however, that—

Do you agree with that?

The hon slow thinker may have noted when he was present at that particular meeting at which this proposal was made, that the LP moved an amendment with regard to this proposed Rule.

But you accepted it, in its original form anyway.

I repeat the proposed Subrule (4):

The proposed Rule 63(2) provides that:

The effect of those two proposed Subrules makes it possible for the House of Assembly to decide in a joint committee on the desirability of instructions and legislation in the absence of the other two Houses of Parliament, even if such House Committees exist in the other two Houses of Parliament.

†You see, Sir, although we are going to agree to this Schedule, we are concerned about the fact that it still has built into it the problem of South Africa—the fear of the White man and also his desire to continue to dominate.

It is a fact that, despite our presence here, the White House still dominates all decision-making, because if a measure is not accepted here, but is accepted there, it can be referred to the President’s Council, which is loaded with NP members who will decide in their favour. This is the question of White dominance—this was stated in the standing committee—and the fear of giving any particular group a veto right in this situation. These two clauses prepare the way for legislation to be referred to the President’s Council. The old Rule 104, which is now Rule 103, gives the Chief Whip of Parliament the power to decide inter alia what business on general affairs will be dealt with in extended committees either at a joint meeting or at separate meetings of the Houses. In this connection we proposed—the previous speaker referred to this as well—that that decision-making take place in consultation with the hon the Leader of the House.

†Because there was a deadlock, there was an understanding of the approach of the Chief Whip of Parliament that if “the Leader of the House” is specified in the Schedule, it may bring about difficulties if, at a particular juncture, he is not available. This widens the scope, the probability and the possibility of their consulting one another. While we are not happy with just that, we certainly considered that concurrence would be in our own interests with regard to participation in and the acceleration of joint debates and we were thus prepared to compromise on that situation.

Another compromise, whether people like it or not, is the question of voting in components. We know it is not the desired end product, but at least it is the practice in the standing committees. Moreover, whereas it was proposed in the old schedule that we would speak together, but then part to vote separately, the NP has now accepted that we will vote while sitting together. This does have a psychological advantage where people who must be “converted” will not only hear us, but will also see us. It will also be important in a situation like that to see where the so-called opposition in this House stand. As far as the proposed Rule 103 is concerned, then, we certainly saw this as a healthy compromise, while the NP also compromised on the question of voting. Our future in this country lies in the basis of compromise—the question of give and take. We welcome this attitude of the NP, even if it be “at last”. At least there is a willingness to concede in terms of a compromise.

That is not compromise, it is collaboration.

Of course it is compromise. Somebody said the hon member should go back to pre-primary school and perhaps that is a correct summing up of the situation.

*From our experience in the past, we can say that although the proposals before us are not perfect and do not meet all our requirements and desires, this is a more important point of departure than was the case in November last year.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 15h13 and resumed at 15h56.

Mr Chairman, in view of the adoption by this House a short while ago of the report on the Standing Rules and Orders it now seems likely that the Second Reading debate on the Main Budget will take place during a joint sitting next year. We are looking forward to that joint sitting. I hope that in the process we shall be able to assist the NP in putting the CP in its political place. [Interjections.]

†At the outset I want to move as an amendment:

1. (1) a programme for a fair and equal redistribution of land and wealth is implemented by the government of the day; and
2. (2) all discriminatory legislation such as the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act are repealed.”.

In his Budget speech the hon the Minister of Finance mentions what he terms two fundamental realities which must be faced in any evaluation of the South African economy. I quote:

I have absolutely no problem with these two realities the hon the Minister stated, but what is important is how we are going to deal with these realities. There have been wide-ranging and differing comments on the Budget. Most of the comments were confined to the various proposals contained in the Budget. I, however, want to address the underlying political, social and economic philosophy of the Budget, because the two realities mentioned by the hon the Minister are important grounds for debate.

On the other hand, they are not the only two realities within the South African equation. I have stated before and I want to reiterate that the Budget, in my opinion, is fundamentally a political statement because it aims to give financial effect to the political policies of the Government of the day.

Sir, the hon the Minister has conceded in previous debates that politics and economics are inextricably interwoven. Economic policies cannot be pursued within a vacuum. These policies must be judged within the political milieu in which they are being pursued. This is where the other realities in the country come into play—realities which we can ignore at our own peril. The survival of all the people of this country is dependent upon our facing these realities. Anyone who ignores these realities is living in a fool’s paradise.

Let me mention one other reality, viz that one’s political response in society is largely determined by one’s subjective experience within that society. That is also a reality. Therefore, the perspective of those who come from a section of the population in which the people are the victims of huge backlogs in respect of housing, health care, education, etc will be radically different, generally and in respect of this budget in particular, from the perspectives of Whites as far as economic measures are concerned.

*The perspective of the Afrikaner of the twenties, thirties and forties in respect of economic policy differed drastically from that of his English-speaking compatriot. One can understand why they had different perspectives. The fact is that the poor White problem could only be solved by attaining political power. This was what made the difference. Afrikaner nationalists discovered the close link between political and economic power and this is illustrated by the history of Afrikaner nationalism. It is interesting to note that the Afrikaner Broederbond regarded the economic re-education of the Afrikaner as one of its primary tasks.

How do you know?

He was there. [Interjections.]

The monopolising of the economic power by the imperialist oppressors had to be destroyed and since the Public Service was regarded as the most important means of fighting this monopoly, political power was regarded as an essential prerequisite for success in the economic fight against imperialism. This is the attitude of our Black compatriots today. It is an irrefutable fact that the foundation has been laid for Black workers to use their economic rights to make political demands. The Afrikaners used the interrelatedness of political and economic power to the social advantage of the Whites. When Genl Hertzog came to power in 1924, for example he introduced the “civilised labour policy” in favour of White workers. In his view South Africa was the fatherland of the Whites and it was their birthright to protect their civilisation. Consequently many laws were promulgated to limit the influx of Blacks to White land. In terms of the provisions of the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936, 12% of the country’s surface area was set aside for Black reserves. In this way the Whites obtained preferential access to the rest of the country. All these laws resulted in Blacks being reduced to unfree labourers who were powerless and easy to exploit.

One could also refer to the Group Areas Act and how it limited the so-called Coloureds and Indians in particular as far as landownership was concerned. This was the case in the urban as well as the rural areas. Now we have the unacceptable situation that South Africa’s territory is divided up in an absolutely unfair and unequal way. If we are serious about creating an equal and political, social and economic order the redistribution of land is a prerequisite.

†The fact of the matter is that Whites in general could promote and sustain White privilege because of their monopoly over political power. This is another reality. The hon the Minister says that the economy is hamstrung by a host of politically motivated and internationally orchestrated restrictions which distort the optimal allocation of the resources with which our country is so richly endowed.

However, Sir, what about the restrictions imposed by successive White governments on the acquisition of land and job skills by people of colour? These are the things that distort the optimal allocation of this country’s resources. This country is paying dearly today in terms of its skilled manpower needs because of previous laws such as the Job Reservation Act.

There are other realities which we cannot wish away. Whether the hon the Minister likes it or not, these arose largely as a result of the NP’s political, social and economic policies, and unless there is a fundamental change in these policies, this country will not achieve the economic growth of gross domestic product necessary to satisfy…

You are spoiling a fine speech.

When I disagree with the hon the Minister the speech is no good.

†…the aspirations of all the people in this country. Sir, it is common knowledge that thus far this particular decade has been disastrous for the South African economy. Since 1980 the real annual growth of the GDP has been a mere 1,1 %. According to some economists, if this is taken in conjunction with the population growth, it has caused an annual real fall in per capita income of 1%. Average real remuneration per worker increased by a mere 2,4% over the whole period from 1980 to June 1987, while employment in the non-agricultural sectors of the economy grew by only 0,5% per annum. A fact that we will have to accept is that the political system continues to exert a stranglehold over economic growth. Mere economic modification will not solve the problems. What is required is fundamental and structural changes in the political, social and economic spheres if this country is to achieve its full economic potential.

The South African economy must be restructured to satisfy the just aspirations of all its people. This is a reality which cannot be ignored. There is an urgent need to redress the economic inequality of the South African economy. Sir, the challenge is to move from an underdeveloped capitalist economy, where large numbers of people live in poverty and where there are massive discrepancies in the income, standards of living, educational facilities and life chances of citizens, to one where economic equality can prevail. High infant mortality rates, squatter populations, massive housing shortages and unacceptably high incidences of malnutrition-related diseases such as kwashiorkor and TB, are constant reminders of the poverty prevailing in this country. These are some of the realities.

There are also discrepancies in the provision of housing. In order to highlight the discrepancies, Mr Jan Steyn, executive chairman of the Urban Foundation, estimates in the Provision of Housing that 200 000 dwellings must be provided in the urban areas each year. However, in 1986 the public and private sectors jointly provided about 25 000 houses. According to a report in the Star of 20 October 1987, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House stated that the Coloured housing backlog in the Western Cape is 60 000 units and the national shortage 100 000 units. The Western Cape required housing at the rate of 12 500 to 15 000 new units a year. In the 1986-87 financial year 12 500 new houses throughout the country were financed by the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in this House. Yet 12 000 to 15 000 new units were required in the Western Cape alone. However, only 12 500 units were provided in the total area of the Republic of South Africa.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has repeated Government estimates that some 1,3 million Africans were squatters in mid-1987. It is said that there are 900 000 squatters in the PWV area alone.

We can go on to other disparities in the South African situation. There are disparities in education, for example. Calculations indicate that in 1987 teacher-pupil ratios for the various races were: Whites, one teacher per 16 pupils; Indians 1:21; Coloureds 1:25; and Africans—this includes all the homelands—1:41.

According to an inquiry into university education commissioned by the Committee of University Principals 29,2 out of every 1 000 Whites were students in post-secondary institutions in 1985. The figure for Indians was 19,8; for Coloureds it was 4,7; and for Africans it was 2,2. Moreover, more resources are being allocated to services that are being used by Whites than towards the provision of health services in areas where people are living out their lives in poverty. This, Sir, directly influences the life expectancy of the different population groups.

Are you sure?

Yes. The average African life expectancy is 50-55 years. The life expectancy in respect of the other races is: White women—74; White men—66; Indian men—62; Indian women—69; Coloured women—62; …

And you?

And you?

And Coloured men—54. [Interjections.] It is important, therefore, that these hon members ensure that they stay here long enough to qualify for their pensions.

What about the figures in respect of malnutrition and infant mortality, which I do not want to quote in detail? What about the ratio disparities in spending in respect of hospitals? The evidence suggests that the authorities have made little progress in improving access to health care for people of colour. In fact, doctors allege that conditions at so-called non-White hospitals are no better than they were 15 years ago, and that the public health care system is under increasing pressure. The evidence also suggests that the public health service is deteriorating sharply and is moving increasingly out of the reach of low-income earners. These, Sir, are some of the sad realities of the South African situation.

Let us examine the shocking situation in respect of employment practices in the SATS. On 20 February 1987—when this question was answered by the relevant hon Minister—no single employee of colour was in a permanent position.

Disgraceful!

Almost 78 000 were employed on a permanent basis at that time, whereas 66 000 Blacks and 16 300 Coloureds were either regarded as being casual or regular employees—whatever that may mean. [Interjections.] The important question which arises is: How do the hon the Minister of Finance and the Ministers’ Council in this House plan to wipe out these backlogs which are growing with each passing year? The figures I have here prove what I am saying.

*Sir, in terms of the Constitution of the RSA a formula was to be drawn up in respect of statutory transfers from the State Revenue Fund to the various own affairs administrations.

The hon the Minister indicated last year that that formula had already been determined, but he still refuses to make it public. Last year the hon the Minister also refused to make that formula public and I want to know the reason for this secrecy. All the hon members in this House have backlogs in their various constituencies as far as housing, education and health services are concerned. How shall we ever know whether those backlogs are going to be wiped out if that formula is not made public? We want to know these things so that we can determine whether we are going to make any progress in the years ahead. Or will these backlogs merely increase as they have been increasing until now? We came to this Parliament in 1984 but despite our presence here these backlogs are increasing. We have been here for four—nearly five—years, but where are we heading?

†Sir, ad hoc adjustments will not solve the problem. Redirection and the effective use of this country’s resources are what we need. What is required is some sort of Marshall plan to reconstruct the economy of this country so that all its citizens will benefit, and not only a section of this population. Wasteful products must cease. We do not need an independent KwaNdebele. The international community may even be sympathetic to funding a reconstruction programme for South Africa, especially if the commensurate political changes are also brought about. Mere good intentions will not solve our problem. They say the way to hell is paved with good intentions, but intentions must be translated into action. Poverty in any society is not a natural or inevitable phenomenon. It is a result of the economic and political structure of that society. Poverty in South Africa has been created by the existing political and economic structures. That is a fact.

The key to eliminating poverty in our country is to change the structure that created it. Unless a deliberate programme to redistribute wealth is embarked upon, the disparities and inequalities will only be perpetuated. This holds grave consequences for the future peace and stability of this country, and I will spell out what I mean by the redistribution of wealth. The Land Act of 1936 must go, as well as the Group Areas Act. This is what we mean when we talk about the redistribution of land, because the Government confines people to a section of the land. These Acts prevent hon members in this House from buying a farm, even if they could afford to, unless they obtain a permit. We all know how difficult that is, because if only one farmer in the vicinity objects, one’s chances of buying that farm will be nil.

One way of mobilising and redistributing wealth to ensure greater economic equality and political democracy, is to introduce a social security system. For an economic system to be regarded as just, it must benefit the greater number of its citizens. Although I regard the free enterprise system as probably the best generator of wealth, we reject a laissez-faire free enterprise system. We believe in strong intervention on the part of the State to engineer the economy and to eradicate those backlogs, as well as the disparities and inequalities. These problems will not solve themselves, nor will they be solved through the application of ad hoc measures, because they are of too structural a nature.

It cannot be expected of us to agree that we are all equal and that we must all begin at the same starting point, as if nothing has happened in the past. The fact that Whites held a monopoly as far as political power was concerned is not recognised. They could engineer and manipulate this economy in order to promote and sustain White privilege. [Interjections.]

People of colour cannot be expected to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. [Interjections.] Even the history of this Government shows that it was never a supporter of a laissez-faire free enterprise system. This economy was manipulated and engineered to solve the poor-White problem. A social security system to uplift Whites was embarked upon. This is the tragedy of South Africa, because it was done for a section of the population and motivated by naked racism. [Interjections.]

The Government will have to guarantee all its citizens certain fundamental economic rights. These should include the right to work, a guaranteed minimum income, housing, proper education and inexpensive but adequate medical care. In order to provide for these needs a social security system which covers the needs of citizens from the cradle to the grave will have to be established.

*I have received a note, Sir. It reads that first we had “AVB”—“Alles vir Barend”—and that we now have “VAT”, “Value added tax”—“Vrek; anders trek!” [Interjections.] That may be true, Sir, because how many of our people—fine people—are in Australia or Canada today because of this system?

†Social security provision must reflect what is demanded by the people in their own interests. Social needs are culturally determined, and the bearers of a culture are, therefore, the ones who should determine which social needs are to be serviced and in what order of priority that should be done.

Within the life cycle social security provision could include, firstly, maternity benefits to ensure that a pregnant woman can stop working while still having an adequate income to support her and the child. Implicit in such a provision should be the right of the mother to return to work after the child has been born. How many pregnant women are not paid off because of their pregnancy? Furthermore, their employers often refuse to employ them again when they want to return to work.

Yes, and the boss may even be responsible for her pregnancy! [Interjections.]

Secondly, there should be inexpensive and accessible medical care, ranging from neighbourhood clinics to properly equipped hospitals. Provision should also be made for an income in the event of temporary disablement and for compensation for a person who is permanently disabled.

This country could have been far on the road to a just national health service system. In 1944 the Smuts Government appointed the Gluckman Commission to inquire into health services. The commission had to investigate the possibility of a national health service for all the people of South Africa. That was in response to a dramatic economic change, the disintegration of the rural economy, a rising class struggle in towns and in the country and a growing sense of crisis on a number of fronts. The commission’s recommendations were revolutionary. Sadly, they were not implemented by the Smuts Government and were subsequently vetoed by the NP when it came into power in 1948. [Interjections.]

Housing is another important point. Housing, as well as water, electricity, sewerage, road and other related services must be provided in such a social security system.

Educational facilities, ranging from creches and primary and secondary schools to technical and tertiary education, have to be provided. Proper child care facilities for the very young have to be stressed because of their very absence in contemporary South Africa. Mothers who have been on maternity leave should be able to go back to work, secure in the knowledge that their children will be properly cared for by an experienced child minder in an adequate creche. Adult educational facilities will also have to be expanded drastically in order to make up for the lack of educational facilities under this Government.

I now come to employment guarantees. Given the lack of physical and social infrastructure facilities in South Africa, it should not be difficult to provide employment opportunities under a democratic Government. The public sector has traditionally provided employment for those out of work, and there is no reason whatsoever why the strategy employed during the 1930’s should not be used again. Sufficient employment insurance facilities should also be available, in the event of unemployment.

In this respect I would like to mention the plight of the farm worker, who is not regarded and defined as a worker in terms of the Labour Relations Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. These things must be changed, so that these people can organise themselves into unions in order to gain the power of collective bargaining. We in this House are aware of the plight of the farm worker, who, when he reaches a certain age and is no longer physically able to provide the necessary labour on the farm, is summarily chucked off that farm, with his family and the little bit of goods he could accumulate in his lifetime. [Interjections.] What happens to that farm worker when he reaches retirement age? No provision whatsoever has been made for him. Sir, the definition of “worker”, to encompass the word “farm worker”, should be included in both the Labour Relations and the Unemployment Insurance Acts, so that the farm worker can contribute to unemployment insurance. This should be done, so that when, by virtue of certain factors beyond his own control, the farmer is forced to retrench that worker, there should at least be funds in some form available for that worker. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House find the amendment that has been introduced by the hon member for Schauderville somewhat ironic. We do not find it ironic so much in its contents, and I, for one, am not going to deal with the contents thereof today. The hon member should not misunderstand us, but what we found ironic is what the hon member said at the outset of his speech, before he introduced that amendment. Allow me to refresh the memory of hon members in this House. The hon member for Schauderville started off by saying that he welcomed the proposed introduction of joint debates. He further said he welcomed that—and these are the cardinal words—so that his party could in a year’s time join forces with the NP in opposing the CP. [Interjections.] Today, however, he comes here and speaks out by introducing an amendment against some of those same policies of the NP.

Is this also just an interim measure or a political posture, knowing, as he does, that his party does not have the majority in this House today to push through the amendment, thereby ensuring that they continue their amicable relationship with the NP in anticipation of next year’s debate? [Interjections.] Only they can tell us, Sir. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, I want to make so bold as to say that hopefully we are on the eve of a period of strong economic growth, if the present trend in local production and expenditure should continue. It is clear that the hon the Minister of Finance has decided to protect the present economic upswing, but at the same time not to stimulate the economy excessively to counterproductive levels, in view of the lessons we have learnt in the past.

†It is also important to remember that towards the end of last year, especially the last quarter of last year, the picture was formed of an economy in a stage of advanced revival, showing a moderate cyclical upswing. We saw a return to what can be considered normal production levels in both agriculture and mining. Significantly this took place at a time when there was a levelling off of real output in the manufacturing industry at approximately the same high level which we saw in the third quarter of last year.

The seasonal adjustment and annual rate of increase in the gross domestic product of nearly 5% in the fourth quarter of last year, marginally exceeded the quarterly growth rates which had been recorded in the second half of 1986 and was the highest such rate to be achieved since the closing stages of the mini boom we had in 1983-84. Obviously this reflects a more positive attitude and climate in South African business and consumer services. In these circumstances it could have been easy to overstimulate the economy. Being largely conservative in my financial thinking I am glad this was not done. I would rather like to see the full use of this country’s manpower.

*Mr Chairman, it is strange that the head of the National Manpower Commission, Dr Hennie Reynders, pointed out recently that although White management staff appeared to be positively orientated with regard to the promotion of Blacks, Coloureds and Asians in management positions, there is a real unwillingness and even an inability to prove this in practice. The development—let us emphasise this—of management expertise and the formulation of realistic policy directions in utilising human resources is also important for increased productivity. In this connection there is a need for the utilisation of more Black staff, particularly in management posts, so that they can play a part in staff motivation and in instilling pride and discipline in the workers. Let us not forget, Sir, that the majority of our workers, especially in our factories, are Blacks.

†

South Africa’s weak productivity record was borne out by the report of the National Productivity Institute. We found, for instance, that between 1981 and 1986 our per capita production fell, and of our main trading competitors, only Mexico fared worse. That is an indictment for any country.

While the role of the private sector and community leaders cannot be overemphasised when it comes to productivity, it is also true that as a society we are, we have been, and we will be—I hope not for long—over-regularised. Something will have to be done urgently in this regard. At this point, Sir, let me say we welcome the appointment of a specific Minister to deal with this. It shall not end there, however.

*At the same time it is true that established interests in the private sector often oppose the removal of regulations in order to protect certain interest groups. This has serious constraints on deregulation, it increases costs and consequently has a detrimental effect on productivity. Extended education and training are essential for greater productivity. That is why we in this House will never be satisfied with what is being given for the education of our community as well as the Black community in general. Nor can we ever be satisfied—I think the hon the Minister should listen carefully—with the pensions our people and the Blacks receive when they can no longer be utilised productively. The hon the Minister must take cognisance of this. Our people should learn to fish today, so that they can see to their own meals in the future. [Interjections.] We cannot fish without quotas, however, as the hon member for Mamre said.

This brings me to a subject that is very important to me. It concerns the development of the South African rural areas. I know I talk about this ad nauseam in this House, but as I said, it is very important to me. I believe that year after year it is neglected here in Parliament. The deficiencies that exist in the South African rural areas have never been portrayed as clearly as during the recent floods. Although they are neglected to such an extent, the people from the rural areas have proved that just as they can resist the fine, hot, blowing sand of the droughts, they can endure the violence of rushing water. That is precisely why I want to dare to say in this House today that not enough is being done for the orderly development of the South African rural areas.

Let me say in the first place that I realise that the creation of infrastructure is an expensive process. I also realise that the provision of infrastructure must be weighed up against its cost effectiveness, its strategic value and the impact it can have on future development in a specific area. Naturally it is also true that social factors, historic factors and certainly apartheid have an effect on this. Nevertheless I must emphasise that there are certain problem areas in the South African rural areas which must be singled out.

Despite the thousands of litres of water that flowed to the sea during the recent floods and the heavy rains that are still falling over large parts of the Northern Cape and the Free State, it is true that in the long term water shortages are still a problem in the South African rural areas. What we need is better distribution and utilisation of surface water in our arid areas. I also want to ask whether one can say, on the basis of the Budget that is under discussion here today, that sufficient provision is being made for research to determine the potential of subterranean water sources and that sufficient provision is being made for the better utilisation of and control over subterranean water sources.

The recent floods also showed up the terrible condition of the roads in the rural areas. Roads literally gave way before the flood waters! Much more money is necessary for the maintenance of our roads. I travel on many rural roads, and I know what condition they are in. I know how many of those roads wash away these days even if there is only a little rain. Available information must be utilised to determine priorities for the upgrading of certain roads.

Future development of the tourist potential of the rural areas should also be taken into consideration in determining priorities.

West Coast tourism.

Let me assure the hon member for Mamre that South Africa does not consist only of the West Coast. [Interjections.] The extension of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line to the PWV area is regarded as essential for the stimulation of development in the central part of South Africa. The curtailment of the SATS’ activities, especially its rail transport, in the central part of South Africa is aggravating existing problems such as deficient transport and higher transport costs to remote markets. If one lives in the rural areas, one often hears that refrain. People sometimes wait for days to get onto a train, and then there is still the transport of products to market. The upgrading of airport facilities such as those at Upington require more attention. With regard to electricity, we must say that power cuts create a great problem. The extension of the power grid in the rural areas is an important need. With reference to telecommunication, telephone exchanges that do not function 24 hours per day create a security problem. The Government is always so aware of security, and that is why we find it strange that it permits certain exchanges not to function 24 hours per day.

With regard to radio and TV reception—after all, these are important factors for the improvement of the quality of life in our rural communities—attention must be given to those areas which have poor reception or no reception at all. As an example I want to mention De Aar—I am sure the hon member for Britstown will allow me to do so—where there are approximately 10 000 Blacks. I find it strange, however, that they cannot receive TV2 or TV3. Now they have to sit and listen to us talking all day, whereas they cannot understand what is being said.

I now want to take stock of the rural economy. Undoubtedly agriculture and mining are the two key industries in the South African rural areas. Both these industries are under pressure at the moment. The consequences of the pressure are extending to other economic activities and are already visible. If this should continue for much longer, it will hold serious consequences for the rural areas. With reference to mining, there is a real need for markets and activities which are focused on the further processing of raw materials within the area. I should like to make a special appeal to our large mining houses today to pay attention to this. Let us be honest; let us do something for the depressed areas.

Agriculture is periodically assailed by droughts. I want to make so bold as to say that attention will have to be given to inter alia the restructuring of agricultural land, overloading and the monitoring of the special State group scheme to fanners. We must remember that farmers can be financially rehabilitated only if an effective approach is implemented. If I must be racist, I want to ask to what extent Coloureds are being assisted. I also want to request that there be more certainty about the quantity and the quality of the water that is supplied to irrigation farmers. In addition the implementation of modern irrigation technology should be investigated. When one looks at the bodies in South African agriculture which take care of the interests of White farmers in comparison with those which take care of the interests of other farmers, it is interesting to see how there is an excess of officials and technological aids on the one hand, whereas these are scarce commodities on the other. What we are advocating is not two, four or six strong technological resources, but only one that will be strong enough for all the farmers.

The increase in the number of extension officers serving the rural areas must also be investigated. The reduction in the number of farmers is alarming, especially in the border areas. Hon members must remember that the border is not somewhere on the other side of SWA; it is here, close to us. It is even in the North Western Cape which the hon member for Macassar visited the other day. [Interjections.] The reduction in the number of farmers, particularly in the border areas, is creating a security risk. On behalf of the community that is represented in this House, let us ask for the Coloureds to be permitted to occupy these farms. We are not afraid of living there.

Without a permit.

Yes, without a permit, Sir. That is very important. On the other hand recent surveys have shown a significant reduction in the White population in some of the towns and non-urban areas in the rural areas, and in particular in the general and central regions. Because the White population group played an important part as entrepreneurs and employers, the reduction in their numbers holds economic implications for the rural areas in general. The urbanisation process that is being observed among the Coloureds and the Blacks is obviously going to exert pressure on the creation of sufficient infrastructure in a large percentage of rural towns. The Government’s urbanisation policy will have a further influence on urbanisation in the central area. Let us ask ourselves whether sufficient money has been budgeted to meet the requirements.

In addition the burden of youthful dependency is exceptionally heavy among Coloureds and this holds serious socio-economic implications for the population groups in the rural areas. [Interjections.] Let me also tell the hon member for Macassar that if he does not understand, I am prepared to spend an hour or two explaining everything to him nicely.

Your leader wrote your speech.

Sir, we have heard so often in this House that additional housing and the upgrading of existing housing facilities are urgent needs for both the Coloureds and the Blacks, especially in the rural areas. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has the key to the solution of the problem in the rural areas. We appeal to him: Relieve the fate of the rural areas so that the fate of the children in the cities can be assured too.

Mr Chairman, it is truly a privilege and an honour to speak after the hon member for Diamant. You know, Sir, the hon member for Diamant expressed the matters concerning the rural areas so well that I do not think we could have found anyone better to explain the problems we are experiencing in the rural areas as clearly. The only thing I really need to say is “yes” and “amen”, because the hon member said what had to be said about the rural areas, and I believe the hon the Minister has taken cognisance of that and is well aware of the problems we have there. [Interjections.]

Sir, this afternoon I am going to focus my attention on the social and political effect that this Budget is going to have on all South Africa’s people. We are truly living in an interesting world, a very interesting world, a world which reminds me so much of the era which Charles Dickens wrote about in his book A Tale of Two Cities. In the first paragraph of that book he wrote:

The hon the Minister must have seen this era unfold before him when he was drawing up the Budget, because if one listened carefully to what the hon the Minister was submitting to us when he was advocating the freezing of salaries …

That is not what I was doing.

…when he was propagating the freezing of salaries and requesting that no salary increases be granted in the private sector either, he must have seen a South Africa before him in which we should like to see an era of hope; an era in which we could hope that things would only improve.

It is also true that when we decided to participate in 1983, and when our participation became effective in 1984, this possibility was held out by the LP.

In 1984 the LP set itself two chief objectives. Its long-term strategy was to ensure the effective participation of all South Africans, irrespective of race or colour, in the highest authority and form of government. In the short term it was the LP’s objective to uplift all people in South Africa in the social, educational and economic spheres. The debate we are discussing in detail here today is important in that in the period we are living in, after being in this Parliament for four years, we are still struggling to get reform going. It is meaningful that the Constitution was supposed to ring in a period of reform, hope, progress and prosperity—Dickens rightly called it “a spring of hope”—but we are experiencing a period of stagnation in reform and of economic depression.

The LP set itself an objective. The hon the Minister of Finance appealed for no salary increases to be given this year, but the LP is experiencing a dilemma. I have said that our short-term objective is the upliftment of our people in the social and economic spheres. In order to realise our long-term objective, we proceeded to the following strategy in our search for a solution to the problems of South Africa. We in the LP believe that those apartheid structures which were established by humans and by which people are separated from one another on the basis of their colour must be changed. We hope to change this effectively by means of our participation. We shall attempt to address the problems whenever there is an opportunity to do so.

We in the LP do not believe, as certain neoMarxists do, that the solution to the problematic South African situation and the achievement of our long-term objective can be attained by means of violence. Consequently we reject the events that took place at the Ster Kinekor Building in Pretoria and in Rissik Street in Johannesburg last week. Irresponsible people almost caused the death of numerous innocent people, thus causing the country a lot of harm. We believe that the problems that are confronting our country and the ideology that has been forced upon us should be addressed by evolutionary methods.

Our people—I am talking about the majority of South Africans, irrespective of race or colour—detest all forms of violence, sabotage and disinvestment. At the moment—we read this in today’s newspapers—one of our leading, highly acclaimed clergymen is appealing in Europe for disinvestment to be applied in respect of South Africa. Disinvestment is definitely not the answer and it will never be the answer to our problems. It can only lead to problems and misery—in a country which already has an abundance of problems.

Then there are people who are perturbed about the winds of change that are blowing through this country. People are upset, and in this respect I am referring in particular to the voters in the Transvaal rural areas who are withdrawing into the past, as it were. Those people are upset when things do not remain the way they were before. They start feeling unsure of themselves. They start suspecting the advocates of reform and change of all kinds of nasty things, and would like to see the status quo retained. Those people have surrendered themselves to the disease that they have been warned against, viz White fear of Black domination. We want to tell them this afternoon that they need not be afraid. We in the LP believe that together we can build a model state in this bastion of civilisation at the southern point of Africa. That is possible if we extend our hands to one another with confidence so as to get the reform machinery going in this country.

I now come back to the Budget. The hon member for Diamant said quite a lot about things that I wanted to speak about too. I am referring to the development in the rural areas, which is neglected to a great extent. So much is done in the urban areas, but the rural areas are neglected. Our people suffered serious losses recently because of the thunderstorms and floods. People lost their properties and towns were destroyed. Many people lost things of sentimental value to them, things that cannot be replaced or compensated for in the form of money.

We want to appeal to the Government to do everything possible at this time to help the people in the rural areas out of the dilemma they are experiencing. They must be helped up from where they are sitting in abject misery, and instilled with hope so that they can share in the development of this beautiful and wonderful country of ours. [Interjections.]

The short-term objective of those of us in the LP is the upliftment of our people in the social, educational and economic spheres. The hon the Minister must understand, therefore, that because of the system we have been subjected to, we have a certain backlog to eradicate. [Interjections.] In the social sphere, for example, we have a backlog in respect of pensions. It is the objective of this party to eradicate the backlog in respect of old age and social pensions in the shortest possible time so as to reach parity on that level as well. The fact that the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare in this House announced an increase of R12 recently should not be seen as a deed of contempt toward the Treasury. It should rather be seen as an attempt to free our people from the clutches of poverty.

We want to tell the hon the Minister that he must view things in that light. He must not regard the announcement made by our hon Minister in this House as something that we are doing simply of our own volition, but must understand that we are doing it to release our people from the clutches of poverty. In the same breath we want to plead for the Black aged people of South Africa. These people receive their allowances every second month. They have to travel a long way to fetch what is due to them. I know that people in the Wepener region have to travel from Smithfield, and they can catch the bus only on Thursdays, after which they have to stay over for a whole week—sometimes even two weeks—before they can receive their allowances. Something must be done to assist these people. [Interjections.] The sooner there is parity with regard to the aged, the better it will be for all of us. [Interjections.]

Order! The debate cannot continue with so many people talking at the same time. The hon member may proceed.

I am still talking about the aged, and I am talking about all our aged irrespective of race or colour. We in South Africa must appreciate and honour these pioneers of civilisation in Southern Africa. They are given to us for only a short period. Why do we not grant them the happiness of an increase? They will welcome and appreciate it.

I think the hon the Minister could also have treated the teachers’ corps more fairly by granting them a significant increase. I feel that these people need such an increase to keep up with the rising cost of living in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Haarlem must contain himself. The hon member may proceed.

I should like to tell Mr Sonn, the chairman of the CPTU, that everything was fine when the Whites were in control of the department, but now that one of his own people—who in his way is doing everything in his power to negotiate what is best for the child, the school and the community—is at the head of matters, it is not good enough anymore. He talks about discrimination, but I want to tell him this afternoon that he is a shameless example of discrimination against his own people. He believes in the English maxim, “That which is White is always right”. He does not believe that his own people can help him out of this predicament, but then I wonder what future South Africa he is talking about. One wonders what he would do if he was in control of matters and the teachers were to take this kind of action against him. Our people who are there are doing their best and the LP is striving for the very best for our people in South Africa. We are sorry if that does not suit him, but we shall fight for what is our people’s due. [Interjections.]

I now want to talk about the funds for those affected by the flood, although I have done so before. Our people are despondent. Something must be done for those poor people. [Interjections.] Something must be done to help those people. Something must be done to relieve the housing crisis in the rural areas in the Free State and the Northern Cape, which were stricken by the floods.

At this moment the water is once again invading the rural areas in the Free State. Our people there are struggling. Something must be done to relieve their fate. When I talk about our people, I mean everyone. The agricultural communities in the Free State have suffered significant losses because of the floods. If agriculture is forced to its knees, those areas are forced to their knees, and something must be done to uplift those people.

In conclusion I also want to commit the unemployed in this country to the hon the Minister. These poor people, who have become unemployed because of circumstances that they could not control—the disinvestment campaign and the withdrawal of certain firms from the country have left our people unemployed—are suffering. The R5 per day they received when they were taken into service by certain town management boards in terms of the unemployment scheme is also a thing of the past now that certain projects have been completed. Something must be done to address South Africa’s unemployment problem. The unemployment problem is beginning to take on critical proportions and positive steps will have to be taken to relieve the fate of the unemployed in the rural areas of the Free State.

In the same breath I want to deplore the fate of the farm labourers. I want to ask the hon the Minister to do something to help the farm labourers, also in these times, because the farm owners themselves, having lost so much in the floods, are experiencing a crisis.

Mr Chairman, before I start my speech in this Second Reading debate, I want to correct something with regard to a front page report that appeared in Die Burger on Saturday, 16 April 1988. I want to dissociate myself from the standpoints attributed to me in this report. What it says is utter nonsense. That report is an absolute misinterpretation of what took place in the LP’s caucus on Thursday, 13 April. [Interjections.] This report proves two things to me: First of all, that Die Burger has exceedingly stupid informants, and secondly, that Die Burger is not objective enough even to verify its facts before it reports on such extremely delicate political matters.

I want to comment in general on Nasionale Pers’s approach to current political questions and how they often distort things. At the beginning of the year Die Burger reported every day for a week that a huge split in the LP was imminent. This hypothesis was groundless and devoid of all truth, however. Die Burger and its sister newspapers made an absolute mess in their handling of the CP’s growth after the election in May 1987 by unwittingly becoming the CP’s and the AWB’s greatest propagandists. They gave these two organisations such political relevance as no amount of money in the world could ever buy them. Instead of proposing a positive plan of action as an alternative to the CP’s and the AWB’s irrational propaganda, they behaved like reactionaries. More negative reporting was the result.

Why do they not completely ignore organisations like the CP with all the nonsense it gets up to? Why are they trying to cause a split in the LP? One gets the impression that Die Burger has been instructed by its masters—the NP—to split the LP. This is apparent from their lead stories since January this year. They are constantly trying to drive a wedge between certain so-called factions in the LP.

The solution lies in Die Burger’s requesting the Government to provide it with a positive plan for leading the country out of its present dilemma and then presenting this solution to the voting public. They should stop trying to pin the problem on anyone but the NP, because that is where the problem lies. At least one of Die Burger’s sister newspapers, Beeld, was honest enough to say that the White voters had grown tired of certain vague aspects of the NP’s policy. If, therefore, the NP can elucidate its reform policy, it would spare Die Burger and Nasionale Pers the great embarrassment of having to look to the LP, which ostensibly is benefiting the CP, for the source of the problem.

Who is the informant?

I should like to come back to the Budget and spend some time on a subject which, in my opinion, is going to be of fundamental importance to this country, viz that we shall have to develop a strategy whereby we can create prosperity in order to offer people more job opportunities. I should like to quote briefly the latest unemployment figures which the hon the Minister of Manpower supplied in reply to a question put to him by the hon member for Johannesburg North. The following unemployment figures were registered at the Department of Manpower: In Johannesburg 9 978 Whites, 3 291 Coloureds and 774 Indians were unemployed; in Durban 4 555 Whites, 2 439 Coloureds and 8 638 Indians; in Cape Town 4 340 Whites, 17 635 Coloureds and 28 Asians; in Pretoria 2 109 Whites, 232 Coloureds and 57 Asians; in Bloemfontein 1 647 Whites and 619 Coloureds and in Port Elizabeth, 1 220 Whites, 1 631 Coloureds and 5 Asians were unemployed; in George, 407 Whites and 1 518 Coloureds; in Kimberley, 257 Whites, 1 482 Coloureds and 8 Indians and in East London, 238 Whites, 296 Coloureds and 2 Asians were unemployed. By 31 October 1987, therefore, 24 751 Whites were unemployed as opposed to 29 206 Coloureds and 9 512 Asians.

In another question which the hon member for Johannesburg North put to the hon the Minister of Home Affairs it was estimated that by November 1987—according to the latest survey—922 000 Blacks were unemployed. That is the current unemployment rate. Those figures do not include people who will enter our labour market in the current financial year.

Serious consideration will have to be given to the creation of prosperity in this country in order to solve this unemployment problem. I want to focus for a while, therefore, on our gross domestic product. I want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister of Finance and his hon Deputy to some disquieting facts. I want to quote facts which were revealed at the 1987 Nafcoc congress. According to the congress report, Black business enterprises contribute less than 1% to South Africa’s GDP, according to Mr Reuel Khosa, managing director of Co-ordinated Marketing. Less than 1%! If one looks at the demographic trends in this country, one will see that by the end of this century the Blacks will make up between 85% and 90% of the population whereas the Whites will make up only 10%.

If drastic steps are not taken to increase Black contributions to the gross national product, I predict serious economic problems before the end of this century. When one looks at statistics on active businessmen, only 2% of the Black community is economically active in businesses in comparison with 12% of the White community. According to Nafcoc only 0,5% of all the companies on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange have Black directors. Only 10 800 of the country’s approximately 256 000 managers and administrators are Black, according to Business Alert, Heribert Adam, No 91, June-July 1987.

When one looks at lawyers, one will see that only 650 of South Africa’s lawyers are non-Whites, of whom 300 are Black in comparison with the 5 850 White lawyers. These statistics come from African Law Review, volumes 1 and 2 of May 1987. In comparison with the 847 White advocates, there are only 77 non-White advocates in South Africa, of whom 25 are Black. These statistics are indicative of extremely alarming facts, and if one weighs this up against the demographic trends in South Africa, the country could have serious problems in the future.

With reference to business administration graduates, one finds that only 10% of all undergraduate and postgraduate diplomas in business sciences which were lectured at approximately 16 universities in 1985 were given to Black students. I mention these facts to indicate that our country is developing a serious economic problem. The number of taxpayers is decreasing, whereas the number of those who are becoming dependent on Government expenditure is increasing. These statistics indicate a need for serious reflection about the priorities of Government spending on the one hand and Government policy on the other.

There are many obstacles hampering the growth of Black businessmen, particularly in the informal market. In this connection the Government has a specific deregulation policy. There are serious reservations about the rate at which deregulation is being implemented, however. One such obstacle is the Development Trust and Land Act which provides that a prospective Black businessman can obtain a trade licence and business premises only if he has ministerial approval in both cases. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance why one needs ministerial approval in order to begin a business in 1988.

I now want to discuss White local authorities. White local authorities are developing into one of the greatest obstacles in stimulating Black businesses and the informal sector. I want to read a quotation about a congress of hawkers from the Financial Mail of 22 January 1988. The report reads:

That is an absolute disgrace! Surely the onus is on the person who buys from the hawker to decide whose prices are best. The report continues:

The report goes on to say—

I want to ask the hon the Minister to pay attention to the fact that Black hawkers still have to renew their licences annually. He must also give consideration to paternalistic and extremely unfair treatment of these Black hawkers by certain White local authorities. The Cape Town City Council is renowned for constantly terrorising hawkers and in some cases even confiscating their wares. According to Mr Lawrence Mavundla, president of the African Council of Hawkers and Informal Businessmen, 800 hawkers have been arrested in Johannesburg since October 1987, of whom 200 were found guilty and punished for trading without a licence. Between July 1985 and June 1986, 4 000 hawkers were arrested in Johannesburg’s municipal area and found guilty in terms of the Transvaal licence ordinance. According to Mr Mavundla, hawkers have paid more than R1 million in fines to date. That is an absolute disgrace. It also has a counterproductive effect on the stimulation of the informal sector.

The body I referred to earlier which was established to protect hawkers and informal businessmen, has a membership of almost 12 000 in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg, Durban and Port Elizabeth. It is estimated that they contribute R6,95 million per month to the South African economy. Should the artificial legislation be abolished, the growth potential of this informal sector would be enormous.

I also want to discuss Black local authorities. According to Mr M Manala, a consultant for employment creation, Black town council members usually reserve all business premises and trade licences for themselves and their favourites. In addition, prospective businessmen have to follow extremely elaborate procedures in order to obtain premises and a licence. Mr Manala mentioned the example of a Black businessman who had struggled for three years to get business premises in Tembisa in order to develop an industrial park. After three years the expenses involved in building such a park had doubled, but in delaying a project of this nature, thousands of working hours and opportunities for people who need both work and an income had been lost.

I want to make a serious appeal today for the Government to reconsider its priorities. It is my unequivocal standpoint that the future of South Africa is not in the hands of Anglo American, Sanlam, the Old Mutual, Pick ’n Pay or Checkers, but in the stimulation of these small, informal businessmen so that the economic prosperity base can be broadened in such a way that more people can benefit from the free-market system. As an example I can refer to the Black taxi industry. This industry has saved the South African motor industry from ruin. They spend approximately R1 billion or more annually. When one takes into account what they spend on tyres, oil and everything associated with their business, they have given the motor industry an economic boost and have contributed to the economic growth we are experiencing at present. When I make an appeal on behalf of these people, I do so with confidence, and not to score a point against the hon the Minister. I feel that in terms of this Government’s priorities, the informal sector, the Black business community, is still not receiving the attention it deserves. It is my opinion that an in-depth investigation should be launched into this matter to release these people so that they can become economically active and so that we can start to resolve the enormous unemployment problem that I have referred to.

If this country’s unemployment problem is not solved, South Africa is doomed to revolution. Then no speech or gesture made by any leader will mean anything any more, because if people have nothing to lose, they will be prepared to do anything.

I want to come back to another matter concerning the payment of territorial allowances to Coloured farmers. The Government grants territorial allowances to the value of R10 000 to farmers in the Northern Cape who have suffered because of the drought. I have received representations from a White farmer—a good farmer—who said that they qualified for these territorial allowances, but that their neighbours, the Coloured farmers, did not. He has also written to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. It does not look as though the problem can be solved anywhere, so that these farmers can also receive their territorial allowances of R10 000. I want to ask the hon the Minister—I have discussed this with the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture as well—whether he will not see to it that the House of Assembly’s Department of Agriculture, the own affairs department, fulfils this function on behalf of our Department of Agriculture on an agency basis. That department can ensure, on an agency basis, that the territorial allowances are also paid to Coloured farmers in the same area.

This really creates a problem. The farmer who wrote the above-mentioned letter said among other things that he was concerned about the Coloureds, but that apparently no progress was being made. The MP for Vryburg, Mr Johan Scheepers, has referred letters from him to me in the past, and we have not managed to get hold of anyone who can help us. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister to attend to this matter.

I now want to cross swords with the hon the Minister about his conduct in respect of a certain matter. Since there is not going to be an increase for White pensioners, there is not going to be an increase for any other population group.

That is not true at all. That is an untrue statement.

I shall give the hon the Minister my facts first; then I shall go on to discuss this statement.

As long as the facts are correct!

Very well. Sir, despite the fact that there is still an enormous disparity in respect of pensions and allowances, there are numerous other problems that restrict our people. One of these is that all the district pension officials are magistrates, and those people are so verkramp that one cannot get anywhere with them. They go out of their way to make it difficult for one to get social assistance or an unemployment grant from the State. I can give an example. The chief magistrate in Vryburg told me frankly, for example, that he was not prepared to make a welfare state of this country. He chases people around in the town’s main street to confiscate their pension books. I do not think he is quite right in the head!

When one looks at the means test, it appears that a large percentage of our people are disqualified on that basis. The means test for Whites is not the same as that for Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. To qualify for a disability allowance, the spouse of the person who is applying for the allowance may not earn more than R284 per month. In order to qualify for a disability grant, a single person may not earn more than R142 per month. With regard to the pension for war veterans, a person does not qualify if his spouse earns more than R270 per month. In the case of old age pensions and pensions for the blind, the spouse may not earn more than R294 per month.

I should like to give the hon the Minister an example to show how absurd this really is. I have been dealing with the case of a woman over 60 who is still economically active. She still earns a salary. Her husband is over 65, but because she earns more than R294 per month, he does not qualify for an old age pension. He has no other income. This woman now has to resign her job, so that she and her husband can apply for an old age pension, and then, together, they will earn just a little over R300 per month.

This is really ostrich economics. Why is the means test not adjusted in such a way that one person can remain economically active while the other can qualify for State aid? With regard to the question of pensions, we were very patient with the hon the Minister of Finance, and he cannot complain, because we have treated him very well in the debates over the past three years. We really want to see the gap being narrowed now, however. We want to see that happening in this financial year.

I have a solution for you.

I also have a solution which I want to discuss with the hon the Minister, but there is no point in telling us that all population groups receive an equal increase annually. We appreciate that at least it is equal now, but the gap is still not being narrowed. When does the hon the Minister intend to narrow the gap? [Interjections.] Does the hon the Minister envisage a situation in which we will have to accept co-responsibility for the problems of this country, without deriving the same benefits? Just as the hon the Minister cannot explain to his voters why we are getting an increase whereas they are not, he cannot expect us to explain to our voters that they get R50 less per month than the Whites do. How can we defend that? What does one say in answer to such questions at public meetings? [Interjections.]

I want to make a proposal to the hon the Minister, which will help us in my opinion. My proposal is that we should consider a kind of pension bonus bond once again, from which funds can be built up, so that all South Africans can receive equal social pensions. I know that this would cost an enormous amount of money, and that the hon the Minister does not have the necessary funds. I understand that, but institute a system of pension bonus bonds, a lottery or whatever, and use the interest on that money to effect parity. If the churches have problems with that, one should ask them whether they would rather have doddering old people going to bed hungry, just because this would conflict with their moral convictions. The church is not always consistent, because I cannot see how horse racing can be approved of on the one hand, whereas lotteries and bonus bonds are unacceptable on the other. If the hon the Minister does not want to do that, he should delegate those powers to every own affairs department, so that they themselves can decide, and we can institute our own lottery and obtain funds for this purpose. [Interjections.]

I merely want to tell the hon the Minister that we are going to disagree seriously with him and the Government if he stands in our way in our attempt to narrow the gap between White allowances and pensions and those for Coloureds and Blacks. I say this so that the hon the Minister is in no doubt.

It was some or other arrogant man who said that; the hon member must not repeat it. [Interjections.]

We should like to hear the hon the Minister’s standpoint in this connection, and we should like to hear his standpoint about the increase of R12 per month which we were going to grant. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I want to talk about the question of tax evasion. The present system of GST, in which a distinction is drawn between taxable and non-taxable articles, lays things wide open for tax evasion, because what does a businessman do at the end of the month? He simply loads the non-taxable articles and takes the 12% for himself, while restricting the taxable articles to a minimum.

There is an enormous amount of tax evasion in the areas closer to the independent states as well. If one concludes a transaction in a place like Vryburg, and one gives an address in Bophuthatswana, one is immediately exempted from 12% tax.

Is that so?

One simply gives a Bophuthatswana address, a post box number in Taung, for example; there are no street names or house numbers there. How is the Receiver of Revenue ever going to determine whether or not such a person exists?

There are hundreds and thousands of people with the same surnames. How is one ever going to get hold of that person? Tax evasion is the easiest thing in the world if one lives close to an independent state.

The casinos in independent states also create a serious problem. What does a businessman do if he has a pile of hot money, on which he does not want to pay tax? What does he do when he has piled up that money in a safe? He goes to a casino and exchanges it for chips. He spends a few hours in the casino bar and plays one or two rounds. Then he goes back to the counter and says it is not his night; they must pay him out. What does he get? He gets a cheque. Now all he says is that he has won the money; he deposits it at the bank and it is completely tax free. [Interjections.] I mention these things for what they are worth, because in my opinion South Africa is losing millions if not billions of rand in this way.

If it will help, these people must be clamped down on so that we can really make a plan to equalise pensions. After all, we cannot come and appeal for these things to be equalised year after year; appeal and appeal again and make Shakespearian speeches here, when bugger all is done …

Order! The hon member must please withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir. I meant it in the good sense of the expression. [Interjections.] After all, this country has other problems too.

I also want to talk briefly about something else. We shall have to pay more attention to the stimulation of small businesses in our future economic planning. I am talking about new housing projects. More opportunities must be created for a small businessman to get along with other small businessmen on a competitive basis. These model supermarkets and hypermarkets which are being built are merely pushing up Raymond Ackerman’s shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange year after year. They make record profits year after year. When it comes to the distribution of prosperity, the small man does not benefit at all. Instead of building a model supermarket, 20 small businessmen should rather be given an opportunity to establish themselves in a specific area. It would be better to have them cut one another’s throats in a price war than to establish one large supermarket which can dominate all future business development in a certain area.

Mr Chairman, I was drafted into this debate as a pinch-hitter. Nevertheless, the chauffeurs of Ministers previously received their salaries on the 15th of each month; in other words their pay-day should have been last Friday. To their dismay their calls on their banks were fruitless. When they got to their banks they were told that the cupboard was bare, like old Mother Hubbard’s. Whites, though, received their salaries. The reason given for this was that the Whites were “ou manne” the implication being that they have been in the employ of the State for a longer period. I cannot accept this as many of these drivers have been in the employ of the State for a shorter period than their so-called Coloured counterparts.

This change in the pay date has caused an enormous amount of inconvenience to the people concerned. Their salaries already being low makes it impossible for them to squeeze in an extra two weeks. It is impossible for them to eke out a living on the miserly sum they are earning in a six-week month.

A stretching of the budget could perhaps have been achieved if these employees had been given notice of the intention to change their pay date, but they were not given such notice. I am saying these things because I want the hon the Minister to consider using his influence to bring relief to these drivers of the Ministers. [Interjections.] That may be true.

In Die Burger of Saturday, 4 March, the hon Leader of the LP made an urgent appeal to all South Africans to give aid to stricken schools in the flooded areas.

Not Aids.

Not that type of Aids. [Interjections.] The Leader was referring to help to these schools. He was, in actual fact, appealing to our sense of humanity, kindness and decency. He was asking us to have pity on our fellow human beings and to become believers again in the seven corporal works of mercy, which, among others, command us to harbour the harbourless, to give drink to the thirsty and to feed the hungry. These are noble ideals which in present day life amount to having the necessary monetary resources. In order to do this, we need money.

These are the things which we should be doing for our electorate. We should be feeding them. We should be housing them. However, Sir, at the rate at which finances are expended because of the unrest situation in the land, we shall never attain these ideals. In most instances it seems to me as if the unrest situation, with its resultant destruction, is planned. Allow me to explain, Sir. I will confine myself to the Eastern Province and to only one element, namely State and semi-State offices which were destroyed by arson in 1985. This information was supplied to all MPs in the Eastern Province on 8 January 1986. I am certain that, as I explain, hon members from that area will see a certain pattern in the development of events.

*Let us start in 1984. The first town that was hit, was Port Alfred. The office was set alight on 5 November and again on 6 November. Damage amounting to R12 000 was caused. The office now has to be rebuilt. We could have used that money for something else. Grahamstown followed Port Alfred. Hon members must take a good look. First there was Port Alfred and then Grahamstown. The first onslaught there took place on 31 December and R105 000 went down the drain. On 8 January it was Port Alfred’s turn again and the damage amounted to R12 000. Hon members who know where these towns are, will note the pattern the deeds of arson followed. On 9 March it was Despatch’s turn; on 15 March Motherwell and on 16 March Somerset East. On 17 March 1985 the first onslaught on buildings in Cradock was made. The damage amounted to R2 000 and that was very little. Cookhouse followed Cradock.

The same clique.

The same clique. The same pattern was followed. On 19 March 1985 the first onslaught on Cookhouse took place. On 27 March there was a second onslaught. On 29 March there was a third onslaught. The damage amounted to R27 000. Pearston followed after Cookhouse and two unsuccessful attempts were made. Not much damage was done.

From Pearston we go to Kirkwood. The first onslaught there took place on 5 April and the damage amounted to a few hundred rand. The second onslaught followed on 7 April. From there we return to Cradock where arson was perpetrated on 13 April. The same thing happened at Bathurst that same day. On 16 April we come to Aberdeen and from there we move back to Kirkwood which experienced its third onslaught. From Kirkwood we go to Queenstown and from there to Alicedale where a fire caused damage amounting to almost R5 000. On 28 April the same thing happened at Alicedale and Oudtshoorn followed on 29 April. We have not finished yet, because Aberdeen followed on 5 May 1985 and the fourth onslaught on Cookhouse took place on 24 May. We return to Cradock which experienced its third onslaught on 30 June. On 1 July Aberdeen was hit once again and the damage amounted to R7 300. This was followed by Adelaide and Steynsburg on 4 July and Alexandria on 12 July where damage amounting to R24 000 was caused. At Steynsburg the damage amounted to R61 000. On 15 July it was Graaff-Reinet’s turn and then Cookhouse was struck for the fifth time. In August 1985 it was Queenstown’s turn, followed by East London and Dordrecht on 13 August, Richmond on 14 August, Aliwal North on 20 August, Colesberg as well as Noupoort on 25 August and Hanover on 26 August. These assaults took place within one month, but it did not end there.

On 6 September Molteno was hit, on 25 October Humansdorp and Cookhouse once again on 6 November. On 30 December of that year the vandals continued their work at Cathcart.

Sir, this account is only of the damage to the office buildings and does not include their contents. The money used for repairing the damage of more than R1 million caused in such a small area, could definitely have been used for other more essential things instead of repairing or replacing office buildings. It seems as if there is a unit—as the hon member for Border said—which moves from place to place to perpetrate arson. These deeds are committed by a unit, a small group of people who commit these offences, and anyone who knows that area will realise that. That is clear from the onslaughts which took place in August in particular.

†Mr Chairman, this country cannot afford the squandering of both human and material resources. No one in his or her right mind wants the burning, looting, rape and killing to continue. It is about time that all those who claim to abhor violence—and I do not mean the violence described in the April/May 1988 issue of the publication Crisis News—stand together. I do not mean a select type of violence, or a subtle type of violence like that played on by Dennis Hurley, archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church.

Under the heading “Conscientious Objection” he states:

The archbishop is walking on thin ice when he says this. I would like to ask hon members who will have to do the confronting? Not the reverend archbishop, I am sure. He will not do it. [Interjections.] Who will they be confronting, I ask you, Mr Chairman? I am sure they will not confront hon members of Parliament. [Interjections.] In this case they will be confronting armed forces. What will the result of the confrontation be? What will it be? It will be bloody violence!

Then he will attend the funeral again.

In the long run the atmosphere for violence can do the economy more harm than good. In the same issue of Crisis News—I think hon members might find this very revealing—it is stated under the heading “Refusal to assist the police” that:

These words are used in this publication of the church. This is dangerous. [Interjections.] It may be murderers who are involved. When I claim to abhor violence, I mean violence in all its forms, no matter who the perpetrators may be. It is time to decide on a line of action which would remove all the prevailing reasons for discontent and thus unrest and thereby bring a modicum of tranquillity to this country. We need this, Sir! We need it so badly if we are to stay on the road of peaceful reform, the type of reform which will create a South Africa that is free of prejudice and oppression, in which all citizens will be treated justly and with dignity, so that we again can take our rightful place in world courts or in world affairs.

What I want to say is that we must accept and respect each other’s differences. Of this our leader said at a conference in Pretoria: “Our future and the future of this country demands compromise and give and take from all of us.”

Reform should, however, take place at a faster rate and it should be more powerful. Once we have the wherewithal to do it, let it become faster and more powerful. Let us grasp the nettle and complete reform in one fell swoop. Why do we go about dilly-dallying? Let us do it in one fell swoop. This, Sir, we need as much as the stars need the sky. Now is the time for those living too far in the past to join us in the present. There are those people. It is time for them to come and join us. Now is also the time for those living too far in the future to join us too, for we find those too.

This we must do, so that we can have a hard, honest look at the constitutional proposals of the Labour Party of South Africa, as well as at the proposals of other organizations. [Interjections.] Let us take a look at all of these and take out of them what is good. This is part of the reform that we are talking about and, as was stated before, should be expedited. Sir, I am sure that only a complete Luddite would state otherwise.

Proposed adjournment of debate:

Mr Chairman, I move:

You are not serious! [Interjections.]

Order! Is there any objection to the debate’s being adjourned until tomorrow?

Yes!

Order! The motion has therefore been rejected.

Debate continued:

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to take part in this debate—even at this time of the day. [Interjections.]

I am happy to take part in this debate, because the hon the Minister of Finance is here. Money is very tight, but we trust that he will use his influence so that a bigger allocation will be granted to us in the next budget. [Interjections.]

I have previously highlighted the situation with regard to housing in my constituency, Northern Transvaal. Today I particularly want to draw attention to Westenburg. The reason I feel that more money should be made available is that approximately 35 subeconomic houses cannot be built because there is no money. However, today we are talking to the man who controls the purse of the country. [Interjections.]

Westenburg is an area in Pietersburg. Its population has grown tremendously in the past five to eight years. This is normal, because many Coloured families who have been living on the farms have moved into Pietersburg. Some of them moved there prior to the consolidation of the homelands of Lebowa, Gazankulu and Venda. Their presence there has created a small crisis as far as housing is concerned. Furthermore, because of the employment situation in Pietersburg, more and more people are coming to live in Westenburg. It is impossible to control the influx of people into Westenburg.

The result of this influx of people into Pietersburg is that the existing facilities are no longer adequate. Westenburg has one school which caters for pupils from Sub A to Std 10. At present more than 800 pupils, 500 boys and 300 girls, are enrolled at this school. [Interjections.] Within the next three to five years we are going to have a very big problem. The school population is growing. There is a great need for another primary school, from Sub A to Std 4, so that the existing buildings can be used for the high school alone. That would make the school more manageable.

Mr Chairman, you are aware that the purpose of my speech today is to present the Budget for 1988-89 in respect of agriculture. However, it will be wise to reflect on the events which have occurred in the field of agriculture since my last Budget speech on 4 August 1987. During the course of this period the country, Natal and the Free State in particular were plunged into one of the worst flood disasters in living memory. As I have said on numerous occasions, it has been my intention to give agriculture a new vision. This has progressed despite of obstacles in our path, such as the September floods. Notwithstanding the devastation suffered by our farmers in the Natal region during these floods, there are certain highlights worthy of mention and I wish to outline these today. Obviously, our total attention was focussed on the farming community who were left destitute after the floods, and to facilitate matters our extension staff were seconded to the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply for the purpose of expediting relief measures for the affected farmers.

We are all aware of the devastation which occurred in these floods. The loss of life and severe damages suffered by our community was tragic. Our farming community suffered serious losses and damages and this was compounded by the fact that many of our farmers were cultivating lands alongside the rivers and the adjacent slopes—these being the areas where the greatest amount of damage occurred. Despite this extremely severe setback our farmers showed once again their determination to continue despite the losses they suffered. Their willingness and co-operation in assessing the damages suffered is to be commended. I also wish to congratulate and thank the various bodies and associations representing organised agriculture for the hard work they did in facilitating the survey findings and in co-operating in regard to assistance to farmers. It has become very clear that organised agriculture is a must, should we wish to achieve parity for our people. The time of individualistic type of representation is a thing of the past.

In consultation with local agriculture credit committees—of which magistrates are chairmen—and the House of Assembly’s Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, the staff of my department’s subdirectorate of agriculture has commenced with the assessment of the claims for compensation from affected growers. I wish to compliment all persons involved in this exacting task for their patience and sacrifice by working long hours and over weekends and doing all that is possible to facilitate the processing of these claims. I must also commend the members of Parliament of the affected areas who gave their support and assistance during this difficult period.

To facilitate relief measures, representatives of organised agriculture were met on 2 and 9 October 1987 to discuss the losses/damages suffered and to co-ordinate relief measures and assessment efforts by Government and private enterprise. Staff of the subdirectorate of agriculture attended several meetings at which inputs were submitted to the technical subcommittee on the flood damage on the extent of losses/damages suffered by our farmers, and an estimate of the funds required to compensate the affected farmers was reached.

The amount of R15 million was allocated after these detailed surveys had been carried out. This amount has been allocated over three financial years as follows: 1987-88, R4 195 000; 1988-89, R9 965 000; and 1989-90, R867 000. Any amounts unused at the end of a financial year will be carried over to the following financial year.

By 11 April 726 written communications from applicants—some having two to three application forms—have been received under the agricultural credit scheme. Of this number the credit committees had by then inspected 195.

It is a fact that the single greatest obstacle confronting our farming community is the availability of agricultural land. In this regard, during the hon the State President’s Budget Speech last year, I made an urgent call for additional land for Indian agriculture. The hon the State President responded favourably that this matter should be pursued and hence a high-level Cabinet meeting was held under the chairmanship of the hon the State President in Pretoria on 4 November 1987. This was attended by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and myself. Also present at this meeting were the hon the Ministers of Constitutional Development and Planning; Agriculture; National Health and Population Development; the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture; and the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning.

As the result of the representations made by the House of Delegates, the hon the State President appointed a ministerial committee under my chairmanship to investigate the identification of land for the Indian farmers. The hon the Deputy Ministers of Agriculture and of Development Planning are the other members of this committee. The committee met in Cape Town on 8 February 1988 and certain proposals were discussed in depth. Discussions are afoot with all the relative authorities to formulate these proposals for submission to the Cabinet.

A number of areas have been identified and at present feasibility studies are being conducted to assess their economic viability under various farming enterprises. This is being done by my department in conjunction with the Natal region of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply.

Pursuant to negotiations with the hon the Ministers of Transport Affairs and of Public Works and Land Affairs, an area of 110 hectares of land near the Louis Botha Airport in Durban has been identified for allocation on a lease basis to growers who were displaced from Shallcross, growers from Mondi in Merebank who were affected by the floods of September 1987, as well as any other growers interested in farming the area in question.

My department, in consultation with the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs, has prepared a layout plan which makes provision for 49 plots varying in extent from 1,3 ha to 5,9 ha. Applications have been received from interested parties and the necessary signing of the leases is expected to be finalised shortly.

With regard to the amount of R250 000 allocated during 1987 to this administration for the upliftment of our farmers, I indicated at that time that this amount was grossly insufficient and that it would not be adequate to meet the financial requirements necessary for the upliftment of our farmers. However, this administration decided to utilise the amount of R250 000 to assist those farmers who had suffered a natural disaster to re-establish their farms by awarding loans to these farmers to enable them to purchase means of production. Accordingly, the full amount of R250 000 was awarded as loans to 44 farmers on 2 October 1987. These are short term loans repayable within three years at an interest rate of 8% per annum, of which the House of Delegates is to subsidise 4%. In effect, therefore, the farmer will pay only 4% interest on the short term loans.

To date 32 farmers have accepted the loans awarded to them and an amount of R189 500 has been committed in respect of these farmers. The balance of the farmers, in respect of whom R60 500 was allocated, have not responded to repeated requests by my department to accept the loans before the end of the 1987-88 financial year.

On 30 July 1987 a significant meeting took place in Cape Town with the general affairs Minister of Agriculture and senior officials from his department. It was agreed that dr A S Jacobs, chairman of the special committee investigating the restructuring of agriculture, would be requested to investigate the problem. In pursuance thereof and to enable Indian representatives at the highest level, I therefore requested that two members from the Indian community be co-opted immediately onto this committee for this purpose. Accordingly, Mr P R Bodasingh, president of the Natal Indian Cane Growers’ Association, and Mr D G Badul, president of the Natal Farmers’ Union, were co-opted onto this special committee.

On 12 October 1987 a further meeting was held with Dr Jacobs in Durban and was continued with a visit to several Indian farming areas affected by the floods. On 23 November 1987 the first meeting of the special committee was convened in Durban and was followed by an in loco inspection of various Indian farming areas.

At my request, following discussions with the chairman of the committee, three economists from Pretoria conducted surveys of vegetable and cash crop growers in Natal on 7 and 8 December 1987. A further meeting of the special committee was held on 11 March 1988 in Pretoria. Amongst the issues addressed were the financial position of the sugar cane farmers affected by the drought and the position of vegetable and cash crop farmers. Certain recommendations were forthcoming which I believe will be of significant value to the upliftment and restructuring of the financial position of farmers. Amongst the aspects considered was the adjustment of the present assistance schemes available to Indian sugar cane farmers who are experiencing cash flow problems due to crop losses caused either by drought or flooding.

I am aware of the fact that growers applying for assistance in terms of these recommendations must possess viable farming units in order to qualify for such assistance. However, this creates particular problems for those fanners whose farmland has been severely damaged by recent floods. Although the subsidies payable from the Flood Assistance Scheme for lost and damaged land may, in many instances, be adequate to pay off such farmers’ debts, this will unfortunately not always be the case. However, in the former instances, the consolidation of farms as well as the resettlement of farmers in other sugar cane growing areas will be considered. The Agricultural Credit Board will obviously play an important role in providing finance for the consolidation of such farms damaged by floods and/or the resettlement on other land identified for this purpose.

In its survey of vegetable farming by Indian farmers, which was conducted during December 1987, it was found that the size of farming units varied both within and across the areas used for vegetables, but that a viable economic farming unit, particularly in areas where vegetable farming predominates, would be of the order of about 15 hectares. Such a unit, it is estimated, would generate sufficient farming income to cover household expenses, interest and redemption repayments.

I am aware of the fact that many Indian vegetable farmers have suffered severe crop losses due to the recent floods. Consideration has been given to the provision of production loans to these farmers via the Agricultural Credit Board, this assistance rendered being over and above the amounts that could be claimed from the Fund Assistance Scheme.

Indian agriculture has now become firmly organised and we have the Natal Farmers’ Union representing the vegetable and cash crop farmers in Natal, whilst the Transvaal Farmers’ Union represents all Indian farmers in the Transvaal. Both these organisations have direct access to me and have addressed various problems confronting Indian agriculture in general. The cane growers of Natal are represented separately and also have direct access to me.

For the purpose of offering an efficient extension service to our farmers, Natal has been divided into four regions, as follows:

1. (i) Between Umhlali and Umgeni Rivers and inland (with a principal extension technician in charge);
2. (ii) Between Umhlali and Tugela Rivers and inland (with a principal extension technician and a pupil extension technician in charge);
3. (iii) Between Umlaas Canal and Port Shepstone and inland ( with a principal extension technician in charge);
4. (iv) Outskirts of Durban, including Umlaas Canal and Louis Botha Airport land and inland including Natal Midlands (with a senior extension technician in charge).

Two pupil extension technicians are in training at the Pretoria Technikon and on completion of their training one of them will be stationed in the Transvaal to render an extension service to the farmers there.

The importance of the need for an effective extension service was outlined by the recent floods. An all-important lesson that could be learnt was that although damage and soil loss resulting from the floods between 25 and 30 September could not have been avoided, flood damage could have been implemented more extensively. The Cliffdale farming area needs to be commended for its use of effective conservation measures resulting in minimal loss and damage.

During 1987 the five extension technicians visited our growers on a continuous basis and offered advice on vegetable production, financial assistance available from the Administration, conservation measures and arranged group activities such as farmers days and project areas. In all, 921 farm visits were undertaken for general vegetable production; 119 inspections were conducted for conservation purposes, during which 8 100 metres of contours and 1 366 metres of waterways were surveyed and pegged; and 167 group activities were organised, which included attendance of meetings with other extension officers from the private sector.

In addition, the technicians also assisted with in-service training of the pupil technicians whenever the latter were on duty during vacations from the Technikon. The extension service programme has been disrupted by the September 1987 floods and will be reviewed during the latter half of 1988.

With regard to the irrigation feasibility report concerning the provision of water to Cliffdale growers from Hammarsdale Dam, I wish to report that a preliminary survey of the dam site and pipeline network for the project had been completed by the Pinetown agricultural engineering section of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply (House of Assembly).

The September 1987 floods had caused all work on this project to be suspended as all technical staff have been instructed to put off all work in favour of the flood disaster claims and assessments.

After further representations were made by my department to the regional engineer at Cedara, work was resumed on the feasibility study. The regional engineer has reported that his office has completed a tentative cost estimate for a pump and pipeline scheme to deliver water from the Hammarsdale Dam to some 200 hectares of actively farmed land in the Cliffdale area.

A general plan is in the process of being drawn up and the final report should be completed shortly.

The estimated cost of the scheme is about R800 000. This does not include allowance for consultants’ fees, purchase of land or servitudes or escalation of any other contingencies.

Based on 1987 tariffs the electrical power cost will be of the order of R74 000 per annum. This does not include maintenance, interest administration or other annual costs.

The scheme should be capable of delivering 100 mm per month. This assumes irrigators will use water 12 hours a day, 6,5 days per week. The scheme will supply water so some 59 actively farmed plots, but not every plot will have its own supply point. Many plots will have to share a hydrant or a supply point. The cost of the connections between individual lands and hydrants is not included in the estimate given above. Excepting for some of the low-lying lands, individual users will still have to provide their own pumps to boost the pressure sufficiently for the operation of their sprinklers.

Consultants will have to be appointed to undertake a detailed design on the basis of the proposals. The regional engineer’s office has expressed grave concern about the following two points: Firstly, the quality of the water in the dam is bad, and secondly, the capacity of the dam may not be adequate to provide the water as surface sedimentation has occurred with the recent floods.

Many of our vegetable and cash crop farmers dispose of their produce at the Clairwood temporary farmers’ market in Durban. These farmers have encountered various problems at the Clairwood market since they were moved there. My department has involved itself on this issue with a view to supporting our farmers and is representated on a sub-committee with regard to the temporary farmers’ market which was set up by the Durban City Council to address the problems of our farmers.

I visited the Clairwood market with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon member for Isipingo and had discussions with the Director of Markets, the Chairman of the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets and representatives of the Natal Farmers’ Union.

Various proposals were put forward by the Natal Farmers’ Union, but for one reason or another, these were not acceptable to the Durban City Council. I have taken up these proposals with the hon the Minister of Agriculture with a view to resolving the problems to the mutual benefit of both the farmers and the market authorities.

I have been informed that the hon the Minister of Agriculture has appointed the President of the Natal Farmers’ Union as a member of the Durban Market Advisory Committee. This is a significant step, as the union will be able to submit inputs on the market situation to the hon the Minister of Agriculture via the advisory committee.

My department is represented on the following high-level committees for the purpose of determining policy strategies for agriculture as whole. Firstly, there is a committee for determining priorities in policy planning and State expenditure in agriculture, the role of agriculture in regional development. There is also a special committee for the restructuring of agriculture.

In terms of the Agriculture Credit Act, 1966, financial assistance is considered and granted to our farmers by the Agricultural Credit Board of this Administration. I wish to stress, however, that in terms of the aforementioned legislation, the Credit Board is obliged to consider applications for financial assistance from deserving and creditworthy farmers whose financial position, due to factors beyond their control, is such that they will not be assisted by institutions such as the Land Bank and commercial banks. It is not the function of the Credit Board to merely be a source of cheap credit.

The Credit Board convened on five occasions since the last Budget speech and considered 75 applications for assistance of which 55 were approved and a total amount of R1 079 657 was awarded to our fanners. It is heartening to note that our farming community is aware of the financial assistance available to deserving farmers and that such farmers are, in fact, making use of this facility.

I am fully aware that our farming community has been disadvantaged for many years due to restrictive legislation and that it has suffered a further setback because of the floods of September 1987. However, if the same spirit of goodwill and dedication can prevail now as it did during and immediately after the Natal floods, then I am confident that Indian agriculture can recover and continue to make a meaningful contribution to the economy of our country.

With the historical background of Indian agriculture and its limitations, my Ministry has endeavoured to the best of its ability, together with the Ministers’ Council and all hon members of Parliament, to establish that new vision which is now gaining ground. I am indeed indebted for all the assistance and co-operation that I have received, especially from the Natal Indian Canegrowers Associations, the Natal Farmers’ Union and the Transvaal Farmers’ Union. I want to place on record that never before have I found such interest, dedication and attachment within our community for the upliftment of agriculture as I find it today. This is acknowledged far and wide.

With this I present the Budget for the 1988-89 financial year and for comparison purposes I append the figures budgeted for the 1987-88 financial year as follows:

Mr Chairman, allow me to say a few words on local government. I would like to preface my speech today by saying that in relation to specific and basic needs of the community local government can be considered to be the most important tier of government since it is that form of government that is the closest to the people.

The present state of uncertainty is creating considerable frustration among the people who are battling along in a system which does not give any power and accordingly makes it impossible for those in the system to serve the needs of the people adequately.

I would like to quote the characteristics of local authorities as defined by academics in the field of local government, namely: They are legally independent entities and they are responsible for the local government of a particular area and the councils are elected by the inhabitants of that area. They have the power to raise money from the occupiers of land within their jurisdiction with a view to the execution of particular activities. They are not mere agents of the central government but are largely free to decide on the administration of their respective areas—admittedly within the parameters laid down by the central government.

I mention this because it illustrates so clearly how far removed the present system of local affairs and management committees is removed from being in accord with even one of these characteristics.

We see the present system as an interim one, only until the ultimate goal is achieved whereby the areas presently represented by local affairs and management committees are directly represented on the parent local authorities—the areas forming a ward or part of a ward of a municipal area, being in no way different from such council’s other wards.

The effectiveness of local affairs committees varies from area to area, from town to town and from province to province—depending largely on the attitudes of the parent local authorities. It is our belief that local authorities should treat members of the local affairs and management committees as if they were councillors representing that community. By so doing, these members may be more successful in obtaining the facilities which are sorely lacking in the areas they represent.

As long as the committee system is an advisory one and for as long as attitudes of people do not change, the frustrations of the committees and the people served by them will continue. It is my view that the present system of local affairs and management committees should not be allowed to continue after the five-year term of office, in respect of which voters for municipal elections will go to the polls on 26 October this year.

Why wait five years?

Well, if it would be done overnight I would welcome it.

It is therefore important that the electorate give careful consideration to the choice of candidates. They should ensure that the best possible candidates are chosen on 26 October so that the negotiating processes which will determine the future of local government will be in safe and competent hands. We would therefore like to appeal to the people all over the country to turn out in great numbers to cast their votes, and not to be intimidated by those who do not want to see a negotiated settlement of the political problems in the country.

What about special votes? [Interjections.]

Maximum use should also be made of the system of special votes which is to be introduced.

In one sense little has changed from the previous year as control of local government functions still rests primarily with the Provincial Administrators. Yet, in another sense, some progress has been made in that a project team under the guidance of the Commission for Administration continued its investigation of all facets of local government and the legal and technical steps which will have to be taken in order to effect the transfer of functions to Own Affairs Administrations.

If a model situation existed where completely separate and autonomous local authorities in every declared local government area for the different groups as provided for in the Constitution where in existence, a division of own affairs responsibility in most instances would have been an easy matter. However, such a situation does not apply and the so-called parent local authorities still exercise control over different communities with interwoven interests. Until such times as these interests are divorced, the identification of own affairs will remain an extremely difficult task to undertake.

The transfer of a limited number of powers on a piecemeal basis cannot be considered as it will only complicate the administration of local government in practice.

In order thus to facilitate the implementation of own affairs the areas served by Local Affairs Committees in Natal and Management Committees in the other provinces could either have been converted to autonomous local authorities in terms of existing provincial legislation or final decision-making powers could have been transferred to such committees in terms of section 17 of the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act 1983.

I think it can safely be said that all our communities that form an integral part of the existing parent local authorities refuse to accept independent local authority status, mainly because of a rejection of ethnically based separate structures and as a result of their own inherent nonviability as separate independent communities. Here the question also arose whether in practice small communities can handle all the responsibilities of an independent local authority. Furthermore it is the declared policy of the House of Delegates that all such areas presently served by Local Affairs or Management Committees should ultimately enjoy direct representation on the parent local authority and such separate local authorities can therefore not be supported under any circumstances.

With regard to the question of transferring final decisionmaking powers from parent local authorities to local affairs and management committees, this is at the moment receiving the closest attention of our Own Affairs Administrations in collaboration with the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government Affairs and no finality in this regard has been reached as yet.

It will thus clearly suffice to say that much thought and consideration still has to be given to ways and means of overcoming these problems to ensure the smooth and trouble-free transfer of functions to the Own Affairs Administration.

The Regional Services Councils Act (No 109 of 1985) introduces important new principles into local government. It offers the various communities the opportunity to co-operate on a non-racial basis at the third tier of government.

The Act provides that the priority in the allocation of funds shall be given to infrastructure, (water, electricity, sewerage roads etc) “in those areas where the greatest need exists”. This means that all local authorities and local bodies such as local affairs and management committees will be able to share in all the available resources and is based on the principle that constitutional reform should go hand in hand with socio-economic reforms.

Their primary source of income will be through the imposition of two levies ie the levy on turnover (Regional Establishment Levy) and the levy on wages and salaries (Regional Services Levy).

Hon members who take a genuine interest in the affairs of those communities that they represent—I trust they all do—will be aware that some communities in Transvaal have already been successful in that funds for specific needy projects have been allocated to them from this new source. It is hoped that this will be a trend that will continue as more regional services councils become fully operational and funds become available for distribution.

Draft proposals for the first four councils to be established in Natal have been announced. These are in respect of the Durban metropolitan area, the Pietermaritzburg metropolitan area, and the Upper South Coast and Lower South Coast areas.

Various steps in the process of establishment require the concurrence of the various Own Affairs Ministers of Local Government, and for them to perform their task, it is necessary that members of constituencies concerned furnish them in good time with whatever comment or advice they may have. For this purpose the draft proposals have to be studied very carefully by every member in this House who will be affected by the proposed regional services councils.

Finally, while there has been much criticism levelled at it, as pragmatists we must accept that regional services council are in existence and have become part of the structure of government. This being the case, we must ensure that the maximum benefit is obtained for the communities which are represented on the councils and which do not as yet enjoy all the facilities available to others in the area of such regional services councils.

It is also essential that, where at all possible, the voting power in the regional services council must be used to ensure that our people are appointed to such positions as are available in that council. The reports so far received from areas where regional services councils are operating appear to be positive and in this respect I should like to cite the example of the Algoa Regional Services Council in the Port Elizabeth region, where the chairman of the Black community council is very enthusiastic about the result of his participation.

Co-ordinating Council

Hon members are by now aware of the fact that the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs is the central representative body in respect of local government in South Africa at provincial and local levels. Operating under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the House of Delegates is represented on the council by the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture and the Director-General with the Chief Director of the department as observer. Matters of great importance concerning local government are dealt with in this forum, and the House of Delegates was able to make useful contributions with regard to matters such as the forthcoming local authority elections, allowances payable to councillors and members of local affairs and management committees, and the devolution of powers to local affairs and management committees. I shall deal with each of these matters in detail in the course of my speech.

Devolution of functions to provincial administrations and rationalisation of functions

The principle of the maximum devolution of authority and decentralisation of administration to local authority level with minimum administrative control over local authorities, has been accepted by the Government and remains as a target to be achieved. This is reinforced by the Cabinet decision that government functions should be performed at the lowest level possible and that the higher levels of government should only involve themselves in policy formulation and the monitoring of lower levels of government.

Devolution of powers to local authorities from the provincial administrations

The Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs has entrusted the administrators with the responsibility to investigate and report on which additional powers could be devolved on local authorities. Considerable progress has been made in the identification of powers and in formulating proposals in this respect. However, cognisance must be taken of the ability of a specific local authority to cope with any proposed additional functions and powers before consideration can be given to entrusting local authorities with such powers.

Allowance payable to members of local government bodies

Considerable progress has been made with the investigation into the allowances payable to members of all local government bodies. The action committee of the co-ordinating council recommends that all local government bodies, which are presently divided into 15 grades, be grouped together in five groups ranging from small to large, for the purposes of determining the allowance of members of these bodies. The House of Delegates and the House of Representatives have made strong representations that equal allowances be payable to all representatives—in other words, councillors and members of local affairs and management committees alike—within the area of jurisdiction of a parent local authority, and that legislation be passed which will ensure that such equal allowances are payable.

Unfortunately consensus has not yet been reached in this matter and at the recently held meeting of the full co-ordinating council it was decided that the allowances to be paid, be determined on a scientific basis by the Commission for Administration.

Municipal elections

I have already referred to the forthcoming general elections to be held on 26 October 1988, when virtually all of South Africa at the third tier of government will be going to the polling stations to cast their votes for councillors and members of local affairs committees and management committees—as well as the Black communities’ councils—who will serve in that capacity for the next five years.

These elections will be held in terms of the regulations applicable in each province, such regulations presently still being under the control of the Administrator and his executive committee in each province. A new regulation came into force in the Cape Province in December 1987 which unfortunately altered the qualifications of voters detrimentally. As a result of representations made by this Administration to the Administration of the Cape Province, the reinstatement of the old regulation is now being attended to on an urgent basis.

Uniform local government system

Following a decision by the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government Affairs that an investigation be carried out into the desirability of uniform legislation on local government in the RSA, a committee was constituted under the chairmanship of an official from the Department of Constitutional Development Services and on which are represented the departments of local government in the own affairs administrations and the various municipal associations, including the ad hoc committee which is the national body for the four provincial associations of local affairs and management committees.

Since the position of local affairs and management committees will also be addressed by the committee, the investigation is of great importance to the House of Delegates and not only will the outcome be awaited with interest, but the findings and recommendations will be carefully monitored.

Workshops

In the recess period between sessions of Parliament it has been possible to arrange a number of local government workshops where the opportunity was used to convey to members of management committees who were invited to attend, the views of the House of Delegates on important issues such as, for instance, the forthcoming local authority elections. When considering the cost of time, it is not so easy for such management committees to arrange visits to Durban for the purpose of meeting with the Ministers’ Council and to discuss official matters. For this reason it was considered advisable to hold two workshops in the Transvaal; namely one in Standerton on 29 November 1987 and one in Brits on 28 February 1988. Hon members in this House received invitations to attend these workshops but have in general displayed particular indifference in a matter which is of great importance to all of us. Hopefully things will improve and more members will see their way clear to attend any such meetings which may be held in future.

Mr Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to respond to these two speeches. I, as one man, will have to respond to two hon Ministers in respect of two Budget speeches—one in respect of agriculture and the other in respect of local government. I proposed to deal with the speech on agriculture first. Having listened to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture and having read his speech I feel inclined to suggest that the hon the Minister should think very seriously about changing the name of his department to Cultural Affairs—thereby probably becoming the Minister of Culture.

I say this with respect because I am aware of his ability in that particular direction. [Interjections.]

I do not want to launch into an acrimonious argument here. I shall give credit where credit is due but I shall also make comments wherever credit is not due, and they should be taken in that spirit. I submit that in dealing with the issues of agriculture, the hon the Minister has not really addressed himself to the real issues affecting the Indian community and the agricultural community in South Africa as a whole.

We in this House have raised various issues in respect of agriculture and all the handicaps and constraints that have been placed upon the Indian farmers by way of the Group Areas Act, urbanisation, etc. There have been tons and tons of reports, and reams and reams of paper have been used in making submissions to the Government in this particular regard. This reminds me of what the now-retired Indian politician, Mr Y S Chinsamy, had to say in Nonoti when he met a delegation headed by the hon the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister submitted that the meeting submit a memorandum, and Mr Chinsamy’s reply was very clear. He said: “Don’t waste our time in asking us to submit more and more memoranda”, because the effects of the problems of the Indian community had been submitted to the Government on numerous occasions.

What do we see in the hon the Minister’s speech? There is to be this committee of investigation and that committee of investigation, all further investigating what? They are to investigate problems of which we are already aware, and the solutions to which we already know. Why are those solutions not being implemented?

For example, is it not correct that we had the Chinsamy—Pat Bodasing Report which highlighted the various problems affecting Indian agriculture? Does that have to be highlighted over and over and over again?

The hon the Minister made an issue of the effects of the floods. We have read everything the hon the Minister had to say about them in the newspapers. We know about the problems regarding the floods. We know what happened with regard to the floods, but what we want is solutions—real positive solutions. The floods took place in September. I maintain that had the majority of farmers affected been White, it would not have taken so long for people to be paid.

I know that there is an article in the Stanger Mail together with a photograph of the hon the Minister. I am very pleased about the payments being made to some farmers but as yet those farmers have only received letters. The money has not been paid out yet. These letters represent promises that they will be paid, but not all the farmers will receive money. This is merely a publicity stunt and I take umbrage at the fact that the hon the Minister has told us here in fine-sounding words, in a Mahatma Ghandi fashion, that he is thankful to the hon members for their co-operation, etc. We shall give our co-operation but I want to say: Henceforth let co-operation beget co-operation. [Interjections. ]

The hon the Minister came to my constituency and met some farmers there. It is all very well for him to come and acknowledge my role here in Parliament but when it came to his field trip he did not even pay me the courtesy of a phone call to say that he would be meeting constituents in my area. Then we talk dignity, honour and protocol in this House. We should express these qualities in our actions. [Interjections.]

I do not want to put on a certain front for consumption by one group of people and a different front for consumption by another group.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he does not believe that it is a good thing he is not in that picture because those people have not yet received their cheques and he, too, would have been accused? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that is a very good question. Then the position would have been that these poor fellows would not be saying thank you very much for promising cheques that are still to come. Sixty per cent of them have not even received letters yet. I would have exposed those things and that is why it is convenient to keep me out of this type of situation.

I also want to say to the hon the Minister that he talks in his speech about the effect on the farmer and investigations which were conducted. Has he taken the trouble of looking at the freedom of farming Bill, a private member’s Bill introduced in this House by the hon member for Camperdown? That Bill was introduced way back in 1984 or 1985. That is the solution to our farming problems in this country.

Last year the hon the Minister came here and told us that he obtained 111 hectares of land under his ministry, after we lost over 20 000 hectares of land. This year we are going backwards, because we are now told that we are getting 110 hectares on lease. Is that progress, after losing thousands and thousands of hectares of land? Do we need an entire own affairs ministry just to produce this type of result? I say that in respect of agriculture, the Group Areas Act should have gone a long time ago. I want to know what the hon the Minister is doing about it. What has he done about it? How does he address his Cabinet colleagues on this? Or it just accepted that for public consumption he is opposed to the Group Areas Act here, but behind closed doors he has to succumb to pressures from the top?

I have raised in this House during the debate on agriculture …

What pressures from the top?

Pressures which some people cannot resist.

I raised an issue in this House before, and I am going to raise it for a third time. I was pleased after the previous two occasions when I raised this. It concerns the small farmer who produces under 1 000 tons of cane and who falls between the A-pool and the B-pool. The large farmers in sugar cane production deliver their cane to mills in respect of an A-pool and a B-pool. The A-pool prices are much higher—for the benefit of the hon the Minister—than the prices for cane supplied in the B-pool. Sugar cane in the A-pool sells for R38 per ton and cane supplied in the B-pool sells for R16 per ton.

Last time the matter was raised, I said that the small farmers were getting an average. They got R6 per ton less. They have a much higher overhead factor, but they were getting less than the big farmers who were getting the A-pool price. However, since last year the farmers’ average performance for five years have been examined. After examining their performance over five years, an optimum was reached, and those farmers who performed at this optimum are getting the A-pool prices. Whilst that is positive—and I am glad that the hon the Minister for general affairs was here so that I could raise the issue with him and this matter could be resolved …

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

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

Mr Chairman, the problem is that the small farmers who have not performed so well, are still handicapped. What does that lend itself to? The large farmer will go to the small farmer and say to him: “Do not plant any sugar cane anymore, and I will supply my excess B-pool cane under your name.” This is the type of abuse that can result from this particular system. I want to know what the hon the Minister has done in this regard. Is he going to overcome the question of the A-pool and B-pool and find a new rationale, a new approach? Does he understand what I am talking about?

I also want to raise another matter with the hon the Minister, while he came out strongly on the question of the mill closing down in Ntumeni the other day. He had to go to my constituency not so long ago, during the peak of the floods, whilst it was suggested that I was not interested in what happened to my constituency at the time. The hon the Minister went to a place called Glendale, which was badly affected by the floods. Over a hundred hectares of agricultural land was lost in that particular area.

There is going to be a loss of 10 000 tons of sugar cane for crushing in the mills. The hon the Minister must tell this House what he is doing about replacing that land. How does he propose replacing land? How does he propose to get cane to that particular mill? The mill management and the community there have made him aware of the fact that that mill is a borderline mill. If that mill closes down, many people are going to be affected in that particular area. I want to know what he has done about that. This is the type of thing I would have expected in his report—not the padding. I do not want to talk about the English and the construction. Let the English deal with that aspect.

I would like to suggest to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture that if he really means that he wants to harmonise with hon members of Parliament in their different constituencies, he must work more closely and honestly with them. I also suggest that he should not try to entrench his own affairs concept in agriculture. He should make sure that the lead that was given by the hon member for Camperdown, is taken. He should talk to his Cabinet colleagues. If they have been influencing him, he should, for a change, try and influence them.

Order! When the hon member for Stanger said that the hon the Minister must work more closely and honestly with other hon members, did he imply that the hon the Minister is dishonest?

No, sir. That was just a general remark.

Mr Chairman, would the hon member explain to this House at what stage of any of my activities I have been dishonest.

Order! The hon member for Stanger has clarified the particular matter. He did not say that the hon the Minister was dishonest.

I now want to deal with the question of local government. In this particular regard I would like to say to the hon the Deputy Minister who delivered his speech on behalf of his Ministry, that if I had not known him so well and worked with him so closely before, I would not make the comment I am about to make. I think this speech is not fitting the hon the Deputy Minister. I knew his standpoint and I knew what he stood for in respect of local government.

He is a Minister, not a Deputy Minister!

It seems to me that he had a task to perform in delivering this particular speech on behalf of the department, and he has done so. However, I want to say in all respect that I do not agree with the things that he has submitted to us. I find certain contradictions in what he has said.

That is your opinion!

Mr Chairman, if the hon member would only listen, maybe he himself would have a correct opinion. The hon the Minister criticises the question of the local affairs committee. He says we should see this as the last five years. I would like to submit to the House that this will add a further five years for the entrenchment of White domination in respect of local government structures. That is what it really is.

What has the Ministers’ Council done in trying to obtain direct representation? The hon the Minister talks about direct representation, but what sort of strategy and political action on the lines of negotiation has been adopted and implemented in the realisation of what is enunciated as his desire, as well?

We are waiting for your advice.

I shall give it in due course. On the one hand we talk about direct representation, but then we say investigations are taking place at local government level to examine all facets of local government structures and technical aspects, and we look at the technical steps that will be necessary for the transfer to the own affairs administration.

This is a contradiction. If one talks of own affairs one talks about ethnicity and if one wants to take it to local government structures under own affairs it inevitably leads to ethnicity. Many of these things have been the result of legislation that we have passed here in this House. I therefore cannot reconcile the statements that are made that we do want direct representation but at the same time we are examining the question of the own affairs transfer of power. I think we should put a stop to that and say that we are not interested in the transfer to own affairs of local government structure powers and functions emanating from them. This is necessary if we want to see the ideal of a nonracial local authority being established.

To suggest for instance that the RSC’s are nonracial structures is wrong—it is a multiracial structure consisting of a host of nominated persons. It is not a nonracial structure.

You are wrong. It is multi-national.

I see, multi-national. That is the opinion of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I think he will give a segment to the Indian community if he can.

I know someone who does things at night.

Everybody I know sleeps!

I know one person who does not.

Insofar as the co-ordinating council is concerned, I see that the hon the Deputy Minister refers to it. I would like to suggest to him that the co-ordinating council as structured will not be in the interest of the Indian community and the people of colour because it is designed to have many representatives from Government bodies and organisations. It is difficult to get the people who are directly representative of the community and who enjoy the community support to participate in this particular structure. They are absent and in their absence one finds that whatever emanates from the Co-ordinating Council will not be acceptable to the largest section of the South African population.

Insofar as the regional services councils which the hon the Minister calls nonracial structures are concerned, I cannot agree with the sentiments that he expressed. He singled out the example of the Transvaal. I would like to submit again to this House—the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council agreed with me on this the other day—that in the larger metropolitan areas one finds that the revenue generated from the commercial properties in those areas by means of rates and taxes do not accrue to the regional services councils but to the affluent White local authorities. While one has this anomalous situation one cannot talk of an equitable redistribution of wealth generated by the people involved in the businesses in the area.

I am prepared to discuss this with the hon the Deputy Minister. I can then highlight this issue in greater detail because I have a time constraint in this debate. I am prepared to do it if he is likewise prepared. I am also prepared to discuss it with the Government departments concerned in an effort to get an equitable distribution of wealth.

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

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

I want to conclude my speech. There are other hon members on this side of the House who will deal with matters that I might have left out. I want to suggest to the hon the Deputy Minister that rather than having co-ordinating councils, we require non-statutory and nonracial local authority structures. In Natal such a move has been taking place with the NMA trying to move in that direction. What we need is for the UME to become nonracial. One would then not need any of the co-ordinating councils. All local Government bodies can be put under one umbrella on a provincial basis and on a national basis.

Who founded the national council? It must have a founder.

I founded it and the hon members know why. I did not found it out of opportunism, my friend.

Order! The hon member for Stanger must not address another hon member as “my friend.”

Mr Chairman, I apologise and withdraw it. I meant the hon member for Laudium. I withdraw the words “my friend” and perhaps it is apt that I should do so. [Interjections.]

With regard to the matter of the devolution of power, I have some concern because the hon the Deputy Minister said that this has been accepted as a principle in the devolution of power—that is how I understood him at least. This is where we have a problem in the Natal Provincial Committee. It was then submitted that the Ministry and the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture had accepted the devolution of power and they brought in legislation based on this principle and wanted us to pass it.

If we had passed it we would not have saved the market site, as I said in an earlier debate. That was misunderstood by the White component of the province and I must say it even seems to have been misunderstood by the appointed members on that provincial executive because at one stage they were lobbying us to accept that proposed amendment, and I, along with my colleagues, was seen as being obstructionist in that particular regard.

However, in retrospect I think we did the correct thing and I am sure the hon the Minister will agree, in spite of this decision, in principle.

We on this side of the House issued a warning with regard to that pension Bill at the time that if one cannot reach consensus in a standing committee one will find it difficult to pass the Bill in the hope that the President’s Council will do something about it. In spite of the amendment that was adopted by this House and in the hope that the President’s Council would accept an amendment in committee that amendment was not accepted. Now we have a situation where the Minister is running around in circles all over the place whereas if he had taken the correct advice from those of us on this side who were involved in the standing committee he would not have had a problem. He would have forced a decision at a standing committee level by referring that Bill back to the standing committee. This is what we asked for.

It would still have gone to the President’s Council.

It would not have, because the councillors who wanted their pensions very urgently would have compromised and reached consensus in that regard. That is my opinion.

Is the hon member prepared to take a question?

No, I have no time, but I will come back to it if there is time.

I shall give the hon member two minutes of my time.

Is the hon member aware of the fact that the House of Assembly could have passed an own affairs legislation?

Mr Chairman, the House of Assembly could have passed an own affairs legislation. That is their problem. That was a threat they were using in the standing committee. We did not buy that. We told them to go ahead and do it and my hon colleague from Reservoir Hills will confirm this. We said, “ if that is what you want to do, go ahead and do it”, and they very quickly stopped. That was just an idle threat.

As far as I am concerned they used their initiative to get a decision out of us. I believe that if we had played our cards correctly there would have been no need for any further deliberation in this particular regard.

Mr Chairman, with these words I conclude my debate.

Mr Chairman, it is no coincidence that the most prosperous and economically stable nations in the world have highly productive agricultural sectors, whatever other blend of industrial, managerial or resource-based factors their welfare might rest on. Agriculture is only one of many sectors in the national economy of countries throughout the world.

An agricultural policy will therefore form a specific facet of the broad, general national policy. As such it will have to be developed within the framework of a total national policy. As there is interdependence between agricultural industries, so are the different sectors of the total economy equally interdependent. Events in one sector will necessarily affect the welfare of many other sectors.

For this reason the policy objectives and measures for each sector must be structured and evaluated against firm overall national policy objectives. In the final analysis the objective must be the maximum welfare and progress of the country as a whole. This is the reason why agriculture cannot be treated as an own affair, however, we must accept facts as they are and not as we want them or wish them to be. If we do that then we are facing reality.

The House of Delegates is a fait accompli and agriculture is an own affair. If we face up to these facts then we have accepted reality. Now let us accept these facts and try to sort out the problems facing our own agriculture. That does not mean that this House should not strive towards making agriculture and other land related matters a national issue. Having accepted these facts we can now look at the role of this ministry in Indian agriculture.

The hon the Minister has come in for a lot of flak from the previous speaker, but no one can deny that there has been some form of improvement in our agriculture. Let me mention some of the improvements that I have noticed. Firstly, permits to acquire White owned land have become more readily available. Secondly, 110 acres were made available at the Louis Botha Airport on a basis of lease to growers. Thirdly, the hon the Deputy Minister Dr Van Niekerk paid a personal visit to drought stricken Indian farmers and promised to make funds available—some R400 million has been made available to assist drought-stricken farmers, and Indian farmers also qualify. However, in his reply I should like the hon the Minister to give us more details as to how many Indian farmers have made application, and how many have been assisted. Fourthly, the Government has made R15 million available to Indian farmers to cover all the valid claims for losses suffered in the September flood not covered by the disaster relief fund. Fifthly, two Indian farmers, namely Mr Pat Bodasingh and Mr D G Badul have been appointed to the Jacobs Committee to investigate and make recommendations on behalf of Indian farmers. Could the hon the Minister, in his reply, mention what progress has been made?

Sixthly, the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha, has appointed a three-man committee under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, Mr S V Naicker, and two Deputy Ministers from the House of Assembly—Dr A Ivan Niekerk and Mr P J Badenhorst—to look into the need for the acquisition of more agricultural land for the Indian community. I should also like the hon the Minister, who is the chairman of this committee, to tell us what progress he has made in this field.

Seventhly, there is the establishment of the financial aid fund, to provide both direct and indirect assistance to small cane-growers. Some R3,13 million in loans were made available to growers during the 1986-87 season.

Eighthly, there is the establishment of an agricultural school at Shakaskraal. Although land has been identified at Shakaskraal, the land has not been acquired at this stage; therefore no practical agricultural classes are taking place there. Is it not possible, instead of buying the land at Shakaskraal—for which the owner is asking a substantial sum—for the hon the Minister or his department to make arrangements with some local fanners nearby so that it would be far cheaper and more practical for those people to attend classes? We have farmers who are willing to accommodate the school.

Ninthly, as regards the appointment of more extension offices, the importance of this service cannot be underestimated. Agricultural extension services could have an enormous effect on the rural areas and the people who live there. There is a great need to provide a service which could assist and educate farmers and their families to improve farming methods and techniques. Effective assistance would greatly increase production, efficiency and income, thereby substantially raising living standards and improving their social and educational standards of rural life. The extension officer serves people by teaching them how to help themselves. He must teach them how to assess their own needs and how to solve problems, to help themselves acquire knowledge and understanding and to inspire them to action. He teaches people how to think and not what to think.

I have encountered one very saddening factor and that is squatting. We are constantly complaining about Indians not having enough land, but if one watches what has been being happening, it is through the actions of our very own farmers that we have lost a lot of land.

Take the case of Inanda, which is one area that we have lost for Indian agriculture. This was an area which largely comprised of Indian farmers, yet how did we lose it? There was a removal of restrictions on economic activities in the 70s and every Tom, Dick and Harry applied for shops. Everybody had a shop on the farm, but they had no customers. Then what did they do? They allowed squatters to come and settle on their land. These squatters paid them rent and also supported their businesses.

They dug their own graves.

What happened? In a short while there were more than half a million squatters on those farms. Under what conditions did they live? There were no roads, no light, water, sanitation or drainage. It became a breeding ground for disease. That was when the authorities had to step in and do some planning for that area. Among those people were some very innocent and hard-working farmers who have now lost their land through the greed of those people who were not prepared to work. They only thought of today and they wanted money now, without having to work for it—collecting rent, easy money. Through them innocent people have lost their land. I would like such people to lose their land. It should be confiscated. I am glad that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is going to introduce another Bill.

He will quote you in that Bill against the Indians.

Mr Chairman, I do not mind because people like that deserve it. They have no need to ask for more land. I am prepared to speak openly and I am not worried. The press can quote me. They are the ones who are crying … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I will not deal with the matter in connection with which the hon the Minister for Local Government and Agriculture spoke. The hon member for Camperdown will deal with that. I would like to deal particularly with local government.

I would like to state that nobody in this House will gainsay what the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture said in connection with local government. He said that we see the present system as an interim one only, until the ultimate goal is achieved whereby the areas presently represented by local affairs and management committees, are directly represented on their parent local authorities—the areas forming a ward or part of a ward or a municipal area being in no way different from such councils as other wards. The hon the Deputy Minister is saying that there must be completely integrated local authorities.

More than 22 years ago, when the system of local affairs committees and management committees was instituted, the authorities represented by the present Government said that this was a trial. It was to initiate members in the art of local government and to give them experience. This was 22 years ago and obviously it was a lie. The representatives of the Government lied at that time to members of the Indian group and the Coloured group. That is sad, because the entire system of local affairs committees and management committees has been proved in this period to be a total fraud. It is a pretence at giving some kind of representation at local level, whereas in fact there is no representation whatsoever. These are purely advisory committees. We must now speak out quite clearly—it is a sham.

What does the Government intend to do? It intends—by compulsion and by starving these people represented by these local authorities committees and management committees of amenities, denying them proper powers—to put them in a position where they may be compelled to ask for what is referred to incorrectly as autonomy—in other words, to become racially segregated local authorities.

There has been a colonialist-like exploitation of people in municipal areas in Natal since 1924, and in the Cape since 1952, I think it was, when the municipal franchise of the Cape Coloured people was taken away. There has been a colonialist-like exploitation which has been exemplified by Prospecton in Isipingo. This revenue-producing area was deliberately and cynically taken away from the geographical entity which was Isipingo, and Prospecton now generates income for the White local authority of Amanzimtoti. Nobody need come here and give us shibboleths and nonsensical arguments about demarcation boards. It is this Government that created the Demarcation Board and determined the manner in which those boards would be appointed and would conduct their business. We knew right from the outset, because we opposed the entire concept of the Local Government Bodies Franchise Act, that it would be used to perpetuate this business of discrimination based on race.

What will happen in regard to funding, is that if these local authorities are to be created in the manner in which the Government wants to create them, that is to say if they are racially organised, the poor areas will become poorer because the colonialist White local authorities which have sucked their blood all these years will derive the benefit from this. The Durban municipality is in the black. Actually, the Durban municipality has a tremendous amount—I think it is R5 billion—to its credit as a reserve fund. At least 47% of the municipal rates derived from the residential areas went to the treasury, which is controlled by the White municipality. A similar situation exists in other areas as well.

We do not want that nonsense to continue and I trust that the hon the Deputy Minister was present at his party’s caucus meeting last Thursday—or perhaps it was last Friday—when the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning came to his caucus and tried to influence his party to support the concept of a relaxation of group areas.

But he was in his own caucus, then.

Yes, that may well be so, because the “National Party’s People” caucus could very well be a caucus of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

However, why was the point not raised at that caucus that the whole concept of separate local affairs committees and management committees rests entirely upon the iniquitous Group Areas Act? The continuation of those committees inevitably means a continuation of the Group Areas Act, which everyone says they object to. [Interjections.] I therefore think we should be careful in this regard.

With regard to another point, I wish to agree with what the hon the Deputy Minister said. It is desirable that a system of government should function at the level at which a local authority or a unit of government will have the closest contact with the populace. The Greeks had the Ebors. Cleisthenes devised this system. I am speaking about ancient Greece. Furthermore, in India one had the Grama-Panchayats.

Gen Ayub Khan, when he was president of Pakistan, wanted to institute a system of village democracies. Unfortunately, he and his government were overthrown and so that programme fell by the wayside. The concept is a good one provided it does not entail a perpetuation of the entrenchment of racial separation but is based purely on geographical considerations.

In the United States there is a multiplicity of local authorities but they are not based on racial grounds, and racialism is what we have to move away from. I want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister why he has not come out thunderously—he used to do so when he was not a Deputy Minister—against this iniquity of the Group Areas Act being used to employ local affairs committees. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude with the following point. If it is true that the members of the various local affairs committees have rejected the concept of racial autonomy, they must also speak out loudly and clearly for not only the Government but also the public, comprising all race groups, to hear.

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to the address by the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. I want to say that, without questioning the efforts made by him, the problem is a simple one, namely that Indian agriculture must be treated as part of the agriculture of our land.

The Group Areas Act inhibits and impedes agricultural development by denying to the Indian farmer the benefit of a free-enterprise system, which will allow him to identify land wherever it is available and to purchase land, so that he can follow the kind of agricultural pursuit for which he is trained or experienced. I think this is the crux of the question. I cannot understand why, at this point in time, at least in the field of agriculture, the free market system should not rule. Is it necessary for the Government to decide who shall own which piece of ground for agricultural purposes? I think our debate in this House would have taken a different turn had the request made over many years for the removal of the group areas restrictions, particularly as far as agricultural land is concerned, been acceded to, and we could have reported monumental progress in the field of agricultural development.

I agree that it is necessary for us to provide certain inputs and assistance to help the Indian community engaged in agricultural pursuits. Extension officers and people with the required qualifications can assist in many ways to make agricultural pursuits profitable and to encourage more people to enter this field. It is necessary that we see this as one of our objectives, in the light of the massive unemployment situation which our community faces and will face us in the future if no answers are found to the question of unemployment, particularly amongst workers in the industrial sector.

I want to continue to deal with a matter which I have raised previously and which was subsequently dealt with by the hon member for Camperdown. It concerns a report which is not worth the paper it is written on. I quote:

Ten millimetres make a centimetre, and 10 centimetres is just about two and a half inches, I believe. I would have thought that this report would have been read and corrected before it was circulated on this basis. As it stands, it means nothing. One has no programme if one is talking in terms of a 100 millimetres of water.

It continues, and I quote:

Why the need to pursue further investigation and appoint consultants if the water in the dam is bad? Furthermore, the capacity of the dam may not be adequate to provide the water, because of—as I read it—surface sedimentation. It speaks here of surface sedimentation. I hope it is intended to be surface sedimentation as a result of the recent floods.

If that is the position, why—having had the report from a technical expert from within the field available to the hon the Minister—does he want to appoint private consultants? I would like the hon the Minister to respond to the suggestion that I wish to put to him now. There is a “sterk spruit” which runs in the valley in Cliffdale. I was there only a week ago. I believe that if there are no special impediments in the way or real difficulties, all it needs is a concrete wall somewhere at the bottom. The dam could store adequate water to serve the needs of that farming community for at least a period of time. The hon the Minister may have an adequate answer to that, but my submission is that if the water is bad and if they have all these problems, instead of spending some more money—which is something the accounting officer must answer for—let us see if something cannot be done immediately in the way of a simple wall across that “sterk spruit”, so that farmers on both sides of the stream could draw water from it. This was my initial suggestion and I would like the hon the Minister to respond to that.

I would like to recommend something else to the hon the Minister as well. This was a recommendation that came up when the hon the Minister of the Budget and I served on an agricultural investigating committee, one of the first that was constituted by the Minister of Indian Affairs at the time of the existence of the Indian Council. The recommendation is a very simple and a workable one. That is that an approach should be made to cane farmers—also White farmers, because they hold the majority of the land—to make available marshes and watershed areas on their vast plantations, so that the small man can take five or 10 acres and work that land. There is water available. It is sheltered and he could engage in cropping cash crops. I believe we should do things that can be realised immediately, while working on the long-term projects at the same time. I believe that if one can find 100 market gardeners and give them five acres each in these marshes within the sugar cane fields, one can get off to a wonderful start. It would be something to boast about.

The people who can work the land are there. The land is available, and it should only be identified. It is a question of give and take. Those who have all, should also make a small contribution. They are not asked to part with hundreds of acres of land—only a couple of acres—four, five or 10 acres, if that is available. This recommendation came forward after it had been given quite a lot of thought, and followed upon an extensive examination of the canelands on the northcoast of Natal. I want to recommend that to the hon the Minister.

I have heard about the Co-ordinating Council. This body was created and started operating long before the advent of the House of Delegates. I think it is important that we examine some of the decisions that were taken by that Co-ordinating Council before the advent of this House of Delegates. Some of the decisions that were, in fact, taken are to be implemented through us. It will be sad if we performed the task of administering some measures that were taken in our absence, as it were. In those days there were people who were pretty anxious to push forward local affairs and local affairs management committees. Some of the inducements that we are now talking about, were, in fact, talked about then. All of us have agreed that we do not want local affairs committees to become bodies with a lot of power vested in them, in other words, local affairs committees assuming responsibility for local government as another guise for sustaining these institutions and making them permanent. We must try and avoid giving powers to local affairs committees operating within the areas of our jurisdiction. They should not assume responsibilities to raise money or carry out work, since these are the duties of a local authority.

We do not want Indian group areas where local affairs committees exist to become the local authorities. We do not want the authorities to impose upon the local affairs committees. Several of them have responsibilities which should be executed by a local authority. I want to say here today what I have said before, namely that I would rather have a number of wards in Durban—even if they are fewer than the Whites have—if they signify the beginning of a multiracial participation in local authority. [Interjections.] We may be questioned because there is fear but we are prepared to be answerable for that.

Same style as the RSCs! [Interjections.]

We want to prove to them that we do not want to take over. The hon the Deputy Minister emphasised this in his report and I quote:

I hope for goodness sake that we will reach finality. [Interjections.] He goes on to say:

I will deal with each of these matters in detail in my speech. The devolution of power to local affairs and management committees is a subject of discussion in itself. I want to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister that this whole matter must be handled with circumspection having regard for the stand of this House where we are all united. We do not want a situation where our local affairs committees are suddenly graduated to become local authorities.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills made a point concerning the capital fund of the Durban local authority. I understand that the fund stands at just over R1 billion at the moment.

He said it was R5 billion.

No, I do not think it is R5 billion. They might have assets amounting to that sum but the actual fund could be just over R1 billion. One can check these figures for oneself.

What I want to say is that that alone poses a challenge to all of us here. That money is the asset of everybody. Because members of local affairs committees must be given a nice stipend we must not lose sight of the fact that communities as a whole have contributed to that fund. In Durban particularly we as members of the Indian community have contributed a sizeable amount to that capital fund. We must look at these things on a level of public responsibility and public leadership. I hope that the members of the local authorities committees, because they are offered all these gratuities and perks, will not lose sight of the larger objectives. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, under the Budget Vote “Agriculture” the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture said the following in the opening paragraph of his speech, and I quote:

From experience I know—and nobody can dispute this—that nothing tangible has been offered up to now to help these unfortunate farmers.

Strictly speaking, this report by the hon the Minister is not worth the paper it is printed on. [Interjections.]

Sir, I crave the indulgence of the House. Before I go any further may I request the privilege of the half-hour.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member’s party does not have half an hour available to it. They only have 25 minutes and the hon member for Reservoir Hills has already used up 10 minutes.

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The assistant Whip of that party is misconstruing the facts and is suffering under a gross misconception. I have time granted to me by my colleagues on this side.

Order! Will the hon member resume his seat.

I am afraid the time the hon member can enjoy shall be 10 minutes and no more. Will the hon member use his 10 minutes, and if he is allowed further time the Whips of the other parties who have the time will allow him the necessary time.

Mr Chairman, the Rules state that for a debate a member is allowed half an hour.

Order! I am afraid your application has been overruled. The hon member may continue.

On page 3 of his speech the hon the Minister speaks of applications for assistance for farmers who are rendered destitute by an act of God. Owing to this force majeure he has been directed to the Agricultural Credit Board. What does this imply? The Agricultural Credit Board is not handing out money as grants to destitute farmers. Any money granted by the Agricultural Credit Board when an application is considered favourably is a loan which is repayable.

No unfortunate farmer—not even in the recent floods in the Free State—brought about that damage and devastation by his own hand or his own free will. It was an act of God. The hon the Minister refers to these farmers and I want to quote him word for word. I quote from page 1:

What has been printed in any way becomes promises. It is blatantly wrong and morally unjust to play on people’s emotions. What the hon the Minister has been doing to a great extent since immediately after the floods until now is to raise false hopes. I say this advisedly.

Last year in January and March we had a minor tornado in certain farming areas in Natal. I then approached the former Minister of Agriculture for financial assistance to which he readily agreed. Immediately thereafter when the present hon Minister took over he was given a quarter million rand from the department. However, if the hon the Minister had perused my motivating letter to the previous Minister he would have seen that time was running out for farmers who had to put their winter crops in by the second week of May.

However, when did those unfortunate farmers get their assistance? They were informed about it in October and received the money in December.

He rightly says that some of the farmers did not accept it. What are they going to do? One feeds a man when he needs food. Maybe if he has a slice of bread and a glass of water he will be satisfied with that, but it is no use inviting him to a banquet after six months. This is what the hon the Minister tried to do with the farmers. I say that I am confident that this hon Minister is not sincere in this debate, but is playing on the emotions …

Order! Is the hon member referring to the hon the Minister as not being sincere?

Sir, in the implementation of these two things …

Order! Will the hon member answer the question?

Yes, I did say that.

Order! I think that is an insinuation. The hon member will withdraw the statement.

Sir, I bow to your ruling; I withdraw the statement.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I shall go on to castigate the hon the Minister, since I am getting a bit ratty! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister approached the hon the State President to acquire farmland for Indians. I applaud that move, but then he goes on to say that they are identifying land for Indian farming. What nonsense is that? Can any man go to a market and identify the produce produced by any particular group of people in South Africa? When a man’s wife places the food on his table, can he identify what was produced by Indians, by Coloureds or …

Will the hon member answer a question? The hon member is a very good farmer, and he will concede that when he goes to the market he may have encountered the item known as a “Zulu fowl”.

Mr Chairman, that is not a question, but a fact. [Interjections.] The hon member made a statement.

I do not deny that I am farmer. To the hon members of this House the farming profession maybe ignoble, but I am confident that the farmer is the bravest entrepreneur in the country, and it is the noblest profession on earth. They can take that any way they like! [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister on his very comprehensive report, and I want to congratulate him for what he is doing for the agricultural sector of our community. He still has a long road ahead of him, however, to achieve all that is required to satisfy our farming community. Knowing him as I do, I know that he will go on striving until satisfaction is achieved.

There are many positive aspects in his report which he has highlighted. Since 1950 Indians have lost almost 20 000 ha of agricultural land. During this period the number of farmers remained somewhat constant. This anomaly is due to the fact that subdivisions of agricultural land have taken place, resulting in farms becoming smaller and smaller. Consequently those who were once full-time farmers have now become part-time farmers, making a living in the urban areas and supplementing their income in agriculture.

If the agricultural unit is an economically viable one, a part-time farmer will revert to farming on a full-time basis. This can only be achieved if land is available to them, so that they can obtain a reasonable return on their investment and a good standard of living.

The land hitherto lost has to be replaced as soon as possible if interest is to be generated in farming and agriculture. Should this materialise, those who revert to farming will increase the production of food for the nation, having regard to the fact that the projected growth of the population of our country will be in the region of 50 million for the year 2 000. There are approximately 1800 Indian sugar farmers in the coastal belt of Natal. More than 1 672 are classified as poor growers, holding uneconomic farming units producing less than 1 000 tons of cane per annum. It is evident that the majority of Indian cane farmers are in fact small growers who cannot make a living on the small farming units they possess. Therefore additional land must be made available in order to expand their farming activities so as to become economically viable. The Group Areas Act must be scrapped in respect of all agricultural land.

The continuous floods have had a disastrous effect on all farmers and in Umkomaas most market gardeners lost all their crops on the land on the banks of the river, which is irrecoverable. Land is required to resettle all these market gardeners and I have identified land which is available for purchase by Indian farmers. It would be appreciated if the hon the Minister would kindly expedite the financial assistance that is required to purchase these farms which will assist in resettling the Umkomaas-Sawoti farmers. We require sufficient funds for financial assistance to the agricultural sector so that we can keep the maximum number of farmers in agriculture so as to ensure the continued provision of food to the people of the country; protection of the country’s natural resources; economic stabilisation of the agricultural and rural communities; reduction of the risk resulting from circumstances beyond the farmers’ control, for example natural disasters such as droughts and floods.

In previous years I made a plea for piped drinking water to be supplied to the Umkomaas areas of Crowder, Fountain Head, Hibberdene and Braemar. It would be appreciated if the hon the Minister would do his utmost to make this possible. Piped drinking water is available throughout the length and breadth of India and I believe this should be given urgent attention because, after all, if the people drink contaminated water this may become a health hazard.

Finally I would like to place on record my thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister and his department; as well as Dr A S Jacobs, the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Hugo of the Land Bank; and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture in the House of Assembly, for the interest shown in the plight of our farmers during the recent floods.

Order! The hon member for Camperdown applied for the privilege of the half hour. Due to a misunderstanding I disallowed the privilege and I now grant him this privilege. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Will this privilege of the half hour disallow the ten minutes already taken up?

Order! Yes, the hon member will only be allowed the remaining 20 minutes to complete his speech.

With respect, Mr Chairman, this does not mean that I agree that he is entitled to that time. In terms of the Whips’ arrangement, which the Chair unfortunately does not recognise, the hon member for Camperdown plus the other two hon members of the PFP are jointly entitled to 25 minutes only.

Order! It should be understood that there are two privileges of the half hour. The application for the first one has just been made and I wish to grant that privilege. Now the hon member has used up 10 minutes and has another 20 minutes at his disposal.

Mr Chairman, in his speech the hon the Minister quoted the results of the survey in which it was found that 15 ha were quite ample for farming purposes. That, Sir, in my view is only developing subsistence farming because the hon the Minister said in his speech that—

Where is there room for further development? I do not know which expert or which department’s expertise the hon the Minister enlisted in this regard to say that 15 ha constitutes a viable proposition. I admit that a number of farmers are farming on less than 15 ha. However, that has not been done by choice but by sufferance for a period of over a century. As I say, however, for the hon the Minister to come to this House and tell us that 15 ha is sufficient for farming indicates that his investigations have gone wrong somewhere. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister also spoke about farming conservation, which is something I am proud of. He also spoke about an irrigation scheme to deliver water from the Hammarsdale dam to the Cliffdale area. There is something radically wrong here in the sense that that very water is being consumed by humans down stream. If that water is not fit for irrigation then it is not fit for human consumption either, and I should like the hon the Minister to address that point. I do not know which expert conducted the survey for him but I said last year that certain officials were misleading the hon the Minister. Today he has amplified my suspicions because if the water from a dam is not suitable for vegetable irrigation then how is it possible that humans and animals could consume the water which passes downstream from that dam? Therefore, I say advisedly that this report is not worth the paper it is printed on because it is full of misleading factors.

On the subject of contaminated water, way back in 1985 I appealed to the Ministers’ Council, the hon the Minister of Agriculture and his Deputies for subsidised boreholes to be sunk in that very area of Cliffdale. Up to now nothing has been done about it, although the hon the Minister has said that it is under investigation. I sent the application forms to him. All in all, 15 people applied for subsidised drinking water boreholes and nothing has come of it. Therefore, as I said, I doubt the sincerity.

The Hammarsdale dam …

Order! Does the hon member doubt the sincerity of the hon the Minister or does he doubt the sincerity of the report?

The sincerity of the statement, Sir.

Order! The hon member may continue.

The sincerity of the report, Sir; not of the hon the Minister. I am referring to the report, Sir.

Order! The hon member has clarified the point. He may proceed. [Interjections.]

Some expert of the hon the Minister envisages supplying 200 ha of farming land with irrigation water from the Hammarsdale dam. I initiated that scheme together with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The idea is as follows. Cliffdale comprises some 2 500 ha of arable land, of which these 200 ha are situated in an area where there is an ample water supply. That is a fully developed area. What the hon the Minister wants to do, is carry coals to Newcastle.

The idea behind the irrigation water is that those lands which are short of water may be fully developed. Only approximately 220 ha of the 2 500 ha are being utilised, for the simple reason that there is no water available for irrigation. What the hon the Minister wants to do, is to pipe water to those particular 200 ha of land where there is an ample supply of water from both streams and boreholes. I cannot see his reasoning. I do not know which expert has advised the hon the Minister, but once again he is being misled. I stand by the statement I made last year.

I know that to build an irrigation work would cost millions, but that is not a deciding factor. In other parts of South Africa up to R50 million was spent to provide farmers with irrigation water. What is the hon the Minister trying to do? To pennypinch so that his colleagues in the Upper House can say that he is a very good boy? R800 000 to irrigate 2 500 hectares of land! That is absolutely wrong. I will never accept that. If it is proved that the dam water is insufficient to supply water for the 2 500 hectares, the hon the Minister must build a dam on the Sterkspruit River and utilise the water for agricultural purposes.

We are crying out for agricultural land. There is a loud cry for more and more land. Why not make utilise this huge area of land which lies idle mainly because of lack of water supply. If anybody is sincere, they will initiate that irrigation scheme for the entire area. The easiest way out is through the valley. I know what scheme they envisage. They want to direct the Hammarsdale water through the valley to the lower point were the 2 500 hectares are.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

I am not taking questions, because my time is limited, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is telling the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture to build dams and so on.

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

Mr Chairman, for the information of the hon member for Mariannhill, who is supposed to hold the high office of Leader of this House, he must read the Constitution. The provision of water for agricultural purposes is the duty of the hon the Minister of Agriculture in this House. He must learn his duties and parliamentary functions. He should have read the Constitution before assuming his position.

It is general affairs, not own affairs.

It is own affairs. [Interjections.] It is the function of the own affairs Minister—and I do not support own affairs—to provide all facilities for Indian agriculture. This includes agricultural water works and the building of dams to provide irrigation water for land. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I hear the hon member for Mariannhill mumbling and grumbling about the wrong tree. He is jumping off the wrong pole.

On p 12 the hon the Minister admits the following, and I quote:

I applaud him for that admission. However, the question is: What is he doing or what has he done to alleviate that situation? He is simply trying to further entrench apartheid by asking the Government or other counterparts of his office to identify certain areas of land for Indian farmers, to be declared Indian farming land. That will never be done. There is a simple solution. As they say: It is impossible to divide agriculture. There should be no restriction on agricultural land, because agriculture is the basis of civilisation and of the economy of any country or nation in the world. Therefore it is blatantly wrong for any government or authority to restrict the use of agricultural land for food production to any particular group of people.

I proved in this House in 1985 and 1986—and this is on record—that Indian farmers are superb farmers. They are second to none.

However, the hon the Minister talks about restructuring Indian agriculture. He copied that from his counterpart in the House of Assembly. I am aware that White agriculture needs restructuring, because the White farmers farm in a different way. The majority of White farmers that I have visited, farm by pointing fingers at the labourers. They say, “Doen dit. Doen dat”, but the Indian farmers work in their fields with their labourers. There is no need for restructuring. The only restructuring they need, is the removal of the restrictions that are barring Indian farmers from operating freely to produce food for the masses in this country.

In that respect the hon the Minister must take the advice of his counterpart in the House of Representatives. Do hon members know what a wonderful thing that hon Minister did last year? He bought 1 305 hectares of farmland to the value of R3,3 million at Waaikraal, which is about 20 km east of Oudtshoorn on the Olifants River. Some one hundred years ago that land was originally a farm settlement. It was then taken away from the Coloureds under the Group Areas Act, but the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Representatives paid R3,3 million for that land on which they are going to settle 150 farmers. That hon Minister is going to create jobs. The settlement of people on that farmland definitely presents an opportunity for Coloured farmers to return to the land which their forefathers owned over one hundred years ago.

What does the hon the Minister do for our people? He is aware that Chatsworth was entirely established over 10 000 hectares of Indian farmlands that were taken away, under the pretext of one law or another. The hon the Minister is aware of that, because he himself moved a motion in this House in 1985 about that point. However, what did he do about 1985? Why does he not follow the example of the hon the Minister in the House of Representatives? He should also buy farmlands and establish farmers. Regrettably, 1 005 hectares of land for 150 farmers is far more than the 15 hectares which the hon the Minister talks about for our farmers.

Would the hon member be prepared to sell his own farm to the House of Delegates?

I am ashamed to say that I do not own a farm. It is just a piece of land, but if the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council wants to buy it, they can buy it. It is only 37,5 acres, which is smaller than a big farmer’s kitchen garden. He is welcome to buy it if he wants to.

I understand that that farm at Waaikraal is run on the Israeli moshav system. I praise the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Representatives for this. I want to know what our hon Minister is doing in that line. He admits that there is a shortage of land for people. He admits that the legislative restrictions are a disadvantage for our people’s farming activities, but what is he doing about it? Nowhere in his report does he tell us what his intentions are. He is the Minister, and if he cannot deal with agriculture, who should deal with it? Does he expect the White Minister to do it for us?

On the farm at Waaikraal each farmer was given a piece of land, something like 30 to 35 hectares which he will farm. The beauty is that every one of those 150 farmers is using communal implements. That is what I call sincere and dedicated service to a community. I did not get it from our hon Minister. I want the hon the Minister to answer these questions.

I now come to a most important point. The hon the Minister told me in an answer to a question that I put to him last Thursday, 14 April that there was no agricultural land in the Transvaal. On Tuesday, 15 March I asked him the following in question no 34 and I quote:

1. (1) Whether, during the latest specified 12-month period for which figures are available, his Department received any applications from Indian farmers or prospective Indian farmers for the allocation of agricultural land in or near Lenasia in the Transvaal; if so, (a) when and (b) what are the names of the applicants.

In reply to this the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture supplied me with a list of dates of applications and names of applicants. In the second part of my question I asked him whether any such applications were refused and he answered “no”. However, what took place is not shown here. On 1 January 1988 Mr N Moodley applied to the hon the Minister for agricultural land in the Transvaal. The hon the Minister replied to him on 12 February. I have the reference number for the hon the Minister’s letter here and it is M.A.T.10. In it the hon the Minister said that the matter was receiving attention. I want to say that I will not rely on the hon the Minister in future because he can show no results. All he shows are misinformed results. [Interjections.] How can one rely on an hon Minister who tells me in writing that land was allocated to farmers in the Transvaal but then he says that there is no such thing as agricultural land in the Transvaal? He also said that no applications for such land were refused, but what has he got to say about the application of Mr N Moodley and his reply to him on 12 February 1988?

I want to refer to another question that I put to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture on Thursday, 14 April 1988. In question No 4 I asked him:

1. (1) Whether a plot of agricultural land situated at or near Lenasia in the Transvaal was recently allocated to a certain person, whose name has been furnished to the Minister’s department for the purpose of his reply; if so, what is the (a) total area of this plot and (b) name of this person;
2. (2) whether a building has been erected on this plot …

In answer to this the hon the Minister said: “no.” However, I have indisputable information that the plot for which Mr N Moodley applied was refused to him and allocated to an hon member of Parliament. [Interjections.] How can I therefore in future ever rely on this hon Minister who gives us unreliable information? He is making statements that are not true. [Interjections.]

I want to say in all sincerity that I am sorry if I used unparliamentary language. My statement arose from that. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture on behalf of the people of Pietermaritzburg. They are very happy that he and his officials came to Pietermaritzburg where land to the extent of 3 000 acres was identified for agricultural purposes. The hon the Minister and his Director-General, Mr Davis, were there about a month ago. They are presently negotiating the price and I think that we will be successful in obtaining it. I am surprised that he did not mention this in his report.

I want to comment on what the hon the Minister said in the latter part of his speech on the Budget Vote “Agriculture”. He referred to “the historical background of Indian agriculture”. I have been speaking about agricultural land in this Chamber for the past two years—this is the third year that I am doing it—but nothing was done until the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture took up the matter with his officials. They are now in the process of obtaining this land for Indian farmers in Pietermaritzburg.

Because of the Group Areas Act, smallholdings and other land was taken away from the Indian community in Pentrich, Thornville and other places and now these people are living in the municipal houses in Northdale where they cannot even stretch their legs and are suffering from idleness.

I am sure that if we can get this agricultural land in Pietermaritzburg it would be doing the Indian community a good service.

I cannot understand why there are Indians in Pietermaritzburg who are working for White farmers but who cannot buy that land where they are working and making a profit for the White man. I cannot understand that. They can work that land and make money for the White man, but they cannot own that land themselves. I am sure that the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture will do something about this. I raised this matter in this House a couple of years ago.

In Pietermaritzburg there is an agricultural college called the Cedara College but not one hectare or acre of land is provided for agriculture or for smallholdings in the whole of Pietermaritzburg. Yet the Cedara College was established there in the year 1919.

Natal is supposedly known as the garden colony but in the capital of Natal there is no land for gardening or farming. This is a matter I wish will be expedited.

The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture did pay a visit to the area but I do not know what has happened so far. He has, however, assured us that land will be made available to the Indian community. This will not be done extensively but 5, 10 and 15 acre blocks will be made available to the small gardeners who were making a living in Pentrich, Thornville, Sweet Waters and in other suburbs. I am grateful to him for that.

As far as the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is concerned, I want to bring to his notice that the sooner the LAC gets direct representation the better it will be. Because I am sure that he is aware that the Indian LAC in Pietermaritzburg is split because it cannot get any credit for what it is doing in the Pietermaritzburg municipality. I have spoken in this House about the road that leads from the town into the Indian areas and vice versa. Nothing has been done since 1985.

The Indian LAC is only there in an advisory capacity and cannot deliver the goods to the Indian community. I hope that this matter will also be addressed because the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was there with the Leader of the House when the Indian LAC brought this to their notice. I am sure that if they were given direct representation and if it was a multiracial Indian LAC this would not have happened. However, I hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will attend to this.

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

I want to touch on a point emphasised by the hon member for Newholme and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with regard to a matter of great significance. That is that it is unfortunate that this election in October is going to be carried out on an ethnic basis.

For years some of us who had participated in the LAC’s have motivated the need for nonracial councils.

I think that in the light of the fact that certain local authorities have requested the Government to allow them to carry out the establishment of other local affairs committees on a nonracial basis I think the Government should reconsider this matter. This is important, and I think that the House of Delegates should be unanimous in supporting this viewpoint.

I must make this point clear. At one of our meetings in the House of Delegates—I think it was on a non-partisan basis—we indicated the need for a conference of all local affairs committees so that they could take a unanimous decision in this regard. I do not say that at this stage they must participate with reservations or under protest, because these bodies have to do a job of work. However, as a system, I think it has to be aborted, and I think we must abort racial local authorities.

Having said that, with regard to agriculture I do not wish to exploit the limitations of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. I do not know if he is in the House at present, but I must make it abundantly clear that last year, when I made certain telling points in the course of an analysis of his speech in this House, he somewhat lightly passed it off with a remark of a ludicrous nature to the effect that I had consulted the Oxford Dictionary, that I had had two weeks to analyse his speech, and all the rest of it. Well, this afternoon I want to tell him that I have not done that, and I am going to make as scathing an attack and as critical an analysis, because as my hon friend, the hon member for Camperdown, indicated in no uncertain terms, I do not think we have been doing justice to the community. It should be borne in mind that this is a community that has participated in agriculture since before the turn of the century and in the early part of this century. In the early part of this century the Indian community to a large extent earned their living and contributed to the economy of the country in agriculture. In fact, there is no gainsaying the fact that the Indian market gardeners in Durban provided the greens for the Durban market, for the consumption—in the main—of European consumers. In this industry, if we go on as we are doing, we are going to kill it. It is not that we want to make political capital out of this; we have no vendetta against the hon the Minister. However, when statements of this kind are made they really have no meaning.

The hon the Minister spoke in the following terms:

What new vision? Does he mean to say that he is very happy about making agriculture an own affair? How can one give agriculture a new vision when it has this constraint of becoming an own affair? He himself seems to laud and relish the fact that it is an own affair. This is a great pity, and it is a disappointment.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member concede that when the hon the Minister says he has a vision, that we have more land available for agriculture now in the Indian community than we had five years ago?

Mr Chairman, if we want more land, to say that is a vision is nonsense. If anyone wants more land or wants to bring more people into the agricultural industry and he says merely that that is a vision, then that is nonsensical. I think I am correct in saying that at one time, 75% of the Indian community were involved in agriculture and I do not think that at present 10% of the community are involved in agriculture; it may even be two and a half percent! To say that there is a new vision is nonsense! We must not be misled. If we have such puerile limitations in our thinking in regard to agriculture then it is a great pity and a disappointment. This is the sad part of the entire exercise.

Mr Chairman, I would not have minded had the hon the Minister spoken about a new lease of life for Indian farmers or prospective farmers; that would suffice, but to say “new vision”!

Are you writing a composition?

No. [Interjection.] I am coming to that.

Then again—I am not consulting the Oxford Dictionary or the Twentieth Century Dictionary—it would be unfair to state that:

Am I to understand that this was done to the neglect of everything else in agriculture? Then it is again a pity if these officials used those people who were affected by the floods as an excuse. They did nothing else—that is what this report reflects. That is a terrible disappointment, is it not? If the hon the Minister had said that much attention was devoted to the flood victims, it would have been acceptable, but not total attention, to the neglect of everything else.

Last year I made a critical analysis in order to stop this hon Minister or any other hon Minister in this House from descending to the puerile level of writing sentences in reports which render themselves so abstruse and meaningless. Here we find more repetitions of this, and I would like to refer hon members to the following:

What is implied by “parity for our people”? I do not know. It goes on—

What is this “time of individualistic type of representation”? I abhor this kind of language. Last year I thought it would be very bad for consumption by this House as well as the public at large. I refer to another section of this speech:

In what language was it outlined? In what kind of artistic form was it outlined? If the report had said that it was highlighted or it was indicated by the floods, we would accept that. I would like to ask this hon Minister and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council not to entrust the administrative people only with the task of reporting on these exploits, but to go through these things themselves. I do not know if these are the hon the Minister’s own efforts or if, in fact, he used help.

Last year I even suggested the absolute need for a standing group, on a non-party basis, in the interest of agriculture. That, I can tell hon members, was not pursued. Unfortunately some of our people—I do not imply the hon the Minister—live in such ivory towers that we do not do justice to these important aspects.

Anybody taking over a business should take stock to establish the state of affairs in that business. I make this submission in all humility, but I would ask the Ministry, as a first step, to carry out a census of Indian agriculture. If the hon the Minister is to handle this portfolio properly, there should be a census. I am not going to outline what he should do, but this census is important so that we would know how we are going to develop; what the strong points and the weak points are; how many people are engaged; the different age groups; what they grow and where they grow these things, etc. This is important and I would suggest, for the consideration of the Ministers’ Council, that an amount of money—not more than R25 000 or R30 000, because a lot of money has gone down the drain during the floods—be set aside for an up to date census on Indian agriculture. This is what I would do if I were part of the administration. I do not know who those people in the administration are, but I am sorry to say that they must wake up. I am not trying to score any party-political points here, but these people should have alerted the hon the Minister to the absolute need for a census into the agriculture of the Indian community. That has not yet been done and I want to ask how it is going to be done.

It has been done. [Interjections.]

Nothing has been done as yet. When was it last done? I think that in any alert department, especially a developing department such as ours, it should be carried out at least once every five years. It is important. I should like the hon the Minister to find out for the information of this House when the census was carried out in respect of Indian agriculture, when it was carried out for general agriculture and what the results were. I think this information is urgently required.

Last year we made reference to an application which the hon the Minister had made for land at the proposed La Mercy complex and I want to quote his words from Hansard:

I want to know whether that programme to obtain some land in that complex has been abandoned and if so, why.

Indian agriculture has been neglected by the White administration in the past, and that is a fact. They have done everything possible to assist the White farmer to boost his production whilst the Indian farmer and market gardener has been hamstrung for three reasons. The first of these is a lack of support by the State. Secondly there has been a disparity in controls applied by the central government and many local authorities, and Durban may be mentioned as one of those local authorities that have hamstrung the Indian market gardener. Lastly, there has been a deprivation of land since the Group Areas Act came into being. However, we cannot really go on saying that we do not have an effective structure. This is the excuse that has been given for the past three years, namely that we do not have an effective structure in this department. We have no land because of the Group Areas Act.

I am happy that the hon the Minister has mentioned this new committee that has been appointed to find land. Whilst we welcome that, we are not going to wait for a grand plan five years hence in terms of which a beautiful map will be produced. By then lots of things will have taken place. In one particular area which one had wanted for agriculture, a beautiful railway line will have been built. Somewhere else where one had thought one would identify land, a new township will have sprouted. What has to be done is that some land has to be found in one or two areas on an urgent basis. I want to tell the hon the Minister, who happens to be the chairman of that committee, that he should really impress this upon the other members so that land may be found on an urgent basis.

I now come to the question of the extension services. The hon the Minister did mention these, and I agree with the hon member for North Coast that some progress has been made. Some progress has been made but it is far too little for a community that is suffering under tremendous odds in the field of agriculture.

The extension officers should be increased because they are to form a link with the farmers, whom they should be assisting and whose complaints they should be investigating so that solutions may be found to their problems. I do not know whether the hon the Minister has really given any though to utilising the experts from the specialist agricultural institutions with a view to overcoming some of our problems and to really encouraging prospective candidates in our community to take up market gardening or agriculture.

Last year we mentioned the need to promote certain types of cash crops. We mentioned them. They are all contained in the Hansard record and the hon the Minister nodded by way of an indication that he would look into them. I do not know whether they have really been given the necessary attention.

We also mentioned the need for animal husbandry. We need to get high school children or young people at a social event where some specialist will tell them how beans can be grown on a scientific basis, or tobacco, or pawpaw, or chillies for that matter, or tea or maize. Unless this is done, people cannot be introduced to this industry. These are important things.

The other thing we mentioned and emphasised, is that with the aid of the extension officers an agricultural show should be held some time. We suggest for this, of course, the North Coast. I am not demanding this of the hon the Minister, because we understand that the floods started in September last year and have been continuing for much of the latter part of last year and the early part of this year. However, this is important. I think when submissions are made in this House, the hon the Minister must follow it up. He can follow it up in many ways. Mention has already been made of study groups. He can take the ideas and discuss it with his extension officers and his department.

In my time, I do not know of any Indian agricultural show being held as such. I am not suggesting an Indian agricultural show, but in a place like the North Coast, with a large number of farmers, including cane and other farmers, we should have a show including even the White community. I think the efforts of the White community would probably give a boost and serve as an incentive to Indian farmers.

Last year mention was made in the hon the Minister’s report of revising the constitution of the Indian farming organisations with a view to giving them some status. Nothing of this is mentioned in this year’s report. I hope these revisions have been made, in order to give these farming organisations the status of statutory organisations so that they will be able to serve the farmers in the best way, and to enable them to serve the community adequately. I know there are some or many disabilities, but unless these farming organisations are given that status, they will not be able to serve to the extent they should.

Furthermore, unless they enjoy that status, we do not expect the Indian farmers to become a members, because they will get nothing from it. It must be proved beyond doubt that every farmer, no matter in which nook or corner of the country he may be, must feel pride in becoming a registered member of the farmers’ organisation. I would like to know from the hon the Minister, in his reply, whether these organisations enjoy that statutory status. I say this because the hon the Minister indicated that these farming organisations have direct access to him. Why not? They should have direct access to him. However, in addition to that, I would like to know whether they enjoy this kind of status, so that they cannot only go and see him, but also the hon the Minister of Agriculture in the House of Assembly. They should also be able to see him, because these organisations, like the White organisations, should have statutory status.

I already pointed this out, but I again want to emphasise the need for holding shows, etc. Research is important. Here again, there are people in these special institutions with expert knowledge who will be able to carry out research into some of the diseases which, for example, affect tomatoes, or measures whereby a particular crop can be boosted and the optimum production attained.

We speak about colleges of education. I know of one institution which has been started somewhere on the North Coast. However, in today’s situation, prospective youths have difficulty going right up to that area.

This field of study should be introduced in schools on a regional basis. I am not saying it must be an agricultural college, but I cannot see the need to introduce agriculture as an additional subject when the hon the Minister can do this in liaison with the hon the Minister of Education and Culture by establishing one other school in Natal. What about the Transvaal? Why should the Transvaal be neglected? Does the hon the Minister expect a child in the Transvaal to go to the North Coast, to Umtswani or Shakaskraal, to study agriculture? I think we should have a school on a regional basis—in the Transvaal, as well.

Sir, I notice that my time is up. I will enter the debate again at some other time.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by referring to the hon member for Stanger. On Thursday he said, and I quote:

How can he reconcile those statements with this piece of legislation? I want to make it abundantly clear to him and to anyone else who wears his hat that this hon member has a principle and he will live with his principle. He lives with it and he will live with it.

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

No, sir, I am not.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has indicated that he will not take questions, but I respectfully want to point out that this is the only House where hon members carry out character assassinations.

That is the statement which the hon member has made. Today in this debate on agriculture, he spoke about culture. I want him to understand the importance of culture. However, the hon member must not confuse culture with agriculture. What inference was he trying to make by using the word culture, and linking it to agriculture? Culture, in actual fact, is the base, the soundness.

He talks about flood solution. Could anything further have been done in that disaster situation? He has pointed out that I have gone into his constituency. On that Thursday that I left here, I told the hon member for Stanger than I was going home the following day. He said he was going to remain back here. When I arrived at home, I worked until three o’clock in the morning. I saw people crying, and in the area that he pointed out to me, there were hundreds of people who needed help.

I was there that weekend.

Order! I appeal to hon members to allow the hon the Minister to reply without any interruption from the House.

However, in a disaster situation, when people are crying because their homes had been washed away, when lives had been lost, when people’s total livelihood had been ruined, when one has nowhere to go, what does one do? Do you sit back and look at a constituency? Was it a sin for me to have gone into areas? Look at the Glendale area. One should have gone there to see what really transpired as a result of the devastating flood in that region.

Of course, the other day the hon member telephoned me to say: “You have been naughty to come into Stanger to take photographs”.

I did not say that.

Mr Chairman, is it a sin to take a photograph of people?

The hon the Minister has a comprehension problem.

There was a letter from the department, which was a confirmation of payment. What is he trying to convey to this House?

[Inaudible.]

Well, he should know that. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Stanger knows the art of manipulation.

[Inaudible.]

He made a statement here concerning my comment that there were too many sugar mills. It is strange that a responsible member such as the hon member for Stanger made such a statement in this House. All that he pointed out to the House was that he was only interested in a particular area. Why does he not go into this area and see for himself what the ultimate results would have been and what the results are because of a certain decision on the possible closure of the sugar mills and the historical background of this area? Yet he talks of areas that have been attended to. The only area that was affected was the Glendale area—we are all aware of this fact. I went out of my way and instructed Dr Jacobs to come over.

Do we have the necessary machinery required to handle such a situation? The answer is “no”. There is no point in carrying out visits to these areas if it is only done for publicity purposes. One must get the right person and in this case the right person was none other than Dr Jacobs, who came over. I did not let the hon member for Stanger down. He knows deep down in his heart that I have always given him the respect that he deserves, irrespective of party politics. He knows my philosophy with regard to agriculture, namely that we must not politicise it. We must not bring party politics into these matters.

The hon member made a statement about Mr Y A Chinsamy which was unfortunately not a factual statement. I have spoken to Mr Y A Chinsamy. He is the doyen in the Indian community today and if he acknowledges that efforts are being made—and this he does—it carries weight. I am surprised that the hon member for Stanger found it fitting to quote Mr Y A Chinsamy.

Every exercise we undertake is an effort in achieving that which we require for our people. I understand the desperation of people and I understand their feelings and needs just as everybody else here does. However, the machinery here has to be set in motion. Does the hon member understand how long it took the victims of the Umfolozi floods and the Domoina disaster to be paid? He should go and carry out his own exercise. These are long-drawn-out matters.

Let us look at the stipulations. This should also serve as an explanation to other hon members who made comments here. I quote:

This is indeed a long-drawn-out and specialized exercise. I want the House to understand—and I say this with the greatest respect—that we cannot just get anybody from the field.

I have been on the telephone to every department. So many applications were submitted to them and unfortunately those applications were not completed satisfactorily. They were either submitted on the wrong form or some of the information was incorrect.

As it is a specialised effort I today want to commend those committees, the President of the Natal Indian Cane Growers Association and the President of the Natal Agricultural Union, together with the other committees, who are covering every inch of the land, to assess the damages. I spoke to them this morning and am literally in contact with them every day in order to expedite matters. They have given me the assurance that at least by the end of this year they should be able to complete their work. They are even working on Saturdays and Sundays and holidays. We must give them some credit for being involved to that extent because they could not get anyone else.

The Department of Agriculture and Water Supplies are giving us their co-operation. They have been sympathetic and have been doing their utmost.

The Orange Free State floods have compounded matters. There has to be personnel to deal with all those issues. We must take into account all these factors. On the same subject the hon member for Camperdown said the R15 million was wishful thinking.

Mr Chairman, can the hon the Minister tell us, if these cane growers and others are doing all the work, what is the department doing?

Mr Chairman, with respect to the hon member that is not a very fair question. I did mention, and it is in the report, that all our extension officers have been seconded since September. They are fully involved together with Cedara College and other officials that were available. If we did not have the Orange Free State floods there would probably have been some improvement. I know the people who are personally involved in this exercise.

Like the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who has been in the field for many years, I understand about this shortage of land. Can we continuously lay claim to a subject that has to be dealt with? It is understood and that matter is being dealt with. The report states very clearly that it is receiving the attention of the highest authority. Nobody subscribes to the Group Areas Act. The hon member for Stanger placed a great deal of emphasis on the Group Areas Act. I have been branded as being in favour of the Group Areas Act in the local papers.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition stated that the report with regard to the water reticulation is not worth the paper it is printed on. Now, let me make it very clear that that is a report of a department that specialises in that field.

You want to transfer 100 ml of water!

It is a report drawn up by experts in that particular field. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to help the hon the Minister to save himself and the House embarrassment. I suggest that he refers those documents to his officials and has them corrected. [Interjections.]

Whatever it is, Mr Chairman … [Interjections.] … it is a report that has been submitted by the department, and there is no question of apologising.

It is a practical error to be put right. [Interjections.]

Yes. All I am trying to point out is that it is a departmental report. If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has suggestions, he may submit those suggestions. That is fair enough; they will be looked at.

The hon member for Camperdown has continuously spoken about the need for that irrigation exercise, and we have carried out that exercise as requested. However, I cannot go beyond the department. I have to call on the department; it was a general affairs department that carried out this exercise. If there is an alternative, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said, then that alternative must be considered.

On 12 December, at a function in Durban, the hon member for Camperdown had the courage to acknowledge all the efforts made by the department. Deep down in his heart that hon member knows that my officials and I have regularly visited that area and have given it all the attention we possibly could. This being so, that hon member knows very well that we can only do what is within our power.

Will the hon the Minister answer a question from me? Having said that he has constantly visited that particular area, does he deny the fact that only 8% of the arable land is presently being utilised?

Order! I should like the hon member to put a question and not to make a statement.

But I want the hon the Minister to answer, Sir. Does he deny that only 8% of the arable farm land in that area is at present being utilised, while the rest is lying idle owing to a lack of water supply? In addition, how does he answer the fact that…

Order! I must call upon the hon member not to make a statement. Will the hon the Minister proceed.

Mr Chairman, I did mention that as a result of the strong representations made by the hon member for Camperdown, these exercises were carried out. The hon member is fully aware that we have made every effort to co-operate with him. The hon member is also fully aware that I have always advised him: “Let us not bring party politics into the matter; let us look at the needs of people.”

When Dr Jacobs visited Cliffdale, that was the turning point in that man’s approach with regard to Indian agriculture. He had never realised that Indian agriculture was so highly organised.

That is why you left me out of the tour.

Let us correct that, Mr Chairman.

That was party politics.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Camperdown was advised in good time, and unfortunately he did not turn up in good time, because … [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon member for Camperdown have a question?

I do have a question, Sir.

Order! Will the hon member please formulate his question properly. [Interjections.]

Very well, Sir. I should like the hon the Minister to answer this. If a person makes an appointment at one o’clock and pitches up at 11 o’clock …

Order! That is not a question, but a statement.

The Minister must answer this question, Sir. If an appointment is made for one o’clock, and that person turns up at 11 o’clock …

Order! What is your question?

How does he expect the other person to know that he should turn up at 11 o’clock?

Order! I want the hon member to understand that he must ask a question.

It is a question, Sir. I want to know from the hon the Minister, with all due respect to you …

Order! Will the hon member resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, one or two hours should not be the deciding factor for the welfare of our agriculture. That hon member is fully aware of the visit, and he knows that the weather conditions of that particular day, as well as the road conditions, were bad.

How does the hon the Minister explain not being there? He made an appointment for one o’clock, yet he was there at eleven.

Then you should be happy.

What for? Then he is telling an “untruth.” [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Camperdown withdraw the word “untruth”.

Mr Chairman, it is unparliamentary, which is a fact. I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The withdrawal by the hon member for Camperdown was done with reservations.

Order! I am satisfied that he withdrew that statement. The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, so much effort has gone into assisting the flood victims and we fully appreciate this. [Interjections.] All I am saying is that R15 million has been allocated towards that fund and the hon member for Camperdown says that this is raising false hopes. That is an unfair statement.

You did that last year.

Hon members have read the report. The R250 000 which the hon member for Camperdown is talking about…

Peanuts.

Yes, we agree that it is peanuts. [Interjections.] This House debated that amount so strongly and we all agreed that that amount does not suffice to meet the demands of the Indian farming community …

That is not the point. Payment was delayed for six months.

Whatever it is, we had to negotiate additional subsidisation from the House of Delegates and allow that money at 4%. The hon member for Camperdown should be able to tell this House if he has assisted his own farmers in his constituency to make applications. He has not done that. I would like to be very honest with hon members, because I have a detailed report of that area. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister a question.

Order! The hon member may ask a question, provided that he formulates it properly and does not make a statement.

Mr Chairman, I would like the hon the Minister to tell this House which other MP does clerical work—which is not part of his normal duty—in his constituency?

Mr Chairman, in this debate I am replying to other matters. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister is therefore not in a position to answer this question. He may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the question that the hon the Minister asked of the hon member for Camperdown has some relevance to the question that was posed by the hon member for Camperdown. Would the hon the Minister, for record purposes, … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, it may be competent for you to allow the hon member for Camperdown to have this placed on record. He did claim that he was given notice about this meeting, but that the hon the Minister arrived two hours early. It was not the hon member for Camperdown’s fault that he was not present at that meeting.

Order! The hon member requested permission to ask a question and unfortunately, that question turned out to be a statement. I had to call him to order. Unfortunately, I shall not allow a statement to be made. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect to you, Sir, it was not a statement but rather a lengthy question …. [Interjections.] … because if it had been brief, the hon the Minister would have been confused.

Order! In my view it was not a question but a statement. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I should like to mention for the information of the hon member for Camperdown that the report states very clearly that to this day, an amount of R60 500 of the R250 000 which has been discussed at such great length her, remains unclaimed by the farmers.

It was too late. You gave it to them after seven months. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Camperdown must search his conscience as to what extent he has been guiding and assisting his constituent farmers.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the meeting times were different from what he advised the hon member for Camperdown, he would care to express any regrets at having falsely accused the hon member for Camperdown? [Interjections.]

Order! Although that is not a question, I shall allow it. [Interjections.] Would the hon the Minister care to reply?

Firstly, the hon member for Camperdown is aware of what the weather was like on that particular day and of the roads that were used. Secondly, when we arrived at Cliffdale we waited for the hon member.

Did you wait two hours?

Yes. We waited for the hon member for Camperdown and at no stage did we show any disrespect for any hon member of Parliament of that constituency. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman …

Order! Does the hon member have a question?

I am rising, Sir, to say that I am disgusted at the hon the Minister’s attitude, and I request your permission to withdraw from the House for a moment. The hon the Minister is talking absolute lies and untruths. [Interjections.]

Order! I would like the hon member to withdraw that statement. [Interjections.] Order! Will the hon member resume his seat. [Interjections.] Order! I would like the hon member for Camperdown to withdraw every word he said that was an insinuation insofar as the hon the Minister was concerned, and to apologise to the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, I am only human; I am not a block of wood and neither am I made of brick or steel. I express my sincere apologies, Sir, and I withdraw them. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may now proceed.

Mr Chairman, after withdrawing, I heard the hon member still remark that the hon the Minister was lying. [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon member for Camperdown rise. Is the statement made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, namely that you had stated that the hon the Minister was lying, correct? [Interjections.]

No, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member made an aside. I was sitting next to him. I cannot tell you what he said. It is strange that someone sitting on the opposite side of the House apparently can. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Camperdown spoke about borehole applications. I have received no applications for boreholes, and what is more, we have assisted him with all the information he required.

As far as dams are concerned, I would like to draw his attention to the fact that that is a general affair.

Order! Will the hon member for Camperdown rise. I would like him to deny or admit whether he made a statement to the effect that the hon the Minister was lying.

I did not use the words “the Minister is lying”, Sir.

Order! Thank you. The hon the Minister may now proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cavendish made some very, very useful comments on the field of agriculture this afternoon. He made certain criticisms, and I admire him for that, but side by side with that, the positive comments which he made this afternoon are something which we appreciate. Any administration appreciates guidance.

Regarding one issue about which the hon member spoke, I would like him to know that as far as cash crops are concerned, the Jacobs Committee has talked with two hon members and is now having discussions and providing an input towards agriculture at that highest level. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon members to give the hon the Minister an opportunity to reply without any interruption.

I think the hon the Minister should reply tomorrow.

Order! No, it is not for the hon member for Bayview to say when the hon the Minister should reply. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, for the information of the hon member for Cavendish, the Jacobs Committee made recommendations for the advancement of vegetable farming. In its survey of vegetable farming by Indian farmers, which was conducted during December 1987, the committee found that the size of farming units varied both within and across the area used for vegetable farming, but that a viable economic farming unit, particularly in areas where vegetable farming is predominant, would be of the order of 15 hectares. Such a unit generates sufficient farming income to cover household expenditure, as mentioned in the report.

As far as intensive farming activities, such as vegetable growing on relatively small units are concerned, the Land Bank does finance ventures of this nature, but takes the farmer’s acceptability to marketing into consideration for this purpose. Special attention is given to improvements which are necessary and contribute to increasing the production of such units. In addition, such a unit should also be supporting itself sufficiently. When judging such an undertaking and the possibility of it being accepted, the Land Bank also takes into consideration the experience, expertise and knowledge of the farmer, as well as his past production performance.

The Jacobs Committee has undertaken a detailed report, which is being investigated at the moment, to assist the market gardener. I agree with the hon member for Cavendish about the utilisation of experts and I also agree with him on the possibility of establishing agricultural shows. However, we must be able to establish ourselves to that extent. [Interjections.] The hon member spoke about a statistic census within the farming community, which is important. The Jacobs Committee is carrying out detailed surveys at the moment. I invite the hon member when, perhaps during the next week, we will have the report, to come and have a look at it.

We have no differentiation as far as party politics are concerned. It is necessary to sit down and discuss issues. When we had a get-together of the farming community, we invited all parties. Unfortunately the hon member was not well.

What are they doing for carrot farming?

Mr Chairman, when one speaks of total attention, one must accept that in the spirit that it was mentioned. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to place on record that we are opposed to the designation of agricultural areas in terms of the Group Areas Act. The President’s Council dealt with the Strydom report of the technical committee that was appointed by the hon the State President to deal with deficiencies and discrepancies in the Group Areas Act and associated legislation.

One of the many positive recommendations of the President’s Council is to deal with open agriculture on a regional basis. I want to place on record that I do not think anyone in this House wants to support the question of opening up agriculture on a regional basis. If one wants to identify land for agriculture, there are many factors one has to consider, for example, the availability of water, the topography, the nature of the soil, etc. Nevertheless, we cannot deny the fact that we have Indian agriculture. Reference to this was made by the hon member for Cavendish when he spoke about taking stock of the number of farms and the size of the areas that are owned and occupied by members of the Indian community. We also know that as a result of these very serious deficiencies, Indian farmers are leasing farms owned by Whites in White areas. They are experiencing tremendous problems in respect of the marketing of their produce.

They are exploited!

They are exploited. There is no doubt about that. However, as was stated previously in this House, the finest hour for us within the context of Indian agriculture, was when we were received by the hon the State President. As a result of the statement that he has made during this Vote, he is very much concerned about the problems which the Indian community is experiencing as far as agricultural activities in this country are concerned. I expressed the wish that the report of the committee which the hon the State President has appointed under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in this House, would be made available soon so that, as a result of the actions of the hon the State President, we could initiate a programme of action. Until such time as the Group Areas Act may not apply to agriculture any longer, we will be able to make available sufficient land for agricultural activities to the members of the Indian community.

I have indicated previously that there are vast areas available to expand agricultural activities. The White farmer is returning from the urban areas back to the farms. In the Indian community we find the opposite. The average age of the Indian farmer is rising annually. It is rising to such an extent that if we do not do anything drastically to arrest this decline, the Indian farmer may possibly face extinction in this country.

Let us examine the difference between the promotion of agriculture in the House of Assembly, in the House of Representatives and in the House of Delegates. Historically, the community that is under the jurisdiction of the House of Assembly has had the advantage in the allocation of land and in the allocation of all resources in this country. The House of Representatives is a different matter, too, because they have their own Act and as a result of having their own legislation to promote agriculture they are able to acquire farms.

I want to state today that if need be—inasmuch as we may not like it—in an absence of a reaction to the recommendation of the President’s Council with regard to the opening up of agriculture on a regional basis, we must consider legislation similar to that of the House of Representatives if we want to be of assistance to the farmers. This would purely be to enable us to acquire farms to promote agriculture. This would be an interim measure.

Alternatively we will ask the experts in the Treasury whether it will not be possible for us to utilise our housing reserves as an interim measure to acquire farms for the benefit of the Indians who want to expand our agricultural activities in this country. We can explore the matter in these two possible ways.

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.